Commentaire sur L’Exode 18:29

וישמע יתרו AND JETHRO HEARD — What was the particular report which he heard so that he came? — The division of the Red Sea and the war with Amalek (cf. (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 18:1:1; Zevachim 116a).

Our Rabbis have already differed concerning this section.¹Zebachim 116 a, and Mechilta in beginning of this Seder. The difference of opinion is between Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Eleazar of Modi’im, Rabbi Yehoshua maintaining that Jethro arrived before the Giving of the Torah, and Rabbi Eleazar saying that he came after the Torah had been given. Some say that Jethro came to Moses before the Giving of the Torah, as the sequence of the sections of the Torah indicate, and some say that he came after the Giving of the Torah. Now this [latter] opinion [that he came after the Giving of the Torah] is certainly assisted by the verse [here] which states, And Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, came with his sons and his wife unto Moses into the wilderness where he was encamped, at the mount of G-d.²Verse 5. Thus Scripture states that Jethro came to Moses when he was encamped before Mount Sinai, the place in which the Israelites camped for one year,³They arrived before Mount Sinai on the first day of Sivan (further, 19:1), and they first journeyed from there on the twentieth day of the second month in the second year after the exodus (Numbers 10:11). They thus stayed there for twelve months less ten days. this being the meaning of the expression, where he was encamped.²Verse 5. Moreover, Moses said to Jethro, and I make them know the statutes of G-d, and His laws,⁴Further, Verse 16. [thus indicating that the Torah had already been given]. Besides, it says here, And Moses let his father-in-law depart; and he went his way unto his own land.⁵Ibid., Verse 27. This had taken place in the second year when they journeyed from Mount Sinai, as it is said in the parashah (section) of Beha’alothcha:⁶Numbers 8:1 — 12:16. And Moses said unto Hobab, the son of Reuel the Midianite, Moses’ father-in-law: we are journeying⁷Ibid., 10:29. Hobab is identified as Jethro (Rashi). Now if all this happened before the Giving of the Torah, how could Moses say, We are journeying, etc.? There it is written: And he [Hobab] said unto him [Moses]: I will not go; but I will depart to mine own land and to my kindred,⁸Ibid., Verse 30. this being identical with the departure mentioned here, and he went his way unto his own land.⁵Ibid., Verse 27.
They⁹I.e., the commentators. The proof is found in Ibn Ezra here. have further brought proof [that Jethro came after the Torah had been given] from that which Scripture says, The Eternal our G-d spoke unto us in Horeb, saying: Ye have dwelt long enough in this mountain; turn you, and take your journey.¹⁰Deuteronomy 1:6-7. There it is said, And I spoke unto you at that time, saying: I am not able to bear you myself alone… So I took the heads of your tribes, wise men, etc.¹¹Ibid., Verses 9-15. This is the advice that Jethro [gave Moses on the morning after he arrived at the camp, as mentioned here further on in Verse 13]. There — [in Moses’ narration of the account in the Book of Deuteronomy] — it is written, And we journeyed from Horeb,¹²Ibid., Verse 19. for they journeyed immediately [after they appointed judges in accordance with Jethro’s advice. All of this serves to prove that Jethro came to Moses after the Giving of the Torah]. And if this is so, we are in need of a reason for this section being written here before [the account of the Giving of the Torah]!
Now Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote that this was because of the affair of Amalek. Having mentioned the evil which Amalek inflicted upon us and how G-d commanded us to requite him accordingly, Scripture [by way of contrast], now mentioned the good which Jethro did for us in order to instruct us that we should show him kindness. When we will come to exterminate Amalek, as is mandatory upon us, we should warn the Kenites, [the descendants of Jethro], who dwelt near Amalek, and not destroy them together with Amalek. This was indeed done by Saul when he so spoke to the Kenites.¹³I Samuel 15:6, And Saul said unto the Kenites: Go, depart, get ye down from among the Amalekites, lest I destroy you with them; for ye showed kindness to all the children of Israel, when they came up out of Egypt.
Yet with all this, I find it difficult to understand this opinion [that Jethro came after the Revelation, for the following reasons]: When Scripture says, Now Jethro…heard of all that G-d had done for Moses, and for Israel His people, how that the Eternal had brought Israel out of Egypt, why does it not say that he heard what G-d had done to Moses and to Israel by giving the Torah, which is among the great wonders that were done for them, as He said: For ask now of the days past, which were before thee, since the day that G-d created man upon the earth, and from the one end of heaven unto the other, whether there had been any such thing as this great thing is, or hath been heard like it? Did ever a people hear the voice of G-d speaking out of the midst of the fire, as thou hast heard, and live?¹⁴Deuteronomy 4:32-33. And when Scripture states, And Moses told his father-in-law all that the Eternal had done unto Pharaoh and to the Egyptians for Israel’s sake, all the travail that had come upon them by the way,¹⁵Further, Verse 8. on the basis of which Jethro said, Now I know that the Eternal is greater than all gods,¹⁶Ibid., Verse 11. why did not Moses tell him about the Revelation¹⁷Literally: “‘the stand’ (ma’amad) at Mount Sinai,” or “the Revelation on Mount Sinai.” It is based on Deuteronomy 4:10, the day that thou ‘stoodest’ before the Eternal thy G-d in Horeb. The expression ma’amad har sinai appears in Rambam’s Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Yesodei Hatorah 8:1. on Sinai? Jethro would thereby know that the Eternal is the true G-d and that His Torah is the truth, there being no other but He, as Moses said, Unto thee it was shown, that thou mightest know that the Eternal He is G-d, there is none else beside Him. Out of Heaven He made thee to hear His voice, etc.¹⁸Deuteronomy 4:35-36.
Perhaps we may say that while he was yet in his country, Jethro immediately heard that G-d had brought Israel out of Egypt, whereupon he left his country and reached Moses where he camped before Mount Sinai following the Giving of the Torah. Scripture, however, does not narrate that Moses related the matter of the Revelation¹⁷Literally: “‘the stand’ (ma’amad) at Mount Sinai,” or “the Revelation on Mount Sinai.” It is based on Deuteronomy 4:10, the day that thou ‘stoodest’ before the Eternal thy G-d in Horeb. The expression ma’amad har sinai appears in Rambam’s Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Yesodei Hatorah 8:1. to him, for it had just happened and they were still at that site, and it is self-understood that he told him about it.
The most likely explanation seems to me to be to follow the sequence of the sections of the Torah, i.e., that Jethro came before the Giving of the Torah when the Israelites were yet in Rephidim, just as the Rabbis have said in the Mechilta:¹⁹Mechilta here in Verse 1. On the word “Mechilta,” see Seder Bo, Note 205. “Rabbi Yehoshua says, ‘[Now Jethro…heard. What particular event did he hear of that he came?] He heard of the war of Amalek, as mentioned in the preceding passage,²⁰Above, 17:8. and he came.’” He then journeyed with the Israelites from Rephidim to Mount Sinai. The purport of the verse which states [that Jethro came] unto the wilderness where he was encamped, at the mount of G-d,²¹Verse 5. Now this verse clearly states that Jethro came to Moses, not in Rephidim, but to where he was camped before Mount Sinai. But the true meaning of the verse is that Mount Sinai, etc. is that Mount Sinai was on the way from Midian, near that country. Moses went there to feed the flock of Midian,²²Above, 3:1. and in connection with Aaron’s [going forth to meet Moses upon his arrival in Egypt], it is said, And he met him in the mountain of G-d.²³Ibid., 4:27. Thus Jethro left Midian with his daughter and the children and came to Mount Sinai.
At that time, Moses was in Rephidim, which is a locale in the wilderness of Sin. Scripture says, And they took their journey from Elim, and all the congregation of the children of Israel came unto the wilderness of Sin, which is between Elim and Sinai,²⁴Ibid., 16:1. thus stating that the wilderness of Sin stretches until Mount Sinai and includes the locales of Dophkah, Alush, and Rephidim.²⁵Numbers 33:12-14. See Ramban above, 16:1, where the same explanation is expounded briefly. Here, since it affects a major problem in the background - i.e., whether Jethro’s arrival occurred before or after the Giving of the Torah — Ramban discusses his explanation at greater length. Even though it says, And they journeyed…from the wilderness of Sin…and encamped in Rephidim,²⁶Above, 17:1. [which would seem to indicate that Rephidim was not in the wilderness of Sin], it nevertheless also says, And they journeyed from the wilderness of Sin, and pitched in Dophkah,²⁷Numbers 33:12. [and from Dophkah they came to Alush, and from Alush to Rephidim, as stated in the following verses²⁸Ibid., Verses 13-14. there]. Alush and Rephidim are all part of the wilderness of Sin itself,²⁹And yet it says (above, 17:1) that they journeyed from the wilderness of Sin and came to Rephidim! But how could this be, for it says in the Book of Numbers that they journeyed from the wilderness of Sin and came to Dophkah and then to Alush and finally to Rephidim? It must be, Ramban concludes, that the name “wilderness of Sin” applies in general to an entire area, as well as to one particular locale, as explained in the text. as the whole desert there was called “the wilderness of Sin,” and the place before Mount Sinai was [also] called “the wilderness of Sin.” A similar case is the verse, And they returned unto the land of the Philistines.³⁰Genesis 21:32. See Ramban there (Vol. I, p. 274) that “the sense of the verse is that they [Abimelech and Phicol] returned to their city which was in the land of the Philistines.” Here too “the wilderness of Sin” includes Dophkah, Alush, and Rephidim. Thus, the sense of the verse, and they encamped in Rephidim (above, 17:1), is that they encamped in Rephidim, which was in the wilderness of Sin.
Thus, the explanation of the verse here is: And Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, came with his sons and his wife unto Moses unto the wilderness where he was encamped, and he [Jethro] came to the mountain of G-d.³¹Verse 5. It was to the mountain that he [Jethro] came, and he stopped there, this being similar in meaning to the expression, and he came to the mountain of G-d,³²Above, 3:1. [which means that he stopped there]. In a similar sense also is the verse, Ye have sat long enough at this mountain,³³Deuteronomy 1:6. [which means “you have dwelt long enough at this place”]. From Mount Sinai, Jethro sent [a message] to Moses, [who was in Rephidim], saying, ‘I thy father-in-law Jethro am coming unto thee,’³⁴Verse 6. and Moses went out³⁵Verse 7. to meet him. In this case, it would not be necessary for us to say, [as Ibn Ezra did], that the expression, And he [Jethro] said to Moses: ‘I thy father-in-law Jethro am coming,’³⁴Verse 6. means that he said so before [he arrived at the mount of G-d, as stated in the preceding verse].³⁶But according to Ramban’s interpretation, the verses are in chronological order. First, as stated in Verse 5, Jethro arrived at the mount of G-d, and from there, as stated in Verse 6, he sent Moses — who was in Rephidim — the message: I thy father-in-law Jethro am coming to thee. In order to show respect to him, Moses went out to meet him, as related in Verse 7. Even if Rephidim was not in the wilderness of Sin, it was at any event in the desert, for Israel did not come to an inhabited land during all of the forty years.³⁷Above, 16:35. Further, Rephidim was near Mount Sinai, as [is evidenced by the fact] that a great multitude of people like them came from Rephidim to the mount of G-d in one day,³⁸I have not found any source for this statement of Ramban that the journey from Rephidim to Sinai was accomplished in one day. and as has been explained in the matter of the rock from which they drank in Rephidim, as I elucidated the subject there.³⁹Above, 17:5. Thus the explanation I have offered here is correct.
I have also seen this text in the Mechilta:⁴⁰Mechilta here on Verse 5. “Into the wilderness where he was encamped. Scripture thus expresses surprise at him. Here is a man who dwells in the midst of the glory of the world and yet desires to go out into a desolate wilderness which has nothing to offer.” The Rabbis’ intent was to explain the phrase, unto the wilderness where he was encamped, as referring to [that part of] the wilderness where the mount of G-d was, for the wilderness of Sin extended from Elim²⁴Ibid., 16:1. until Mount Sinai. Thus, Scripture here relates that Jethro came to the edge of the wilderness where Moses was camped, this being the desert where the mount of G-d was, i.e., unto Horeb.⁴¹See above, 3:1. Scripture mentioned this in praise of Jethro, who left his country and came to the wilderness where Moses was, because he knew that this was the mount of G-d, for on it G-d had appeared to Moses. He [Jethro] had already heard of the entire affair, i.e., that Israel went out from Egypt in order to serve G-d upon this mountain,⁴²Ibid., Verse 12. and he came for the Name of the Eternal, the G-d of Israel.⁴³II Chronicles 6:7. This too is correct.
It also appears to me concerning that which the verse states here, And Moses let his father-in-law depart; and he went his way unto his own land,⁴⁴Further, Verse 27. that this took place in the first year [of the exodus] and he betook himself to his own land and returned there. It is possible that he went there to convert his family and then returned to Moses while he was yet at Mount Sinai, since it was near to Midian, as I have mentioned. When they broke camp in Iyar of the second year,⁴⁵Numbers 10:11. and Moses said to him, We are journeying… come thou with us,⁴⁶Ibid., Verse 29. and he answered him, I will not go; but I will depart to mine own land, and to my kindred,⁴⁷Ibid., Verse 30. Moses in turn pleaded with him very much and said to him, Leave us not, I pray thee… and thou shalt be to us instead of eyes. And it shall be, if thou go with us, yea, it shall be, that what good soever the Eternal shall do unto us, the same will we do unto thee.⁴⁸Ibid., Verses 31-32. and he did not answer him at all. It would appear then that he accepted Moses’ plea and did according to his will and did not leave them. However, in the days of Saul, we find Jethro’s descendants with Amalek,⁴⁹I Samuel 15:6. See above, Note 13. and [after they departed from the Amalekites], they came and attached themselves again to Israel. [We also find that] the sons of Jonadab the son of Rechab — [i.e., descendants of Jethro] — were in Jerusalem.⁵⁰Jeremiah, Chapter 35. Perhaps Jethro or his sons returned to their land after the death of Moses. It is possible also that the Kenite that dwelled with Amalek were of the family of Jethro but not his direct descendants, and Saul showed kindness unto the entire family on account of Jethro, just as Joshua dealt kindly with the [whole] family of Rahab⁵¹Joshua 6:23. [because of her]. The opinion of our Rabbis is thus that Jethro did go along with the Israelites [in the wilderness]. Thus they said in the Sifre⁵²The Sifre is a Tanaaitic Midrash on the Books of Numbers and Deuteronomy. The text quoted is in Beha’alothcha, 81. The Sifre is to be distinguished from the Sifra, which is a work of a similar nature on the Book of Leviticus. The Sifra is also referred to as Torath Kohanim [literally: “the law of the priests”]. that [at the time they divided up the land], the Israelites gave him the most fertile part of Jericho, and they [Jethro’s descendants] used it until the Sanctuary was built four hundred and forty years later.⁵³The building of the Temple was begun four hundred and eighty years after the exodus (I Kings 6:1). Subtract the forty years of the stay in the wilderness, and you have four hundred and forty. [It was then given as a substitute to him who gave up the land upon which the Sanctuary was to be built.] Rashi himself wrote this tradition in Seder Beha’alothcha.⁵⁴Numbers 10:32. Thus it is clear that Jethro returned to Moses, [as we have explained above, after he had returned to his land in the first year of the exodus]. In the Mechilta,⁵⁵Mechilta here on Verse 27. we also find: “Jethro said to Moses: ‘I am going to my land to convert the people of my country, for I shall bring them under the wings of Heaven.’ I might think that he merely went back and did not return; Scripture therefore says, And the children of the Kenite, Moses’ father-in-law, went up out of the city of palm-trees, etc.”⁵⁶Judges 1:16.

וישמע יתרו, the word שמיעה for hearing is used when recording or referring to something which did not occur at the time it is being reported. When one hears of something which is just happening, the Torah uses the term ראיה, “seeing,” i.e. first hand knowledge of something. It does not matter whether the sound of the happening comes from a distant location or is nearby within one’s eyesight. Examples of the use of the word ראיה “seeing” being used for matters which were heard second hand, not seen, are found in Genesis 42,1 where Yaakov, resident in the land of Canaan, is reported as “seeing” that there was grain for sale in Egypt. Clearly, the Torah refers to Yaakov having heard about it. Seeing the matter was not near at hand nor had occurred just then, the Torah used the words וירא יעקב, “Jacob saw.” A similar use of the word “seeing,” וירא for something not actually seen is Numbers 22,2 where Bileam is reported as “seeing” all that Israel had done to the Emorite kings. Bileam had not seen any of it, but had heard that the Israelites had defeated the two most powerful Emorite kings Sichon and Og. A third example confirming our theory would be Deuteronomy 28,10 where the people of the globe are reported as expressing their conviction that the Jewish people are G’d’s darlings and that they would therefore be in awe of them. Clearly, the people of the globe could not have “seen” this, but they had heard about the success of the Jewish nation. The events inspiring such feelings among the nations of the globe had occurred over a period of time, not all at once. However, if we understand the words כי הוציא as meaning כאשר הוציא, “when He took out,” we must understand Yitro as saying that he had heard all that G’d had done for Israel at the time when He took them out of Egypt. This would include a reference to all the plagues, the drowning of the Egyptians army, etc. It was this information which had prompted him to journey into the desert himself instead of sending a messenger who would accompany Tzipporah and her children so that they would be reunited with their husband/father. He was primarily motivated by his quest for G’d. This is similar to Chronicles II 32,31 where the king of Babylon wanted to have evidence of the reports he had received about the miraculous recovery from his illness which King Chizkiyah had experienced.

וישמע יחרו כהן מדין, Yitro the priest of Midian heard, etc. Why did the Torah tell us that Yitro was a priest? Being a priest in a pagan society is hardly to someone's credit, why did the Torah then tell us about this? [the author bases himself on the rule that one does not remind a בעל תשובה of his past. Ed.]

אשר עשה אלוקים למשה, that Pharaoh never tried to harm him personally, and that G’d provided him with such an imposing image in the eyes of Pharaoh and his servants seeing He let him perform all these miracles.

וישמע יתרו, “Yitro heard, etc.” Our sages are of two minds as to when Yitro arrived at the camp of the Israelites. Some believe that he arrived before the revelation on Mount Sinai, whereas others hold that he arrived only afterwards. The second view is based on the description of the Mountain as “the Mountain of the Lord.” It had not had that name until after G’d had revealed Himself on that Mountain and had given the Torah. The first view is simply based on the sequence in which the Torah relates these events. The fact that Moses told his father-in-law immediately he met him about the fact that he was communicating G’d’s statutes to the people makes it sound as if he had already received all these statutes from G’d first hand. Ibn Ezra supports the second view by stating that seeing the Torah had just concluded with the call to the Israelites to blot out the memory of our adversary Amalek, it saw fit to contrast Amalek’s behaviour with that of Yitro who gave the Jewish people not only good advice, but who also converted to Judaism and offered sacrifices to Hashem. Moreover, the Kenites, descendants of Yitro, who lived among the Amalekites were advised by King Sha-ul to evacuate the town so as to save their lives when the Amalekites were all killed. (Samuel I 15) Nachmanides questions against all this that if that were really so, why does the Torah mention that Yitro had heard about the Exodus, the splitting of the sea, etc., without adding that he had heard about the revelation at Mount Sinai. Seeing that this had been perhaps the greatest miracle of all, the fact that Yitro did not mention it means that it had not yet occurred. It is possible, of course, that as soon as Yitro had heard about the Israelites leaving Egypt, he had set out to join them, and no other news had reached him on the way. No doubt, upon his arrival, Moses first told him about the most recent events, i.e. the revelation, before filling him in on events which had occurred some time ago. Nachmanides, feels that the most likely sequence of events was that Yitro joined the people before the revelation, having set out on his journey shortly after having heard about the defeat of Amalek near Refidim. This was an area not far removed from either Mount Sinai or the border with Midian, seeing we know that Moses had led his father-in-law’s sheep into the vicinity of Mount Sinai, where he had experienced the burning bush, and a vision of G’d. The area immediately below Mount Sinai was known as the desert of Sinai. Having reached that area, Yitro sent a message to his son-in-law advising him of his imminent arrival. Furthemore, it seems to Nachmanides that when the Torah reports about Moses bidding farewell to Yitro for the first time, this was in the first year of the Israelites’ wanderings, and that Yitro’s purpose at that time was to convert as many members of his family as he could. The second time when we read about Yitro’s having declined to journey to the Holy Land with the Israelites occurred in the second year, shortly before, after a stay around Mount Sinai for almost a full year, when he had declined Moses’ offer to become an integral part of the Jewish nation with full rights. At that time, as the Torah reports, (Numbers 10,29-32) Moses had pleaded with him to remain with the Jewish people not only as a coreligionist but as a fully fledged member of the nation. The fact that the Torah, at that point does not report that Yitro replied to Moses’ entreaty, lends support to the belief that he did indeed join the people, although hundreds of years later his descendants are known to have lived interspersed with the Amalekites in the southern part of the Sinai peninsula. On the other hand, in the days of Yonadav ben Rechev, his descendants, or some of them, appear to have lived in Jerusalem (Jeremiah, 35 compare also Mechilat Shemot 18,28) Possibly, the Kenite who lived among the Amalekites, though related to Yitro’s family, were not direct descendants of his.

What news had he heard. . . that motivated him to come? (Re”m) Question: Perhaps his coming was motivated equally by all the news, not by one incident more than another? The answer is: [One Tanna says that Yisro heard of the splitting of the Sea and thus came, and another says it was the war with Amaleik (Zevachim 116a).] According to the Tannaim, וישמע יתרו means Yisro heard [especially significant] news other than what the Torah mentions afterward, for otherwise the Torah should have stated ויתרו שמע . Accordingly, the phrase following את כל אשר עשה means: “And he heard about all. . .” This is similar to כי הוציא , which [perforce] means: “And that Hashem brought.” Re”m asks: Why did Rashi omit the [third] opinion (in Zevachim 116a) that Yisro heard of the giving of the Torah, and thus came? Re”m offers an answer, but it seems he overlooked the dispute in Zevachim 116a as to whether Yisro came before the Torah was given, or afterward. Since Rashi stated in many places that Yisro came after the Torah was given, [Rashi gave this opinion sufficient mention. Thus] he does not need to mention it here. (See Nachalas Yaakov.) [Alternatively, Rashi says it was the splitting of the Sea and the war of Amaleik] because he is answering the question: Why is it not written either: “Yisro saw,” as in “Balak saw” (Bamidbar 22:2), or: “Yisro knew”? Rashi answers: Because Yisro heard about the splitting of the Sea and the war of Amaleik. They were one-time events, about which it cannot be said that “he saw” or “he knew.” For when Yisro came, he did not see that the Sea had split or that there had been a war with Amaleik. Now it is understandable why Rashi did not say Yisro “heard” about the manna, the well or the Torah. For [if it was referring to them] the Torah would have written, “Yisro saw,” since the manna, the well and the Torah were there for many years, and it could properly be said that he saw them. But this is not the case with the splitting of the Sea and the war of Amaleik. (Maharshal)

ורתיל Kap. 18. V. 1. כי הוציא ד׳ daß er als ד׳ Israel aus Mizrajim geführt, d. h. dass er mit solchen Wundertaten Israel befreit, die ihn eben als ד׳, als den frei über die Welt und ihre Gestaltungen Gebietenden, Zukunft Schaffenden offenbaren. Im Gegensatz zu Amalek riefen diese außerordentlichen Tatoffenbarungen Gottes den denkenden Priester zu Gott hin, wozu sich noch das spezielle Interesse als Mosche Schwiegervater gesellte.

וישמע יתרו, “Yitro heard;” this man had seven different names. They were: Yitro, Yeter, Chever, Chovev, Keyni, Puti-el, and R’uel. According to some scholars, it was Yitro’s father who was called R’-uel. They base themselves on Exodus 2,18: ותבאנה אל רעואל אביהם, “they came to their father, R’uel.” Children are in the habit of referring to their grandfather as their “father.” Still, this raises the following difficulty for those scholars: if they were correct, how do we understand the line in Numbers 10,29: ויאמר משה לחובב בן רעואל המדיני חותן משה, “Moses said to Chovav, son of R’uel, the Midianite, the father-in-law of Moses;” We may have to answer this by saying that the scholar who says that that the scholar who identifies Yitro with R’uel, may not consider that the name “Chovav” was merely a compliment to this man who looked with great fondness at the Torah, חיבב את התורה, as explained by Rashi, but that he must also hold that R’uel was the father of Yitro. The reason why Yitro was also named יתר, Yeter, “addition,” is that on account of this man a whole portion has been added to the Torah in his honour. At any rate, as pointed out by Rashi, we do not have seven names for him. The “names” given in the Mechilta quoted by Rashi are only the adjectives which were added to his original name on account of historical events or events in his personal life, such as his conversion to Judaism. Judges 4,11 as well as the expression: וחבר הקיני נפרד מקין מבני חובב חותן משה, “Chever the Kenite had separated from the other Kenites, descendants of Chovav father-in-law of Moses,” presents another difficulty.

וישמע יתרו, “Yitro heard;” according to Rashi, Yitro heard about the Israelites having crossed the sea of reeds and the Egyptians having drowned in it during their pursuit of them. Rashi’s explanation is supported by Joshua 2,10 where the spies of Joshua are told by Rachav forty years later that she and her people are still scared of the G-d Who had orchestrated that event. It is also supported by the fact that the Torah mentions Yitro and Amalek in one breath in Samuel I 15,6: ויאמר שאול אל הקיני סורו רדו מתוך עמלקי פן אוסיפך עמו. “Shaul said to the Kenite: “separate yourself from the Amalekite so that you do not become a victim when I wipe out the Amalekite.’” Yitro had seven different names in the Torah, one of which is “Kenite.” How did Yitro hear about all this now? Maybe someone had escaped from the battle with Amalek and he heard it from him.

יתרו JETHRO — He was called by seven names: Reuel, Jether, Jethro, Hobab, Heber, Keni and Putiel. He was called Jether (from יִתֵּר “to add”) because he added (it was through him that there was added) a section to the Torah; viz., that beginning at (21 ff.) “Moreover thou shalt provide”. Jethro — so was he called because when he became a proselyte and fulfilled the divine precepts one more letter was added to his name (יתר). Hobab — because he loved (חִבֵּב) the Torah (cf. Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 18:1:2). — Hobab is certainly identical with Jethro, as it is said, (Judges 4:11) “of the sons of Hobab, the father-in-law of Moses” and therefore it is correct to say that Hobab is one of his names. But as to Reuel there are some who say that he is not identical with Jethro, but that he was Hobab’s (Jethro’s) father, as may be seen from Numbers 10:29. Then what, according to this view, would be the meaning of (Exodus 2:18) “And they came to Reuel, their father” (from which it would appear that Reuel and Jethro are the same)? It means their grandfather, for children call their grandfather: father. This is to be found in Sifrei Bamidbar 78 (on Numbers 10:29).

ALL THAT G-D HAD DONE TO⁵⁷The Hebrew reads: l’Mosheh ul’Yisrael. Ramban first explains it as meaning “‘to’ Moses and ‘to’ Israel.” Hence he proceeds to mention the wonders that G-d did to Moses, etc. Further on, he will mention the explanation of Ibn Ezra, who interpreted the verse as meaning “‘for’ Moses and ‘for’ Israel.” MOSES, AND TO⁵⁷The Hebrew reads: l’Mosheh ul’Yisrael. Ramban first explains it as meaning “‘to’ Moses and ‘to’ Israel.” Hence he proceeds to mention the wonders that G-d did to Moses, etc. Further on, he will mention the explanation of Ibn Ezra, who interpreted the verse as meaning “‘for’ Moses and ‘for’ Israel.” ISRAEL HIS PEOPLE. The marvels He did for Moses were the kindness and goodness He wrought with him, i.e., that he should always be able to come before Pharaoh and not be afraid of him, and that he should inflict the plagues upon him until they went out from Egypt — he and the people with him — Moses being a king to them.
And Rabbi ibn Ezra wrote, “l’Mosheh ul’Yisrael means ‘for Moses and Israel.’ The intent is with regard to the plagues and the drowning of Pharaoh” [which G-d wrought for the sake of Moses and Israel, His people]. And so it appears from the opinion of our Rabbis, who said:⁵⁸Mechilta on this verse. “Moses was equal to Israel, and Israel to Moses.”⁵⁹Now this statement of the Rabbis can be understood only if the letter lamed in the words l’Mosheh ul’Yisrael means “‘for’ Moses and ‘for’ Israel.” The Rabbis could then comment upon this that all the wonders were done for the sake of Moses alone or Israel alone, for Moses alone is equal in importance to Israel, and Israel alone to Moses. But if they interpreted the verse to mean “to Moses and to Israel,” the above statement is incongruous.

למשה ולישראל, “for Moses and for Israel,” he had heard about the miracles G’d had performed for Moses, seeing that he had faced Pharaoh repeatedly, threatened him with all kinds of plagues, etc., and no harm had been done to him. The same G’d had performed even greater miracles for the people of Israel who had proven to be immune to all these plagues. Ibn Ezra understands the letter ל before the words משה and ישראל, as “on behalf of.” He refers to the plagues and the drowning of the Egyptians. No doubt. G’d had orchestrated all these miracles for the benefit of Moses and the people of Israel.

He was called by seven names. . . However, in Bamidbar 10:29, Rashi mentions only two names, as it stated in the Sifrei. [It is Rashi’s way to cite differing Midrashim.]

Perhaps in this case the Torah wanted us to know the greatness of Yitro who converted to Judaism although he occupied an exalted position in his country at the cost of his prominence and probably even his wealth. Actually, the Torah describes Yitro in a contradictory role. Although he was leader in his country and as such could have chosen prominent sons-in-law for his daughters, he chose an unknown (to him), i.e. Moses as his son-in-law. The Torah therefore describes him both as a leader in Midian and as Moses' father-in-law. At the time, the other aspirants for Tzipporah's hand in marriage resented Yitro's choosing an itinerant foreigner over them. Concerning Yitro's position as an ardent idol worshiper, something that is implied in his title "priest," the Torah compliments him in verse 11 when he declared that he had found that the Lord was superior to any other kind of deity. The fact that a Gentile who occupied an exalted position in his own country and who was a religious dignitary to boot made a 180 degree turn becomes remarkable for the Jewish people only after the Torah tells us who this Gentile was prior to his conversion.

Yisro heard. Ordinary decorum dictates that a son-in-law should seek out his father-in-law if he wishes to retrieve his wife, not the reverse. Moreover, since Moshe actually divorced Tzipporah before sending her away it was truly an act of abasement on Yisro’s part for him to come to Moshe now of his own accord. Therefore it was necessary for the Torah to explain why he did so—i.e. because he had heard “all that Hashem had done, etc.” When Yisro learned of the many miracles that Hashem performed in Moshe’s merit he humbled himself and came before him. When Ad-noy brought Yisrael out of Egypt. Yisro realized that Moshe sent Tzipporah away for a noble reason—i.e. to redeem the B’nei Yisrael from bondage—not out of hatred.

יתרו; “ according to Rashi he had seven names; Reuel, Yeter, Yitro, Chovav, Chever, Keyni, Petuel. If you were to ask why the name rechev is not included in this list, seeing that in Jeremiah a descendant of his is referred to as from בית הרכבים (Jeremiah 35,2) presumably, Rashi only referred to the names that are mentioned in the Torah itself.

חתן משה MOSES’ FATHER-IN-LAW — Here Jethro prided himself on his relationship to Moses: I, the father-in-law of the king. Previously, however, Moses had made whatever greatness he had hinge upon his relationship to his father-in-law, the chieftain of Midian, as it is said, (Exodus 4:18) “And he returned to Jethro, his father-in-law” (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 18:1:4).

ALL THAT G-D HAD DONE… HOW THAT THE ETERNAL HAD BROUGHT ISRAEL OUT OF EGYPT. The reason [for the use of these two Divine Names] is that Scripture first mentions the Name Elokim (G-d) that Jethro knew from before, and then states that the Eternal had brought Israel out, for that was the Name that now came to be known through Moses and through which the signs were performed [before Pharaoh and Israel]

כי הוציא ה', “that the Lord had taken out, etc.” This is a new subject, not connected to what has been written previously, i.e. what Yitro had heard. There is a dispute among the sages in the last chapter of Massechet Zevachim about what rumours precisely Yitro had heard. According to one opinion (Zevachim 116) Yitro had heard that the Israelites had successfully defended themselves against the Amalekites, whereas according to the second opinion he had heard about G’d revealing Himself to the Israelites at Mount Sinai. There is also an opinion that he had heard about the splitting of the Sea of Reeds, etc. If the words כי הוציא וגו' were to refer to what Yitro had heard specifically, i.e. the Exodus, why would the Torah repeat something which it had already stated explicitly as something that Yitro had heard about? Clearly, the discussion as to what the Torah referred to when it wrote that “Yitro heard all that G’d had done, etc.,” without going into details, cannot refer to the Exodus itself. The Torah only reverts to the point of departure being that G’d had taken the people out of Egypt. Up until that point Yitro’s knowledge of the Jewish G’d had been limited to His name being elohim. After everything Moses now told him, he learned of an additional dimension of this G’d, i.e. His name Hashem. Hence the Torah refers to this attribute when writing כי הוציא השם וגו', not as at the beginning of the verse כל אשר עשה אלוקים.

A letter was added to his name. Re”m asks: If so, there are only six names! Before he converted he was called Yeser and not Yisro. After he converted he was called Yisro and not Yeser. They should not be considered as two names, just as Avram and Avraham should not be considered as two names. Re”m leaves this question unanswered. But it seems to me not to be a question, for Rashi does not say, “He has seven names.” He rather says, “He was called by seven names.” I.e., some names he was called before he converted, and some, afterward. (Maharshal) Yet, it seems to me there is no proof that his name was [always] Yeser until he converted. Perhaps he [originally] had a different name. For Rashi also explained the verse, “Moshe went and returned to Yeser his father-in-law” (4:18), that Yisro was called seven names, just like Rashi explains here — but that was before Yisro converted and before he caused an additional parsha in the Torah. Perforce, he had a different name before he converted, and there the Torah called him “Yeser” based on a future event. In truth, when he came and advised Moshe how to judge the people, he was immediately called [the new name of] Yeser, because he caused this additional parsha in the Torah. And this occurred before he converted. After he converted, the letter ו was then added [to his name]. Thus, he was called seven names in addition to his original, nonJewish name. We need not object: In Parshas Shemos it said, “Moshe went and returned to Yeser, his father-in-law,” implying that his nonJewish name was Yeser. For this is no proof, as it is also written there, “Moshe tended the sheep of his father-in-law Yisro” (3:1),” [though Yisro had not yet converted]. Perforce, [he was called Yeser and Yisro] based on a future event, as I explained. (Author’s commentary)

An additional reason why the Torah may have chosen to tell us something about Yitro's former career is that G'd had revealed all He had done to Yitro. He had not added nor subtracted anything which had occurred. Only people who occupy prominent positions of authority are granted such a comprehensive insight by G'd. We have described how Joshua was singled out by G'd to be privy to information not granted to the rest of the people.

כהן מדין, the priest of Midian. He must have been of high rank as he is compared to Yavin, King of Chatzor, as an equal. (Compare Judges 4,17) There he is called Chever.

למשה ולישראל TO MOSES AND TO ISRAEL — Moses alone is of equal in importance to all Israel (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 18:1:5).

Chovov is Yisro. . . [Rashi says this] so we will not think Chovov was Yisro’s son. And Rashi clearly explains so on v. 13, [that we should not think this].

את כל אשר עשה אלוקים, all that the Lord had done, etc. This is also a compliment to Yitro. He endeavoured to know all the details of what had taken place. It proves that Yitro was what we term a philo-semite, a genuine friend of the Jewish people. When one hates someone, though one is aware of that person's superiority, one minimises the complimentary remarks one makes about such a person. The reverse is true if one loves someone; one is liable to be very lavish in one's praise of such a person. The Torah's description of Yitro is such that we realise that he was a true friend of the Israelites. Seeing that the Torah told us that Yitro heard "everything G'd had done for Israel," why did the Torah repeat "that G'd had taken the Israelites out of Egypt?" Surely this was part of what Yitro had heard!

חותן משה, “fatherinlaw” of Moses. Rashi comments that here Yitro honoured Moses by referring to himself not by his title, but by his relationship to Moses, his soninlaw, someone who after living as a refugee from Egypt with him had now become the head of a people numbering in the millions. Years earlier, when Moses was in the home of Yitro, Moses described hjs claim to fame as having Yitro the priest as his fatherinlaw. (Compare Exodus 4,18) Page 477A Parshat Yitro

את כל אשר עשה ALL THAT [GOD] HAD DONE for them through the falling of the Manna and through the well (cf. Rashi on Numbers 21:17) and by the defeat of Amalek.

Others say that Re’uel was Yisro’s father. . . Question: If so, Yisro would have only six names! The answer is: [Here,] Rashi is explaining according to the Mechilta [read: Sifrei] which says that he only had two names, Chovov and Yisro. Assumedly, the Mechilta [read: Sifrei] holds that he was called also Yeser, for it is written: “Moshe went and returned to Yeser his father-in-law.” This is because the Mechilta [read: Sifrei] holds that Yeser and Yisro are actually the same name, similar to Avram and Avraham. [Accordingly, Rashi is answering the] question: It is written, “They (Yisro’s daughters) came to their father Re’uel” (2:18). Does this not imply that Yisro was also called Re’uel, [giving him more than two names]? The other names do not pose a difficulty, for they could be family names, as the Torah does not say “their father” regarding them. But “Re’uel” poses a difficulty. Therefore [to resolve this difficulty] Rashi explains: “Others say that Re’uel was Yisro’s father.” (Maharshal)

We may assume that Yitro had been well aware that no slave had ever escaped from Egypt (Mechilta on verse 11). According to Sanhedrin 106 Yitro had been one of Pharaoh's advisers, and as such had been thoroughly familiar with the system by which Egypt made sure its prisoners could not escape. When he heard about the Israelites having left Egypt he simply could not believe this. The Torah therefore had to repeat this aspect of G'd's achievements as one that Yitro had heard about. Once he found what he had heard to be true, he became convinced of the greatness of his son-in-law Moses. This is why the Torah linked the names of G'd and Moses. It was Yitro's understanding that G'd had gone out of His way to enhance the reputation of His prophet Moses. When the Torah describes what Yitro heard and the order in which it impressed him, it does not link the Exodus to the other miracles and achievements by G'd otherwise it would have described Yitro hearing וכי הוציא, "and that He took out, etc." The Exodus is presented as a separate achievement by G'd in Yitro's understanding, i.e. the one that made all the other miracles he heard about believable.

את כל אשר עשה אלוקים למשה, “all that G-d had done for Moses.” 1) That G-d had saved him from Pharaoh; 2) that he had become the leader of a great nation. 3) That he had achieved this stature in a place that previously sought to execute him.

כי הוציא ה׳ וגו׳ THAT THE LORD HAD BROUGHT FORTH etc. — this was greater than all other things, and is therefore singled out for mention (cf. Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 18:1:5).

כי הוציא ה' את ישראל, “that G’d had taken out Israel.” After Moses had first spoken of G’d as אלו-הים, when he spoke of עשה אלו-הים, he wanted to introduce Yitro to the tetragrammaton, G’d’s full name. and other attributes. It was important to Moses that Yitro should realize that the Exodus had been orchestrated by this attribute of G‘d. In this Moses merely paraphrased what we have read in 13,16: “for with a strong hand did Hashem take us out of Egypt.” Moses wanted to prevent the misconception that only the חזק יד had been active in orchestrating the Exodus of the Jewish people.

Here Yisro prides himself with Moshe. . . [Taken on its own,] there is no difference between וישמע יתרו חותן משה and וישב משה אל יתר חותנו . In both cases, the Torah identifies Yisro by means of Moshe, not the other way around. This is because חותנו (“his father-in-law) means the same as חותן משה (“Moshe’s father-inlaw”). But the context makes a difference. [In the latter verse,] the subject of the story is Moshe, and Yisro is mentioned as “his father-inlaw.” Thus the story implied that Moshe is priding himself [with Yisro. In the former verse,] the story’s subject is Yisro, and Yisro is mentioned as “Moshe’s father-in-law.” Thus it is implied that Yisro is priding himself [with Moshe].

Hearing about "all that G'd had done" enabled Yitro to believe the rumours he had heard. Our sages in Zevachim 116 disagree as to which of the various miracles Yitro heard about had impressed him the most. Some felt that it was the splitting of the Sea of Reeds; others said it was the defeat of Amalek. This whole argument is parallel to our own perception. According to the rabbis who hold that Yitro was most impressed by the fact that the Israelites defeated Amalek it makes sense that Yitro and his pilgrimage is related in the Torah immediately after the story of how the Israelites defeated Amalek. Yitro had reasoned that though G'd had exacted retribution from Pharaoh who had proved inordinately disobedient to G'd, this did not prove that what G'd had done was for the sake of the Israelites. The Israelites had simply become the beneficiaries of Pharaoh and the Egyptians being punished. Yitro thought that if he had been correct in his assessment the Exodus of the Israelites did not mean that they would be able to maintain themselves as a nation in competition with all the other nations. When G'd saved the Israelites from the attack by Amalek, Yitro realised that they were indeed G'd's chosen people, that what had occurred was the beginning of a new world order.

Moshe is equal to all of Yisrael. [Rashi knows this] because otherwise it should say only “Yisrael,” for this would also include Moshe. Perforce, it comes to teach that Moshe is equal. Why does Rashi’s commentary not follow the order of the verse? [I.e., he first explains, “For Moshe and Yisrael,” and then, “About all that Elohim had done.”] It is because Rashi is answering the question: “All that Elohim had done” surely [seems to] refer to, “Hashem brought Yisrael out of Egypt.” But [if it is really] referring to this, why [does it say, “For Moshe and Yisrael”? The phrase should place Yisrael before Moshe, because Yisrael was enslaved, but Moshe and his tribe were not, as Rashi explained in 5:4. But if Moshe is greater than all of Yisrael, it would be logical [to place Moshe first]. But being that Moshe was equal but not greater, Yisrael should have come first, since the main reason for the Exodus was for them [and the question remains unresolved]. Neither can we answer that Moshe is placed first in order to teach that he was equal to all of Yisrael. For this is learned from the mere fact that Moshe is mentioned separately, as I explained at the beginning. Thus, Rashi answers as follows: “All that Elohim had done” does not refer to Hashem’s bringing them out of Egypt. It rather refers to the manna, [the well and the war of Amaleik, as Rashi states in the next entry]. These acts of goodness benefited both Moshe and Yisrael equally. And since Hashem performed these acts mainly for Moshe, he is mentioned first. Hashem brought the manna and the well in order to save Moshe from Yisrael’s complaints against him. And Moshe, who was the king of Yisrael, defeated Amaleik by his prayer and by confusing the hours for Amaleik as it says in the Midrash (see Rashi on 17:12). [This answers the original question: Why does Rashi’s commentary not follow the order of the verse? The answer is that Rashi first explained “For Moshe and Yisrael” because it is the key to understanding “About all that Elohim had done.” Since Moshe is placed before Yisrael, “All that Elohim had done” cannot refer to Hashem’s bringing them out of Egypt.]

The Torah mentions the fact that Yitro heard about the Exodus immediately before reporting that he brought Tzipporah and her children to Moses. We can understand this in connection with Shemot Rabbah 4,4 where Moses wanted to take his family to Egypt with him. At the time Yitro wanted to know why Moses wanted to subject his family to the strain of travel and the suffering in Egypt. Moses told him that when the Israelites would leave Egypt and receive the Torah at Mount Sinai he would be keenly aware of the absence of his family at that event. Hearing this Yitro allowed Moses to take his family along. Having heard about the imminence of the Israelites' arrival at Mount Sinai, Yitro felt obliged to bring Tzipporah and her children to Moses without delay.

For them. . . [You might ask:] Why does Rashi write, “For them,” instead of saying, “For Moshe and for His people Yisrael”? [The answer is: It is simply] for the sake of brevity. Similarly, Rashi says on 6:3, “To the fathers,” instead of saying, “To Avraham, to Yitzchok and to Yaakov.” (Re”m) [An alternative answer:] So we will not think Hashem did some miracles for Moshe alone, and some for Yisrael alone. Therefore Rashi says, “For them,” to group them together. What he did for one, he did for the other. (Gur Aryeh)

This being the greatest of them all. Rashi is answering the question: Why was bringing them out of Egypt mentioned separately? Perforce, it is to tell us that it was “the greatest of them all.” For it says, “All that Elohim had done,” and concludes with, “That Hashem brought Yisrael out.” This implies that Hashem did other miracles as well, [besides bringing them out]. Otherwise, why does it says, “All”?

אחר שלוחיה AFTER HIS HAVING SENT HER AWAY — When God said to him in Midian, (Exodus 4:19, 20) “Go, return to Egypt … and Moses took his wife and his sons etc…. and Aaron went forth towards him and met him at the Mount of God”, he (Aaron) said to him, “Who are these?” He answered him, “This is my wife whom I married in Midian and these are my children”. He, thereupon, asked him, “Whither are you taking them?” He replied, “To Egypt”. Where-upon he said to him, “We have cause to grieve over the former ones (the Israelites already there), and you propose to add to their number!” Moses therefore said to her, “Return to your father’s house” — she took her two sons and went away (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 18:2).

AFTER HE HAD SENT HER AWAY. Because Scripture had [previously] mentioned, And Moses took his wife and his sons… and he returned to the land of Egypt,⁶⁰Verse 1. it became necessary to state here that she was in her father’s house, as Moses had sent her there. It is possible that Scripture is stating that Jethro took [Zipporah, Moses’s wife], to return her to him although he had sent her away. Having heard all that G-d had done for Moses,⁶⁰Verse 1. he thought that it was now time for her to follow the king wherever he would go.

אחר שלוחיה. After she (Tzipporah) had sent a message to him to find out where they were encamped. Moses had informed her that the Israelites would not stop anywhere for any length of time until they would reach the mountain of G’d, Mount Chorev, where they would serve the Lord. She must have known about this as Moses must have told her of G’d’s prediction in Exodus 3,12 that once out of Egypt the Jewish people would serve the Lord there at that mountain. This is the reason why it took Yitro so long before he came as he had to wait until the Jewish people would make camp for longer than one night.

ויקח יתרו חתן משה, Yitro, Moses' father-in-law took, etc. The reason Yitro is again described as Moses' father-in-law is that it was only due to his status as the father-in-law of such a great man that his peers did not prevent him from travelling to Mount Sinai and becoming Jewish. It was customary in those days to put heretics to death, seeing that the religions were all national in character and defection was equivalent to treason. Perhaps the Torah also hints here that though Yitro was known by an entirely different title, i.e. The Priest of Midian, he now spurned that title and wished to be known simply as Moses' father-in-law.

אחר שלוחיה, seeing that the Torah had never told us that Moses had sent his wife and children back to Midian after they had arrived in Egypt, the Torah had to fill us in on this if we are to understand what is written here. Some commentators believe that what is meant is that now that Moses was in a position to do this he had sent her the gifts a husband normally gives his bride. We find something similar reported of Pharaoh giving his daughter, Solomon’s wife, Gezer Chazor and Megiddo as a dowry. in Kings I 9,15. The former interpretation in the plain meaning of our verse. There would be no point is Yitro bringing Tzipporah back to her husband, when we had never heard that Moses had sent her back to her father in the first place. The last that we had heard was that Tzipporah had accompanied Moses and even circumcised his son (their son) during Moses’ temporary absence. If she had been sent to her father at that time, why did the Torah not report something important like this? The Torah has reported far less important matters more than once, such as Genesis 9,18 וחם הוא אבי כנען, “and Cham, the one who was the father of Canaan.” This information was provided by the Torah in Genesis 10,6 where it belonged. It is therefore not unusual for the Torah to provide some information at a juncture we would not have suspected it.

אחר שילוחיה, “after she had been sent away.” Seeing that the Torah had told us earlier that Moses took his wife and his children, and started out on the way to Egypt, (Exodus 4,20) the Torah had to inform us that at some point Moses had sent his family back to Midian, to the home of Yitro, his father-in-law. Yitro clearly did not consider Moses having sent his wife and children “home” as proof of a divorce, but considered this as an act of prudence by Moses, something no longer necessary seeing the Israelites were no longer in danger. Other commentators understand the words אחר שילוחיה, as a reference to gifts which Tzipporah had sent to her husband ahead of her, to advise him of her impending arrival. Yet other commentators understand the words as referring to secret code messages that Yitro had sent ahead to inform Moses that he was on the way to him with Tzipporah and her children. Yet another interpretation sees in the plural mode of the word שילוחיה, a reference to two occasions on which Tzipporah had been sent away, once when Moses had left her behind at the inn on the way to Egypt, when he continued on to Egypt without her and the children, and the second time when he had instructed her to return to her father’s home from that inn. (presumably after he had become aware that the liberation of the Israelites would require more time than he had thought at first)

He said to her, “Go to your father’s house”. . . [Question: Why was Moshe concerned only about his wife, whereupon her sons she took on her own accord? The answer is:] Moshe was worried only for his wife, lest the Egyptians enslave her. But he was not worried for his sons because they would not be enslaved there. This is because the tribe of Leivi was not subjected to the enslavement, as Rashi explained in 5:4.

"And Yithro, Moses' father-in-law, took Tzipporah, Moses' wife, after she had been sent": R. Yehoshua says: after she had parted from him with a divorce (a "get"). It is written here "sending," and elsewhere (Devarim 24:1) "sending." Just as there, with a get, so, here, with a get. R. Elazar says: after she parted from him with a ma'amar (i.e., by word of mouth). For when the L rd said to Moses: Go and take My people, the children of Israel, out of Egypt, viz. (Exodus 3:10) "Go and I will send you to Pharaoh, etc.", he took his wife and his two sons and brought them to Egypt, as it is written (Ibid. 4:20) "and Moses took his wife and his sons, and he rode them on the ass, and he returned to the land of Egypt." At that time He said to Aaron: Go to meet Moses. He went out to meet him and embraced him and kissed him. Aaron: Moses, where were you all these years? Moses: In Midian. Aaron: Who are these women and little ones with you? Moses: My wife and my sons. Aaron: Where are you taking them? Moses: To Egypt. Aaron: We are afflicted with the first ones, and now shall we be afflicted with these, too? At that time he said to Tzipporah: Go to your father's house. At that time she went to her father's house, taking her two sons — wherefore, "after she had been sent."

V. 2. אחר שלוחיה. Wahrscheinlich hatte Mosche im Drange seiner Pflichten um ganz der ihm durch seine Sendung gewordenen Aufgabe leben zu können, Weib und Kinder von Ägypten wieder zum Schwiegervater heimgeschickt. Diese Heimsendung war aber nicht missdeutet worden und hatte das Verhältnis nicht getrübt. Jitro war חתן משה und Zipora war אשת משה geblieben.

אשת משה, “Moses’ wife.” She is mentioned here by her name as her husband [by having become a king since the last time she had seen him, Ed.] had elevated her status.

אחר שלוחיה. The word אחר describes something happening later, as it did in Genesis 22,13 where Avraham only found the ram which had been caught in the thicket by its horns after the binding of Yitzchok was over. Similarly, in Leviticus 15,28 the word אחר תטהר, means that after the procedure described by the Torah previously the woman in question would become ritually clean again. [the point of our author is that in all the examples quoted by him the Bible had informed the reader of the background to the present happening. Why would it not have done so here also? Ed.]

אחר שלוחיה, after he had sent her away. The reason that the Torah is careful to describe Tzipporah's remaining in her father's home in Midian as: "after Moses had sent her away," needs to be analysed. Were it not for the Midrash we have quoted I would have to assume that Moses actually divorced his wife when he found that he was a full time messenger of G'd and could not devote time to his family. It was reasonable for Eliezer to remain with his mother seeing he had only just been born. Gershom too was presumably still a minor and as such an encumbrance to Moses in his mission. Moreover, according to the Mechilta on our verse Moses and Yitro had agreed at the time of his marriage to Tzipporah that the first born son would belong to the mother (to be raised as a pagan) whereas the other would belong to the father. At any rate, there was a good reason why both children had remained with their mother. When the Torah reports Yitro as bringing both his wife and his children to Moses personally, this is a tremendous compliment for Yitro. He did not need to expose himself to possible rejection by his erstwhile son-in-law. According to the interpretation in Shemot Rabbah 4,4 that Moses had not divorced Tzipporah but had relied on his father-in-law to see to it that the family would be reunited at the appropriate time, we may understand the words אחר שלוחיה, as referring to messages sent by Tzipporah in order to find out exactly where the Israelites were encamped. Yitro did not undertake the journey until after Moses had made it plain that he would welcome both him and his family.

אחר שלוחיה, after he had sent her home to her father’s house. If the Torah had not told us this at this point, we would not have known that Tzipporah and her children had never been in Egypt with Moses, i.e. had not participated in the Exodus. The last that we heard of her was that Moses had taken her and his children with him on the way to Egypt and that they had been riding on a donkey (Exodus 4,20) She had performed the circumcision on her younger son, but nothing had been written about her returning to Egypt.

AND HER TWO SONS; OF WHOM THE NAME OF THE ONE WAS GERSHOM. Even though this is not the place where [the narrative of] their birth is told, Scripture here explains the names of the two sons [of Moses — Gershom and Eliezer —] because there was no opportunity to mention the name of Eliezer at his birth, as I have explained in Seder V’eileh Shemoth.⁶¹Above, 4:20. See Ramban there regarding why Eliezer was not named at that time. Gershom’s name, on the other hand, is mentioned in 2:22. Here, Scripture wanted to mention the kindness that the Holy One, blessed be He, had shown to Moses, who was a stranger in a strange land. [When he named his second son], he gave thanks there to G-d for having delivered him from the sword of Pharaoh when he fled from before him,⁶²Ibid., 2:15. [and for making him] now king over Israel, and [because] He drowned Pharaoh and his people in the sea.
The sense of the expression for he said, I have been a stranger, etc. is connected with Moses, who is mentioned in the first verse, [and not with Jethro, who is mentioned in the second verse]. Similarly, the following verse, And the name of the other was Eliezer: for the G-d of my father was my help,⁶³Verse 4. is connected with the expression for he said, [found in the verse before us. It thus reads: “And the name of the other was Eliezer; for he said: for the G-d, etc.”] There are many cases like that.

שם האחד גרשם, the name of the one was Gershom, etc. Although the reason Moses named this son Gershom has already been mentioned in Exodus 2,22, it had to be repeated here in order to inform us that we are talking about the same son already mentioned in chapter 2 (though this may have been 60 years earlier) and not another son (by the same name but born of a different mother).

כי אמר גר הייתי, “for he had said (at that time) ‘I have been a stranger, etc.” Even though this is hardly the place where we would expect to hear about the genealogy of Moses’ children, the Torah introduces the subject now as there had not been an opportunity to inform us that Moses had called his second son Eliezer, seeing that he had not circumcised him prior to his departure from Midian. First he had been too preoccupied with journeying to Egypt, second, because he had that unfortunate encounter with the angel who had threatened to kill him. He had also not been able to give him the name Eliezer as long as he was under the impression that there was still a price on his head, and he was still a fugitive from Egyptian justice, being wanted for murder. The Torah informs us now that when Moses had become aware that there no longer was a price on his head, he named his son in a manner which expressed his thanks to G’d for having saved him from that worry as well as for the other promotions G’d had bestowed upon him.

(Exodus 18:3) "and her two sons … in a foreign land": R. Yehoshua says "foreign": as stated (i.e., literally). R. Elazar Homadai says: in a land of foreign (gods, i.e., idolatry). Moses said: Since the whole world serves idolatry, I will serve Him who spoke and brought the (whole) world into being. For when Moses said to Yithro, Give me your daughter Tzipporah as a wife, Yithro answered, If you do what I ask of you, I will give her to you as a wife. Moses: What do you ask? Yithro: Your first son must serve idolatry. Thenceforward, they may serve (G d) in heaven. Moses accepted. Yithro: Swear. And he swore, as it is written (Exodus 2:21) "Vayoel Moses, etc.", this being an expression for swearing, as in (I Samuel 14:24) "Vayoel Saul the people" (in context: "And Saul beswore the people.") And it is written (II Kings 5:3) "Hoel (in context: "Swear") and take two talents, etc." Therefore, the angel came forward to kill Moses (viz. Exodus 4:24), whereupon (Ibid. 25) "Tzipporah took a flint and cut off the foreskin of her son … (26) "And he (the angel) let go of him." R. Elazar b. Azaryah says: Repulsive is the foreskin, by which the wicked are demeaned, viz. (Jeremiah 9:25) "for all the nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel is uncircumcised of heart." R. Yishmael says: Great is circumcision over which thirteen covenants was made. R. Yossi Haglili says: Great is circumcision, which overrides the Sabbath, which is liable to kareth (cutting-off). R. Yehoshua b. Karcha says: Great is circumcision, laxity in which did not permit all of Moses' merits to protect him for even a short time. R. Nechemiah says: Great is circumcision, which overrides (non-cutting of) plague-spots (viz. Devarim 24:8). Rebbi says: Great is circumcision, all of Moses' merits not standing for him in his duress. When the L rd told him "Take out My people, the children of Israel from the land of Egypt," because he was lax for a short time in (the) circumcision (of his son), the angel sought to kill him, viz. (Exodus 4:24) "and he was on the way in the lodging, etc." R. Yossi says: G d forbid that tzaddikim should be lax in circumcision for even a short while, but Moses expounded: Shall he circumcise (his son) and journey (to Egypt) — that would involve a risk of life (for the child.) Shall he wait and circumcise — the L rd has said to him: "Go and take My people Israel out of Egypt." But (his lapse was that) he preoccupied himself with his lodging before circumcising, wherefore the L rd sought to kill him, viz.: "And he was on the way in the lodging, etc." R. Shimon b. Gamliel says: The angel did not seek to kill Moses, but the child, viz. (Ibid. 25) "for you are a groom of blood to me." Who is called a "groom" (in this context), the child or Moses? The child.

V. 3 u.4. Die Namen der Kinder werden hier teils wiederholt, teils nachgefügt, wohl um uns zugleich erkennen zu lassen, daß Mosche von vornherein seinen Schwiegervater nicht über seine Vergangenheit und seine Beziehungen zu dem in Ägypten geknechteten Volke im Unklaren gelassen. Die Namen seiner Kinder sprechen diese Vergangenheit und diese Beziehung aus. Elieser war kurz nach Mosche Rückkehr nach Mizrajim geboren; das ויצילני וגו׳ bezieht sich wohl auf die Zusicherung Gottes, Kap. 4, 19: לך שוב וגו׳ כי מתו וגו׳. Daher nannte er auch erst den jüngsten Elieser. So lange er in der Verbannung leben musste, schwebte Pharaos Schwert über ihm.

גר הייתי, “I had been a stranger, etc.” the word הייתי is not to be understood as being in the past tense, just as Genesis 23,13: נתתי or 14,22 הרימותי or 32,11 הייתי לשני מחנות are not to be understood as being in the past tense. There are many more such examples.

Furthermore, the Torah may have had to mention that the reason was not that Yitro had expelled Moses from his home. While it is true that Moses said: "I used to be a stranger in a strange country" (obviously not referring to his being expelled by Yitro), he may have phrased it thus so that Yitro should not hear that he had referred to expulsion by him. The Torah repeats here once more that the reason for Gershom's name was Moses' grateful acknowledgement of having prospered as a fugitive in a strange land.

ויצלני מחרב פרעה AND HE DELIVERED ME FROM THE SWORD OF PHARAOH — When Dathan and Abiram made the disclosure regarding the matter of the Egyptian whom Moses had killed and Pharaoh wished to slay Moses, his neck became as a column of marble so that the sword was powerless against him (Shemot Rabbah 1:31; cf. Rashi on Exodus 2:15).

ויצילני מחרב פרעה. At the time Eliezer was born the old king who had wanted to execute Moses had already been dead for a while. This is one of the reasons why the Torah mentioned this death in Exodus 2,23. At that time Moses felt secure from further attempts on his life. Pharaoh’s international police had an exceedingly long reach, just as that of Achav, King of Israel, who had been hunting for the prophet Elijah all over the neighbouring countries of Israel as documented in Kings I 18,10 “is there any kingdom to which the king (Achav) has not sent emissaries to arrange to have to you captured?”

ושם האחד אליעזר, and the name of the one was Eliezer, etc. The reason that Eliezer, Moses' second son is referred to as האחד, "the one," instead of the "second one," is that the reason for Eliezer being named as he was refers to an event which occurred even before Gershom was born. G'd had first saved Moses' life from the sword of Pharaoh before he had enabled him to settle down in Midian.

He attempted to kill Moshe, his neck became. . . See [Rashi on] v. 4:11.

(Exodus 18:4) "and the name of the second, 'Eliezer,' for (Moses said: 'The G d of (Elokei) my father was my help (ezri), and He saved me from the 'sword of Pharaoh.'" R. Yehoshua says: When did the L rd save him? When Dathan said to him (Ibid. 2:14) "Who made you a man, an officer and a judge over us, etc.?" and when Pharaoh heard of it, he said: "Seize Moses and bring him up to the (decapitation) block!" When they placed the knife on his neck, an angel descended in the guise of Moses, at which they seized the angel and let go of Moses, at which the L rd rendered them groups of mutes, deaf ones, and blind ones. They said to the mutes: Where is Moses? But they could not speak. To the deaf, but they could not hear. To the blind, but they could not see, as it is written (Ibid. 4:11) "Who made a mouth for man, or who makes one mute or deaf or seeing or blind?" Thus, "for the G d of my father was my help."

ושם האחד אליעזר, “and the name of the one was Eliezer.” Even though he was Moses’ second son, the Torah describes him as “the one;” the reason is that his name was due to an event involving him personally, seeing that it recalled that he had had to flee from Egypt. It therefore appeared to Moses as if this really was his first son.

The reason the Torah does not mention Eliezer's name first is that it first wanted to stress that Moses was in a strange land at the time the children were born. The Torah retraces events only after the main point that Moses was in a strange land has been established. An alternative explanation, one which I have mentioned on Exodus 2,22, is that when Moses spoke about a "strange land," he referred to our globe, this present life. He did not feel at home in this life, ever. This feeling of being a stranger in a strange land preceded even the time when G'd saved him from the sword of Pharaoh. Moses' whole attitude to life on earth has to be evaluated in that light. This throws a different light on the fact that his life on earth was saved by G'd after he had killed the Egyptian. The Torah had to spell out what precisely G'd saved Moses from or I would have thought that G'd saved Moses from some danger after he had settled in Midian. At any rate, there was something unique about the time when G'd saved Moses' life miraculously.

ויצילני מחרב פרעה, “He has saved me from the sword of Pharaoh.” The Pharaoh who sought to kill Moses had died some time earlier. G-d had told him this in Exodus 4,19. An alternate explanation: He did not call Eliezer his second son, as his birth had nothing to do with that of Gershom, as we explained on Exodus 4,26. The reason was that he had not been able to circumcise his first son due to the agreement with his fatherinlaw at the time he had married Tzipporah. [Compare what the author wrote on page 376. Ed.] From G-d’s point of view, Eliezer was Moses’ first son, as after having been circumcised he was Jewish. As such he belonged to G-d, seeing that we aj] are G-d’s firstborn.

אל המדבר INTO THE DESERT — Indeed we know that they were in the wilderness, and it appears unnecessary to state that Jethro came to Moses there. But by stressing this Scripture is speaking in praise of Jethro: that he was living amidst all the splendour that the world could provide, and nevertheless his heart prompted him to go forth into the desert, a waste place (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 18:5:2), to hearken to the words of the Torah.

אל המדבר, to the desert, etc. The reason the Torah adds: "to the place where Israel was encamped" is in order to explain how it was they knew where to locate the Israelites in the great desert. Moses had previously informed his family of the location of his encounter with the burning bush and that G'd had told him in 3,12: "you shall serve the Lord upon this mountain." This explains why the Torah was able to describe the mountain as "the mountain of G'd where they were encamped" already at this juncture.

V. 5. V. 2, wo der Entschluss Jitros berichtet wird, und V. 6 in der Botschaft, mit welcher er Mosche seine Ankunft anzeigte, hießen die Kinder: בניה, Zipporas Kinder. Jitro will Mosche weder lästig noch hinderlich werden. Mosche hatte ihm Weib und Kinder heimgesandt. Es kann ja sein, dass er noch nicht im Stande ist, sie bei sich zu behalten, und nicht, um sie dem Eidam wieder zuzuführen, sondern Sehnsucht zu Gott und Sehnsucht nach seinem Eidam führte ihn mit Tochter und Enkeln in die Wüste. Hier aber wird objektiv die Tatsache berichtet, was sie Mosche war, und da waren es in der Tat Mosche Schwiegervater, Mosche Söhne und Mosche Frau. Darum stehen auch hier die Söhne vor der Frau, die, da die Reihenfolge mit dem Schwiegervater beginnt, ohnehin als das ihm teuerste Glied in diesem zu ihm wandernden Kreis der Liebe zuletzt genannt wird.

הר האלקים, wenn, wie schon רמב׳׳ן erinnert, sowohl die Reihenfolge der Erzählung, als auch die von Jitro erwähnten Gottestaten (V. 10) für die Ansicht sprechen, dass Jitro vor der Gesetzgebung in Refidim Mosche besucht, so kann sich dies הר האלקי׳ nicht auf אשר הוא חנה שם beziehen. Ohnehin kommt die Ortsbezeichnung ohne Präposition, wie wir glauben, vielmehr als Ziel einer Bewegung, als zur Bezeichnung eines Ruheortes vor. הר האלק׳ bezieht sich daher wohl auf ויבא. Wie ebenfalls רמב׳׳ן bemerkt, liegt der Horeb näher zu Midjan als zu Ägypten. Mosche weidete ja Jitros Schafe am Horeb. Jitro musste daher den Gottesberg passieren, ehe er nach Refidim kam. Er hatte auch Grund, Mosche am Gottesberge zu vermuten, da er wohl von Mosche wissen konnte, dass dies das eigentliche Ziel der Wanderung in der Wüste war. Es war dies ja bereits Mosche offenbart worden, bevor er aus Midjan nach Ägypten zurückkehrte. Jitro kam daher zuerst nach Horeb und von dort schickte er Mosche seine Meldung.

ויאמר אל משה AND HE SAID UNTO MOSES through a messenger (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 18:6).

AND HE SAID UNTO MOSES: ‘I THY FATHER-IN-LAW JETHRO AM COMING UNTO THEE.’ He sent him the message in a letter in which [the above words] were written. A messenger, [as Rashi would have it], could not say, I thy father-in-law. Instead, he would say, “Behold, Jethro your father-in-law is coming to you.” It is also not possible that Jethro told him so mouth to mouth, for in that case he would have said, “Behold, I have come to you.” Besides, it is not customary in such instances for the speaker to mention his name: “I, such and such a person,” for upon seeing him, he would recognize him. A similar case is the verse: Then Huram the King of Tyre said⁶⁴Thus the word “said” can clearly apply to “saying in writing.” in writing, which he sent to Solomon.⁶⁵II Chronicles 2:10.

אני חותנך יתרו, Yitro sent this message as a matter of courtesy so that Moses would not be taken unawares by his sudden arrival. He complied with the sages’ warning “do not enter your own house without advance notice, how much more so the house of your friend.” (Pessachim 112).

אני חתנך…ואשתך ושני בניה, "I, your father-in-law as well as your wife and her two sons, etc." Why did the Torah change the order in which Moses' wife and children are mentioned from the order in which they were mentioned in verse five? In verse five the sons are described as belonging to Moses and are mentioned first, whereas here Tzipporah is mentioned first and the sons are described as being hers! Mechilta on our verse explains that Yitro sent word to Moses that if he would not come out to meet him because he was his father-in-law, at least he should come out to meet and to welcome his wife and children. We may therefore assume that the Torah used the same approach in once mentioning Tzipporah before the children and once after the children. If Moses would not come out to welcome Tzipporah as his wife, at least he should welcome her as the mother of his children. When the arrival of these persons in the desert is mentioned, however, they are mentioned in order of their respective importance. This is why the sons are mentioned ahead of Tzipporah. Even though in this instance Yitro mentioned the fact that he was Moses' father-in-law before mentioning his own name, whereas in verse five his name is mentioned before his status as Moses' father-in-law, in verse five the Torah speaks objectively, whereas in our verse the Torah quotes Yitro. Seeing that Yitro was a modest individual he would not mention his name first. Moses would go out to honour Yitro because he was his father-in-law even if he had no other claim to honour. You will find something similar in Samuel I 24,11 where David honoured Saul even though the latter tried to kill him.

ויאמר, Yitro’s messenger said to him: “I your father-in-law, etc.” [unless Yitro had sent a messenger ahead, why would he have to introduce himself? Ed.]

ויאמר אל משה, “Yitro said to Moses:” According to Ibn Ezra, by means of a messenger. According to Ibn Ezra, the Torah quotes a letter Yitro had sent ahead of his arrival at the encampment of the Israelites in which he announced his forthcoming arrival together with Tzipporah and her children. If the Torah were reporting the words of Yitro at arrival, it should have said הנני בא אליך, “here I have come to you.” In the Midrash the view is expressed that Yitro shot an arrow with the above message attached, and that although normally, the surrounding heavenly clouds would make the camp of the Israelites secure against any intrusion, in this instance, due the nature of the message, G’d allowed the arrow to travel through the cloud cover.

ואשתך ושני בניה עמה, “and your wife and her two sons with her.” The Torah should have quoted Yitro as saying to Moses: “and your two sons,” instead of “and her two sons,” just as he said “your wife,” “your father-in-law.” However, we must remember that it is customary for the Torah to describe sons as belonging to their mother such as in Genesis 46,15: “these are the sons of Leah,” whereas daughters are described as “belonging” to their father such as in the same verse “and Dinah his daughter” (compare Nidah 31).

Through a messenger. [Rashi knows this] because it is written afterwards, “Moshe went out to greet his father-in-law.” Accordingly, “He said. . . I am coming,” is what Yisro told the messenger to say in his name.

(Ibid. 6) "And he said to Moses: I, your father-in-law, Yithro, am coming to you; and your wife and her two sons with her": R. Yehoshua says: He wrote this to him in a letter. R. Elazar Hamodai says: He sent it by messenger, writing therein: Do it for me; and if not for me, then come out for your wife. And if not, do it for her sons. R. Eliezer says: The Holy One Blessed be He said to Moses: I am the one who spoke and brought the world into being. I am the one who draws near and not the one who distances, viz. (Jeremiah 23:23) "Am I only a G d from near, says the L rd, and not a G d from far?" I am the one who drew Yithro near and did not distance him. You, too, when a man comes to you to be converted, he does so only for the sake of Heaven. You, too, draw him near and do not distance him. From here we learn that a man should distance with the left hand and draw near with the right, and not do as Elisha did to Gechazi, rejecting him with both hands.

ויאמר, “he said:” the subject is Yitro’s messenger announcing his impending arrival in the camp of the Israelites.

'אני חתנך יתרו וגו I, THY FATHER-IN-LAW, JETHRO etc. — If you will not come out for my own sake, come out for the sake of your wife; and if you will not come out for your wife’s sake, come out for the sake of your two sons (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 18:6).

ושני בניה עמה, and her two sons with her. The reason the Torah wrote the word עמה, with her, is to continue the trend of thought mentioned earlier. Yitro said: "if you do not come out on account of her or your children, at least come out to meet her and the children together."

Go out on account of your wife. . . [Rashi knows this] because otherwise the Torah should have written, “I, your father-in-law Yisro, along with your wife. . . are coming to you.” Why does the verse separate “Yisro” from “Your wife”? Perforce, because Yisro was telling Moshe: “I am coming to you; go out on account of me. But if you do not want. . .”

'אני חותנך יתרו בא אליך וגו, “I, your fatherinlaw, Yitro have come to you;” seeing that we have heard from this man that he was extremely modest, when he criticized Moses for sitting down while the people waiting in line to have their problems solved by him had to stand, (verse 14), it appears totally out of character that he commenced a sentence by saying: “I, your fatherinlaw, etc.” We must realize that the clouds of G-d’s glory surrounded the camp of the Israelites making it impossible for outsiders to find them. This prevented Yitro’s messenger to get to his destination. He therefore attached a note to an arrow which he shot into the cloud explaining who he was and why he wanted to be admitted through the cloud. (Tanchuma)

And if. . . not. . . on account of your wife. . . Since Rashi needed to interpret “Your wife” in this manner, he also needed to explain “Her two sons” in this manner. (Re”m) But it seems to me that Rashi deduced [this whole explanation, even regarding “Your wife”,] because the verse says the [superfluous] word “I.” (Nachalas Yaakov)

ויצא משה AND MOSES WENT OUT — Great honour, indeed, did Jethro receive at that moment, for as soon as Moses went out to Jethro, Aaron, Nadab and Abihu went out, and who was it that saw these go out and would not himself go out? (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayigash 7)

ויצא משה, Moses did not stand on ceremony, using his position to await the arrival of his father-in-law at home, but he went some distance to meet the man in whose house he had received so many favours. We find that Queen Esther, similarly, did not use her elevation to Royalty as an excuse to no longer defer to Mordechai who had raised her. (Esther 2,20 “Esther continued to carry out Mordechai’s instructions as she had done when she lived under his roof.”) Joseph also did not use his exalted position to look down on his brothers. The Chief of the butlers, who had reason to be grateful to Joseph, is an example of ingratitude, as we know from Genesis 40,23, “he did not remember Joseph, in fact he erased him from his memory.”

ויצא משה לקראת חתנו, Moses went out to meet his father-in-law, etc. Seeing that Yitro had pleaded that Moses welcome either his wife or his sons or both, the Torah is at pains to tell us that Moses considered Yitro as deserving to be welcomed by him in his own right, hence the emphasis on לקראת חתנו. Perhaps Moses even went so far as to demonstrate this point by going only to Yitro's tent at this point, ignoring his wife and children till somewhat later. Mechilta makes the additional point that seeing that Moses prostrated himself in front of Yitro this is proof that he went out in order to honour Yitro. Our sages say that Moses honoured Yitro greatly. If the Torah had not stressed that Moses went to meet his father-in-law, how would I have known that he did not go out in order to welcome his wife and sons specifically?

ויצא משה לקראת חותנו, “Moses went forth to welcome his father-in-law, etc.” He meant to honour his father-in-law, as this is not the way one honours one’s wife.

ויצא משה לקראת חותנו, “Moses went out to meet his father-in-law.” Our sages in Mechilta ask the rhetorical question: “was there anyone who observed that Moses left the camp in order to welcome Yitro and he himself stayed behind? Was there anyone who observed that Aaron left the camp to welcome Yitro and he himself stayed behind?” The wording of the text makes it clear that the entire menfolk went out to welcome Yitro.

Once Moshe went out. . . Rashi is answering the question: How was Yisro being honored by Moshe going out by himself to greet him? [Furthermore,] Moshe was their king and leader. Is it not a disgrace for the king to go out by himself? Thus Rashi explains that once Moshe went out, Aharon assumedly went out too, etc. Rashi says this [as the simple meaning of the verse, although its source is in various Midrashim,] because of logical reasoning. [Moshe must have intended to honor Yisro when he went out to greet him].

V. 7. וישתחו, obgleich inzwischen gottgesandter Herrscher eines Volkes geworden war Mosche doch immer nur Mosche in allen Beziehungen geblieben.

וישתחו, “he prostrated himself;” our author is in two minds about who is the subject in this verse, i.e. who prostrated himself to whom.? It is reasonable to assume that word איש in the verse refers to Moses. After all, Moses had been referred to in Deuteronomy 32,1 as איש האלוהים, “the man of G–d.” On the other hand, the Torah describes Yitro also as איש, already in Exodus 2,21 when it tells us that Moses agreed to take up residence in his father-in-law’s house. Some scholars hold that we must draw comparisons only when the word in question is exactly the same, not when there is a prefix or suffix appended. The word: האיש in Exodus 2,21, therefore does not refer to the same man as the one in Deuteronomy we have quoted. In addition we find that the attribute איש is used for Moses, as directly next to his name either after or in front, (as in Numbers 12,3,) whereas this is not so with Yitro. It is clear that this interpretation is based on the school that holds that R’uel was the father of Yitro. According to that school of thought, Exodus 2,21 stating: “he gave his daughter Tzipporah to Moses as a wife,” is another example of grandfathers being considered as fathers.

וישתחו וישק לו, “he prostrated himself and kissed him;” according to Rashi it is not clear who prostrated himself before whom; if we are to assume that the Torah also referred to Yitro by the honorary title of איש, seeing that we have read in Exodus 2,21: ויאל משה לשבת את האיש, Moses agreed to make his home with the man,” we would have to counter that the Torah refers to Moses as being extremely modest when writing: והאיש משה עניו מאד, “the man known as ‘Moses,’ was very modest and humble, more so than any other איש;” (Numbers 12,3) so that we are faced here with a dilemma; we must therefore assume that the reason that the Torah compliments Moses in Numbers 12,3 by adding these additional words, is to show that he, the king, prostrated himself before his fatherinlaw, and that he was even more modest than Yitro.

וישתחו וישק לו AND HE PROSTRATED HIMSELF AND KISSED HIM — From the wording of this statement I do not know who prostrated himself to whom! But when it states in the next words: איש לרעהו, “a man to his fellow”, it becomes quite evident; for which of the two is called by the appellation איש, “man”? — This was Moses, as it is said, (Numbers 12:3) “And the man, Moses”. (Thus it was the man (איש) Moses, who bowed down to his fellow (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 18:7:2).

וישתחו, וישק לו, וישאלו איש לרעהו לשלום, “he bowed low, kissed him, and they enquired after each other’s well being.” Rashi wonders who bowed to whom, and concludes that most likely Moses bowed to Yitro, seeing he is the one who is called איש in our verse. While it is true that in another context Yitro is also called איש by the Torah, (Exodus 2,21) (although the איש in that verse applied to someone called רעואל), that was just another name for Yitro. Some commentators point out that seeing we find the description of Moses as והאיש משה on occasion, this means that the word ה)איש) was applied to Moses as an alternate name, this proves that whereas Moses on occasion was simply called איש, Yitro was never called האיש without further identification, i.e. the prefix ו. Personally, I do not think that we need to look for proof as to who bowed to him, as usually the one who comes out to welcome someone is the one who bows to the visitor.

Who is referred to as איש ? That is Moshe. . . Question: Is not Yisro also referred to as איש , as it says (2:21): “Moshe agreed to reside with the man ( איש )”? It seems [the answer is:] The איש written about Moshe is superfluous. It could have said, “Moshe was very humble,” [instead of saying, “The man Moshe was very humble” (Bamidbar 12:3).] Perforce, it is to show that Moshe is called איש . However, “Moshe agreed to reside with the man” is the same as writing, “Moshe agreed to reside with Re’uel,” [i.e., Yisro]. (Nachalas Yaakov)

וישתחו וישק לו, He prostrated himself and kissed him, etc. Our rabbis in the Mechilta say that it was not clear who prostrated himself before whom and who kissed whom. When the Torah wrote איש in "they asked each other how they were," it became clear that Moses prostrated himself as he qualified for the description איש. The fact that the Torah does not mention that two people prostrated themselves makes it plain that only one of the two prostrated himself before the other. Should you argue that Yitro too has been referred to as איש in Exodus 2,21 where Moses is reported as agreeing to stay with Yitro, there is a subtle difference when Moses is called איש and when Yitro is called איש. Let me first explain the precise nature of the title איש, seeing that every male adult is called איש, if only to distinguish him from his female mate. We even find the term איש applied to animals such as in Genesis 7,2 where the Torah speaks of the pure animals which Noach is to take into the ark with him. The meaning of the word איש undergoes a change when it is used together with the name of the person concerned. In such instances it describes that person as someone of breeding and nobility. We find an example of the word איש or אנשים being used as a complimentary description in Numbers 13,3 where the people whom Moses had selected as spies were described as all being אנשים after we had already been told their names. On the other hand, when the word איש is used in lieu of a name it does not denote exceptional qualities such as Genesis 37,15 the man who found Joseph unable to locate his brothers in Shechem. The same applies in Genesis 24,21 where Eliezer is referred to as האיש. We are told in Bamidbar Rabbah 16, that the use of the word אנשים is complimentary only when the actual names of these people are recorded also. When G'd asked Bileam who the אנשים were who had come to him that night, (Numbers 22,9), clearly no compliment was intended. On the other hand, in Exodus 11,3, when Moses is described as האיש משה גדול מאד the word האיש is clearly highly complimentary. The same is true even of Exodus 32,23 when the mixed multitude refer to the fact that Moses had not returned from the Mountain. These people described Moses as the most perfect human being they had ever encountered. In the case of Yitro we do not find that the word איש is applied to him by the Torah in conjunction with his name, only in lieu of his name. When he is referred to in that context, the word האיש, (i.e. a pronoun) has neither a complimentary nor a derogatary meaning. The word is simply one used to describe a male.

האהלה, “into the tent;” the prefix letter ה before this word shows that this tent was a tent well known as Moses’ tent.

ויבואו האוהלה ויספר, “they entered the tent, and Moses told, etc.” This teaches that one does not carry on these kinds of conversations while en route to a destination.

In our verse it is a toss-up if the word איש is used in lieu of a pronoun or if it is a compliment for someone previously mentioned by name and therefore complimentary. The word is positioned between Yitro (actually חתנו) and Moses so that it is extremely difficult to know its meaning. If we are to assume that it is used as a pronoun for a male, both Moses and Yitro could be the subject referred to. It cannot refer to both Moses and Yitro seeing the Torah described only one of the two persons as prostrating himself. At the same time the Torah does not aim to confuse us but to inform us. I believe there is no choice but to understand that the subject is Moses, that the Torah wishes to point out that in spite of Moses being such a highly placed person he prostrated himself before his father-in-law to show him respect and honour.

ויספר משה לחתנו AND MOSES RELATED TO HIS FATHER-IN-LAW [ALL THAT THE LORD HAD DONE] — in order to allure his heart that he might attach him to the Torah (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 18:8).

את אשר עשה ה' לפרעה ולמצרים על אודות ישראל. A reference to G’d performing vengeance as the avenger of His people. Compare Deuteronomy 32,41 for similar syntax used by Moses. when he quotes G’d as saying אשיב נקם לצרי, “vengeance will I wreak on My foes.” This referred to the Egyptians experiencing G’d’s retribution on their own bodies when they drowned in the sea. In Psalms 78,49 the psalmist describes 4, resp. 5 stages of G’d’s anger which the Egyptians had to experience before they died. Tthat verse is the subject of detailed analysis in the Haggadah shel Pessach. These events proved that G’d had chosen the Jewish people as His most treasured possession among the nations.

ויספר משה לחתנו, Moses told his father-in-law, etc. Although the Torah told us that Yitro had heard all that G'd had done, there may have been some details which he had not heard about. Alternatively, Yitro had assumed that what he had heard previously was grossly exaggerated; Moses now explained to him that what he heard was true to the last detail. It is also possible that until Moses told him otherwise Yitro had been under the impression that the Israelites were still vassals of the Egyptians, not totally free. Moses told him of the slaying of the guardian angel of the Egyptians, something that Yitro could not have heard about from any other source as only the Israelites had seen the "dead" guardian angel (Zohar second volume page 52). Once Yitro heard about this he knew that the Egyptians did no longer have any hold over the Israelites.

התלאה אשר מצאתם בדרך, Pharaoh’s pursuit, problems of lack of water and food in the desert, all of which had been solved for them by G’d.

את כל התלאה, “and about all the travail, etc.” Ibn Ezra says that the word תלאה is closely related to the word ונלאו in Exodus 7,18 where the futile search for water by the Egyptians is described as ונלאו מצרים. The letter ת is an additional letter. The whole word describes the frustration experienced when after many efforts one does not succeed in attaining one’s objective.

את כל התלאה, “all the hardship, etc.” this was a reference to the waters having turned bitter at Marah, to the Israelites having run out of dough which they had taken with them from Egypt to make into bread; he told him about their having been attacked by Amalek. He added that in spite of all these hardships which they encountered on the way the Lord had saved them in a critical situation each time.

In order to draw his heart to bring him closer to the Torah. [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, why did Moshe tell him? Yisro already heard everything, as it is written: “Yisro heard. . . about all that Elohim had done” (v. 1).

(Ibid. 8) "And Moses related to his father-in-law: to appeal to his feelings, to draw him near to Torah. "all that the L rd did": in the exodus from Egypt. "all the ordeals that they had undergone": at the Red Sea. "on the way": the war with Amalek. "and the L rd had rescued them": from everything.

V. 8. תלאה von לאה, siehe Kap. 7, 18.

את כל התלאה ALL THE TRAVAIL that they had experienced at the Red Sea, and that caused by Amalek (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 18:8).

את כל התלאה אשר מצאתם בדרך, hunger, thirst, and the unprovoked attack by Amalek.

Perhaps the Torah itself alludes to this with the words את כל התלאה אשר מצאתם בדרך ויצילם השם, "all the travail that had come upon them on the way from which G'd had saved them." Seeing Yitro had been a religious leader he would be familiar with the fact that different nations had guardian angels in the celestial regions; Moses told Yitro about the personal pursuit by that guardian angel and how the Israelites had been very frightened of that guardian angel. When Yitro heard about all this he exclaimed: "blessed be the Lord who has delivered this nation from the hand of Mitzrayim (the guardian angel)."

התלאה — The ל and א are part of the primary form of the word and the ת is a formative letter and a part of the primary form of the noun which sometimes is omitted from it. Similar examples are תרומה and תנופה and תקומה and תנואה.

'ויצילם ה, this demonstrated G’d’s personal concern and involvement in the fate of the Jewish nation. The reason for this could only be that the religious principles as well as their deeds found favour in G’d’s eyes, preparing the way for all of them to serve Him in unison.

ויחד יתרו AND JETHRO REJOICED — This is its literal meaning. A Midrashic comment is: his flesh became full of prickles (חדודין — his flesh crept with horror) — he felt grieved at the destruction of Egypt. That is what people say (what the common proverb says): A proselyte even though his heathen descent dates from as far back as the tenth generation, do not speak slightingly of an Aramean (any non-Jew) in his presence (Sanhedrin 94a).

ויחד יתרו, he did not rejoice over the destruction of Egypt as a major power. This is what he should have done if he had been truly concerned with the honour and glory due to his Creator. We know this from Psalms 58,11. However, he did rejoice over the well being of the Israelites. He behaved like someone whose heart is moved by the tears of the oppressed.

ויחד יתרו על כל הטובה, Yitro rejoiced over all the goodness, etc." Onkelos translates the word ויחד as וחדי, the aramaic word for "he was glad." Why did the Torah have to use an aramaic word in this instance instead of using a Hebrew word familiar to all of us? Although we learned in Sotah 32 that certain sections of the Torah may be read publicly in any language, we still need to know why the Torah chose an aramaic expression here in the original.

ויחד, a word derived from the category חדה, similar to the word חדוה in Chronicles I 16,27 עוז וחדוה, “strength and joy.” The construction follows the rule applicable to all roots of the ב,ג,ד,כ,פ,ת group of consonants (letters which sometimes take a dagesh chazak). They also lose their last root letter as a result of this. (in our verse the letter ה) More examples are the root בכה and the construction ויבך, vayevk, “he cried.” Another well known example is the root שבה, and the construction וישב, vayashav, “he returned.”

ויחד יתרו, “Yitro rejoiced;” Our sages explain the word as describing that when hearing all that Moses told him, Yitro’s flesh broke out in goose pimples, [from the word חד, sharp, prickly, Ed.] It refers to a popular proverb according to which a proselyte, even a tenth generation proselyte, still experiences some kind of pain when hearing about tragedies that befall his former people. Some commentators reject this, saying that not only are we daily witnesses to proselytes and their offspring who are pious Jews in every respect, but Yitro was a first generation proselyte, so where is the comparison to that proverb? The sages who made that comment did not mean to refer to generations, literally, but merely to past associations, the impossibility to rid oneself completely of one’s past, so much so that one no longer feels a shred of sympathy for what has befallen the friends of one’s youth.

His flesh had חדודין חדודין . . . I.e., it became very creased. Rashi knows this because the Torah varied from [the usual term,] וישמח , and wrote ויחד instead.

"And Jethro rejoiced". The verse is saying the happiness of Jethro was because of the goodness to the Jews, and not because of the bad done to the Egyptians. It is based on this idea that the Sages say (quoted by Rashi) that 'his flesh became fulled with prickles, [presumably there is a distinction between Chedva and other languages that also depict happiness. Chedva paints a specific type of inner, spiritual happiness that overpowers an external sadness. This nuanced definition of Chedva is evident in the verse from Nechamia (8:10) "Do not be sad for the Chedva of Hashem is your strength".

(Ibid. 9) "And Yithro rejoiced over all the good": R. Yehoshua says: Scripture speaks of the good of the manna. They said to him: In this manna that the L rd has given us we savor the taste of the loaf, of flesh, of fish, of hoppers, of all the delicacies in the world, it being written "good," "the good," "all the good," "over all the good." R. Elazar Hamodai says: Scripture speaks of the good of the well. They said to him: In the well that the L rd has given us we savor the taste of old wine, of new wine, of milk, of honey, of all the sweets in the world, it being written "good," "the good," "all the good," "over all the good." R. Eliezer says: Scripture speaks of the good of Eretz Yisrael. They said to him: The L rd is destined to give us six good "measures": Eretz Yisrael, the world to come, the kingdom of the House of David, the new world, the (institution of) the Kehunah and that of the Leviyah, it being written "good," "the good," "all the good," "over (adding three to the first three) all the good." (18:10)

V. 9. ויחד von חדה, verwandt mit עדה, geschmückt sein. Während die übrigen Namen der Freude שיש ,שמה, die innere Empfindung bezeichnen, scheint חדה das äußere an den Tag legen der Freude auszudrücken, woher denn eine Ansicht (Sanhedrin 94. a) in diesem Ausdruck zugleich das schmerzliche Gefühl angedeutet findet, dessen sich der midjanitische Priester denn doch nicht über den Untergang Mizrajims erwehren konnte.

ויחד יתרו, according to Rashi, the word ויחד means that Yitro’s flesh broke out in goose-pimples when reflecting on what had happened to Pharaoh and his army. Rashi’s grandson, Rabbeinu Tam, pointed out that Rashi had scriptural proof to support this interpretation. We find the following verse in Chronicles I, 2,35: ויתן ששן את בתו לירחע עבדו לאשה, “Sheshan gave his daughter to his (Egyptian slave) as a wife.” [This Egyptian slave had of course converted before being given a Jewish wife. Ed.] If you count from the word ירחע until the word אלישמע in the verses following the above until verse 41 you will get to Yishmael ben Netanya ben Elishama that there were 13 generations. Deduct 3 generations when Egyptians are not allowed to convert to Judaism and you will find confirmation for the opinion quoted by Rashi, that a convert’s genes do not completely disappear for 10 generations until there is not a trace of his original character that surfaces on occasion. Rashi, quoting a Mechilta, had warned that in the presence of a convert we must not speak in derogatory terms about a gentile unless being certain that the Jew to whom we speak who had had pagan ancestry, was already at least the descendant of nine previous Jewish generations. Yitro, a first generation convert, clearly would feel discomfort when reflecting on the fate that had befallen Pharaoh.

ויחד יתרו, “Yitro rejoiced;” we find this root meaning the same in Psalms 21,7: תחדהו בשמחה, “You gladdened him with the joy (of Your presence)” [A reference to the Messiah having been gladdened. Ed.] [I have not understood what follows concerning the comparison with Numbers 21,1. Ed]

על כל הטובה FOR ALL THE GOODNESS — the goodness in giving the Manna and the well and the Torah — and he rejoiced above all these (more especially), אשר הצילו מיד מצרים THAT HE HAD DELIVERED THEM OUT OF THE HAND OF EGYPT — Until now no slave had ever been able to escape from Egypt because that land was closely shut in on all sides, but these had gone forth six hundred thousand in number (cf. Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 18:11:1).

And above all: That He had rescued them. . . [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, the verse should just say, “Yisro rejoiced,” [and stop there]. For it would refer to the previous verse, “Moshe told his father-in-law. . . all that Hashem had done.” But the phrase “Hashem had rescued them” of the previous verse does not teach us [that being rescued from Egypt was above all]. For there, it was speaking of the means by which they were rescued. [I.e., it was speaking of] what was done to Pharaoh and to Egypt.

It appears that Yitro was so overjoyed when he heard about the total liberation of the Jewish people that his skin broke out in goose-pimples. It is a well known fact that when a person experiences an unexpected overpowering feeling of joy he develops a physical reaction; sometimes he may pass out or even die from shock. Read what I have written on Genesis 45,26 about Jacob's reaction when told that Joseph was still alive. Although Yitro had previously heard part of the good news, the story Moses told him about the death of the guardian angel of Egypt made his skin crawl.

אשר הציל אתכם מיד מצרים WHO HATH DELIVERED YOU OUT OF THE HAND OF EGYPT, a hard people,

BLESSED BE THE ETERNAL, WHO HATH DELIVERED YOU OUT OF THE HAND OF THE EGYPTIANS, AND OUT OF THE HAND OF PHARAOH; WHO HATH DELIVERED THE PEOPLE FROM UNDER THE HAND OF THE EGYPTIANS.⁶⁶The text presents these difficulties: Why is the hand of the Egyptians mentioned twice? Why does Jethro first address himself directly to the people, saying, Who hath delivered you, etc., and then speaks of them in the third person, saying, Who hath delivered the people, etc.? Ramban first presents his interpretation, followed by that of Ibn Ezra. “He has done a great miracle for you in that Pharaoh and his people did not kill you, for it was on account of you that great plagues came upon them in their land.” This miracle was particularly great as far as Moses was concerned [because he frequently came to Pharaoh, as explained above at the end of Verse 1]. Therefore Jethro mentioned him [specifically] in the second person, together with everybody, saying, Who hath delivered you, meaning “you [Moses], and the people.” And He did another miracle: Who hath delivered the people from under the hand of the Egyptians, since they were in Egypt and they went out of there to everlasting freedom.
Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said that Jethro first blessed G-d, Who hath delivered you, meaning Moses and Aaron, through whom the plagues came upon Pharaoh and the Egyptians. Afterwards, he blessed Him for how He hath delivered the people from under the hand of the Egyptians in Egypt and at the sea.

אשר הציל אתכם, you, Moses, and Aaron,

אשר הציל אתכם, a reference to Moses and his brother Aaron;

אשר הציל אתכם מיד מצרים, “Who has saved you from the power of Egypt.” Yitro first praised the Lord Who performed the miracles for Moses personally, who was not brought before Pharaoh’s tribunal for murder or manslaughter, nor for having orchestrated the plagues; secondly, he praised G’d for having saved the entire Jewish nation from such a despotic regime as that of Pharaoh. He considered the latter as perhaps the greatest of the miracles. Ibn Ezra is of the opinion that Yitro first blessed the Lord for having rescued the people as a whole, before directing his attention to personal miracles which G’d performed on behalf of Moses.

אשר הציל אתכם, “who has saved you.” The Torah mentions two separate acts of “saving.” The first was the Israelites having been saved from being enslaved to the Egyptians. The second was the cessation of their slave labour already during the period of the ten plagues. Alternatively, the words: “who has saved you” may refer to the fact that Moses and Aaron individually had escaped the danger inherent in having confronted Pharaoh for a full year.

As Onkelos translates it. . . authority and dominion. . . [Rashi is explaining that “Under the hand of Egypt”] does not mean the same as “From the hand of Egypt” [written at the beginning of the verse]. For that means “from his possession,” as in: “He took all his land from his hand” (Bamidbar 21:26), which Rashi there explains as: “From his possession.” [Rashi here knows that “Under the hand of Egypt” means as Onkelos translates] because otherwise, why [does our verse need] both phrases?

V. 10. אתכם, Mosche und Aaron.

אשר הציל אתכם, “Who has saved you;” the subjects are Moses and Aaron.

ומיד פרעה AND OUT OF THE HAND OF PHARAOH, a hard monarch.

מיד מצרים, by smiting the Egyptians.

מיד מצרים ומיד פרעה, Moses and Aaron had been saved directly from possible harm by Pharaoh, whereas the people had been saved from the servitude to the Egyptians.

מתחת יד מצרים — Translate this as the Targum does: from beneath the authority of Egypt, taking יד as an expression of domination and authority; “the hand” spoken of here is the hand which they imposed heavily upon them — referring to the hard bondage.

ומיד פרעה, every time you came to warn him, i.e. to threaten him.

אשר הציל את העם, the oppressed and enslaved ones.

עתה ידעתי NOW I KNOW — I indeed knew Him formerly, but now I know Him even more (cf. Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 18:11:2).

FOR IT IS IN THE THING THAT ‘ZADU’ UPON THEM. The meaning of this is that in the matter wherein the Egyptians premeditated⁶⁷Ramban thus explains the word zadu on the basis of zadon (premeditated, conscious sin), as is explained further in the text. [their wickedness] against Israel, I [Jethro] now know that the Eternal is greater than all gods. And the purport thereof is as follows: Due to the fact that G-d had decreed upon Israel, and they shall enslave them, and they should afflict them,⁶⁸Genesis 15:13. there would have been no great punishment meted out to the Egyptians. But they acted presumptuously against them, and intended to eradicate them from the world, just as they said, Come, let us deal wisely with them, lest they multiply.⁶⁹Exodus 1:10. Pharaoh commanded the midwives to kill the male children,⁷⁰Ibid., Verse 16. and he decreed upon [all his people, saying], Every son that is born [unto the Israelites] ye shall cast into the river.⁷¹Ibid., Verse 22. It was due to this that there came upon the Egyptians the kind of punishment which utterly destroyed them. It is this principle which is expressed in His words, And also that nation that made slaves of them will I judge,⁷²Genesis 15:14. as I have explained.⁷³Ibid. (Vol. I, pp. 203-205.) Now G-d saw their intentions, and He took vengeance upon them for the wickedness of their hearts. And thus does Scripture say again, And Thou didst show signs and wonders upon Pharaoh… for Thou knowest that they dealt insolently against them,⁷⁴Nehemiah 9:10. for the punishment was because of the wicked plans they devised to carry out against the Israelites. Thus the Eternal looketh on the heart,⁷⁵I Chronicles 16:7. and executeth justice for the oppressed,⁷⁶Psalms 146:7. avengeth and is full of wrath,⁷⁷Nahum 1:2. and no one can deter Him.
Now Onkelos translated [the above Scriptural expression] thus: “for by that very thing with which the Egyptians thought to judge Israel, they themselves were judged.” By this rendition, Onkelos meant to say that their punishment came because of the drowning of the [Hebrew] children in the river, which was not part of the Divine decree, and they shall enslave them, and they shall afflict them.⁶⁸Genesis 15:13. Therefore, He destroyed them by water.

כי בדבר אשר זדו עליהם. G’d saved the people by using the very means the Egyptians had used to harm them to harm their oppressors. The word זדו, past tense, occurs as future tense, יזיד in Exodus 21,14 describing the deliberate commission of a crime, a sin. The sin Yitro had in mind was that G’d had killed the Egyptian firstborn as a retribution for the male babies of the Jewish people having been thrown into the river to drown. (Exodus 1,22). The Egyptians died by drowning just as their victims the Jewish babies had died by drowning. Yitro recognised that the ability to make the punishment fit the crime is what put our G’d in a class all by Himself, unparalleled in any other religion. None of G’d’s agents in the celestial spheres, even, would be able to do this.

עתה ידעתי כי גדול ה׳ מכל האלוקים, "Now I know that the Lord is greater than all gods;" Yitro acknowledged that although all other nations have spiritual representatives in the celestial regions, some of whom are very powerful and both protect their protegees and assist them in their wars, they do not exact retribution from the adversaries of their protegees as does G'd. Only G'd operates on the principle of the punishment fitting the crime. Only the G'd of Israel would drown people who themselves had drowned others, etc. When the celestial representatives of other nations act in defense of their protegees one cannot recognise this as what happens to their adversaries seems totally unrelated to what these people had perpetrated. In the case of the G'd of Israel, every one of the plagues He brought upon Egypt was retribution for a specific wrong committed by that people and their king.

מכל האלוהים. None of these other deities has the power to avenge their worshipers from unjust sufferings they have endured.

כי בדבר אשר זדו עליהם, “for He retaliated in the manner which corresponded to their deliberate sins.” Yitro explains that what had convinced him of the superiority of the G’d of Israel, was not that He punished the Egyptians for their unspeakable crimes, but for the manner in which G’d made the punishment fit the crime. Nachmanides writes that G’d only punished the Egyptians for the excess cruelty with which they drowned innocent infants, and that they made the work imposed on the adults intolerably and unnecessarily onerous. The fact that the Egyptians enslaved the Israelites and demanded that they perform hard labour was not a culpable offense.

עתה ידעתי כי גדול ה' מכל האלו-הים כי בדבר אשר זדו עליהם, “now I know that Hashem is greater than any deity for with the matter wherein they sinned He came upon them.” Yitro meant the factor which convinced him of the superiority of Hashem to any other deity was the matching of the punishment to the crime committed. Had the Egyptians not committed sins they would not have been punished for fulfilling G’d’s decree that the Jews be strangers or even bondsmen in Egypt. This had been decreed already in Genesis 15,13. They sinned by adding זדו. They decreed that every male Jewish baby be drowned; hence G’d paid them back by drowning them. G’d had never decreed for any of Avraham’s descendants to be murdered. The word כי is prelude to recognition that the Egyptians must have sinned. Their punishment by water gave Yitro the clue to the nature of their sin. We find a similar construction in Nechemyah 9,10 כי ידעת כי הזידו עליהם, “for You were aware that they had deliberately sinned against them.”

I was aware of Him in the past. . . [How does Rashi know this?] Because Rashi is answering the question: עתה is in the present tense. [Why is it followed by] ידעתי , which is in the past tense? Therefore Rashi explains, “I was aware of Him in the past, but now. . .” Alternatively, Rashi is answering the question: In 2:16, [Rashi explained] that Yisro had abandoned idolatry. Why then does it say here, “Now I know”? Perforce it means, “Now, all the more so.” [Another approach:] Re”m explains that it is because the verse does not say, “Now I know Hashem, and He is greater than all. . ..” Thus we may infer that Yisro knew Him in the past. But only now, after all these deeds [of Hashem], he recognized that His power is greater than that of all the gods.

V. 11. Dem Zusammenhange nach ist zu בדבר das ידעתי aus dem Vordersatze zu ergänzen. Er hat Gottes Größe gerade aus Tatoffenbarungen erkannt, die zeigten, wie Der, der sie schickte, das ganze Innere der Ägypter in ihren Beziehungen zu Israel durchschaute und dies durch die über sie verhängten Leiden und Strafen an den Tag legte. Jitro erkannte, wie alle die über Mizrajim gekommenen Plagen in engster Beziehung zu den Grundanschauungen des גרות עבדות und ענוי standen אשר זדו עליהם, die sie über Israel zu verhängen die Absicht hatten, wie wir dies in den Plagegruppen darzulegen versuchten. Diese Plagen offenbarten ihm daher Gott nicht nur als eine allerhöchste Macht, sondern als den die Tiefen der Menschen, Völker und Fürsten durchschauenden, durch seine Waltungen lehrenden und erziehenden Gott. Nicht nur die Hoheit, die Nähe Gottes, כי אני ד׳ בקרב הארץ ,כי לד׳ הארץ, ist das Charakteristische, ist die Größe, die Gott von allen Göttern unterscheidet, und die eben hebt hier Jitro hervor. Darum spricht er auch das bedeutungsvolle ברוך aus, das ja das unmittelbare Korrelat dieses Bewusstseins der die Menschheit prüfenden und wägenden Gottesnähe ist. In ברוך gibt sich eben der Mensch mit seiner sittlich freien Tat der Erfüllung des Gott Wohlgefälligen hin. (Siehe Bamidbar 14, 19). Der von Jitro erkannte Charakter der Golteswaltung wird von den Weisen durch מדה במדה, d. h. durch jenes Prinzip ausgedrückt, nach welchem in der Strafe der wesentliche Charakter des Verbrechens zu Tage tritt. (Siehe Sota 8 b u. ff.)

כי בדבר אשר זדו עליהם; Yitro explains what had prompted him to say that he now realises that the G-d of the Israelites is greater than any other deity. The reason is that when analysing the method by which G-d imposes penalties on the sinners, it becomes evident that the punishment matches the sin committed. The Egyptians’ crime had been that they drowned the Jewish babies; they had been punished by being drowned themselves. In Nechemya, chapter 9, where when a celebration of the Sukkot festival, after a Day of Atonement on which the people confessed their collective sin in Jerusalem is described in detail, the author also describes the greatness of G-d as being reflected in the manner in which punishment matches the sins committed. (verse 10)

מכל האלהים [GREATER] THAN ALL THE GODS — This tells us that he had a full knowledge of every idol in the world — that he left no idol unworshipped by him (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 18:11:1).

כי בדבר, meaning that G’d requited for every sin committed by the Egyptians in an appropriate and fitting manner. This is the basic meaning of the insight Yitro had now gained.

He did not leave any idol. . . Otherwise, how would he know [that Hashem is greater than all the gods]? You might object: Referring to Dovid Hamelech it is written, “For I know that Hashem, our Master, is greater than all gods” (Tehillim 135:5). Re”m answers: Dovid knew it through practical exploration rather than logical explanation. Whereas Yisro said, “Now I know.” I.e., he knew this because of all the deeds that Hashem [just now] did. It was not through the wonders [that He performed]. If so, how did Yisro know this? Perforce, by [comparing Hashem’s deeds to that which he knew from previous] exploration. Another answer: Here it is written, “Yisro said, ‘I know that Hashem is greater than all the gods.’” Due to the definite article, it means: “. . .Greater than all the gods, who are known to me and to no one else.” How did Yisro know this to be true? Perhaps someone else also explored, as he did, and also has this knowledge. Perforce, [Yisro knew this to be true] because “Yisro did not leave any idol unworshipped.” [But Dovid said, “Greater than all gods,” without the definite article.]

זוד verwandt mit צוד ,סור ( siehe 1. B. M. 10, 9) heißt: einen bösen Vorsatz fassen על־ gegen jemanden. So וכי יזד איש על רעהו להרגו (Kap. 21, 14).

כי בדבר אשר זדו עליהם — Understand this as the Targum does for by that very thing with which the Egyptians thought to judge Israel were they themselves judged — they had thought to destroy them by water and they were themselves destroyed by water (cf. Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 18:11:2).

In the pot in which they cooked, they were cooked. . . [Rashi knows this] because it is not written אשר הרשיעו , [the more usual term. An alternative approach:] It seems to me that Rashi is answering the question: Why did our Sages (Sotah 11a) use cooking in a pot for their analogy? They could have said, “They fell into the pit that they themselves dug,” using Scripture’s own analogy in Koheles 10:8! Perforce, it is because they understood זדו as in ויזד יעקב נזיד (Bereishis 25:29).

אשר זדו means in which they had shown themselves wicked. Our Rabbis, however, explained it in the same sense as the root which we find in (Genesis 25:29) “And Jacob was boiling (ויזד) pottage (נזיד) (lit., something boiled)” — in the pot wherein they had boiled, therein were they themselves boiled (Sotah 11a).

עלה — Translate this according to its usual meaning: a burnt-offering, which was burnt entire and completely.

AND JETHRO, MOSES’ FATHER-IN-LAW, TOOK A BURNT-OFFERING AND SACRIFICES FOR G-D. All this took place before they came to Mount Sinai.⁷⁸See above at the beginning of this Seder, where Ramban develops at length his explanation that Jethro, having arrived at the mount of G-d, sent a messenger to Moses in Rephidim, informing him of his arrival. Moses thereupon went out to meet him and brought him to Rephidim, where this feast took place. It was thus before Israel’s arrival at Mount Sinai that all this took place. It is also possible to explain that Scripture arranged the entire narrative of Jethro [in one section] even though this particular event occurred after he had stayed with the Israelites a long time and, in the meantime, became converted through circumcision, immersion, and the sprinkling of the blood of a sacrifice, according to the law.⁷⁹Kerithoth 9a. When the Sanctuary or Tabernacle was in existence, a proselyte entered into the covenant with G-d by means of circumcision, immersion, and the sprinkling of the blood of a sacrifice. Since the destruction of the Sanctuary, only circumcision and immersion are required. These three things were all present at the Giving of the Torah. Circumcision was performed already in Egypt, as is evidenced by the verse, and no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof, i.e., of the Passover-offering (above, 12:48). Immersion is mentioned further (19:10), and so is the bringing of a sacrifice (24:5). At the time of the Sanctuary, immersion and a sacrifice were required of a female proselyte. Nowadays, immersion alone is the prerequisite to her entrance into the covenant. See Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Isueri Biah, Chapter 13, for further eludication of these principles. See also Ramban further, 19:10.

עולה וזבחים לאלוקים. This was intended as a symbol of Yitro’s acceptance of the yoke of Heaven. A similar symbolic acceptance is found in Kings II 5,17 when the general Naaman undertakes never again to offer such sacrifices as עולה וזבחים to any deities other than the G’d in heaven.

ויקח יתרו… עולה וזבחים, Yitro took total offerings and meat offerings, etc. Yitro was clever in offering numerous peace offerings. He did this in order to be able to play host to many Jewish dignitaries. This is the reason it does not say: "he invited Aaron and the elders," but "Aaron and the elders came to eat with Moses' father-in-law before the Lord." They did not need to await an invitation because the quantity of Yitro's offerings spoke for itself. He certainly would not have allowed all this meat to go to waste as it would have been forbidden to do so. The elders honoured Yitro by joining him without a personal invitation being extended to them.

ויבא אהרן וכל זקני ישראל לאכול לחם עם חתם משה, in honour of the arrival of Yitro they all came to the meal. There was no need to mention that Moses also participated as the meal was served in his tent, he being the host.

ויקח יתרו חותן משה עולה וזבחים, “Yitro, Moses’ father-in-law purchased burnt offerings and meat offerings.” According to Nachmanides all this occurred before the people had come to Mount Sinai. It is also possible that what is reported here occurred long after the revelation, i.e. after Yitro had undergone a formal conversion and Moses had been on the Mountain several times.

ויקח יתרו חותן משה עולה וזבחים לאלו-הים, “Yitro, Moses’ father-in-law took burnt offering and meat offering for G’d.” This is the only time when we find the Torah mentioning the attribute אלו-הים in connection with sacrifices. Everyhwere else we have the attribute Hashem in connection with sacrificial offerings to G’d. Yitro had not yet become aware of that dimension of G’d; hence he had to address the attribute he was aware of. Moses tried to educate him in this respect when he told him in verse 8 about what Hashem had done to Pharaoh on account of the Jewish people. Yitro’s motivation in coming, significantly, referred to what אלו-הים had done for Moses (verse 1).

V. 12. Obgleich es nicht heißt לד׳, so bürgt doch die Teilnahme Aarons und der Ältesten dafür, dass die Opfer dem einen einzigen Gott geweiht waren. עולה וזבחים, ein Opfer der Hingebung und Opfer der Freude. — שלמים ,זבחים :לפני האלקי׳, bei welchen von dem zuerst Gott dargebrachten Tiere der größere Teil dem Darbringenden selbst wieder zum Genuss zurückkommt und dadurch die Wahrheit bestätigt wird, dass eine Gottes würdige Genussesfreude selbst Gottesdienst wird, laden den Opfernden gleichsam bei Gott zu Tische, משלחן גבוה קא זכו, und das Mahl wird im Angesichte Gottes eingenommen. Aaron; und die Ältesten waren zu Tische, Mosche — in dessen Zelte ja das Opfermahl war — wartete als Wirt den Gästen auf, wie die Weisen bemerken.

עולה וזבחים, ”burnt offerings and meat offerings” (the latter to be consumed by the owners of those animals and their guests). Both types of offerings were in the nature of thanksgiving offerings.

וזבחים AND SACRIFICES — i. e. peace-offerings.

AND AARON CAME, AND ALL THE ELDERS OF ISRAEL, TO EAT BREAD. That is, with Jethro in the day of his espousals,⁸⁰Song of Songs 3:11. [i.e., in the day of his entrance into the covenant with G-d], for he was then as a newly-circumcised child.

לאכול לחם עם חותן משה, to rejoice with him on his entry into the select circle of those who serve the only true G’d, the Creator of the universe. He joined the ranks of those who are described by David in Psalms 149 as ישמח ישראל בעושיו, “Israel rejoices in Him Who has proved to be its Creator.”

ויבוא אהרן וכל זקני ישראל לאכול לחם, “Aaron and all the elders of Israel came to have a meal, etc.” This was a meal in honour of Yitro’s conversion and circumcision. We know from Tzipporah (Exodus 4,26), that she considered the circumcision as an allegorical marriage between the newly circumcised Jew and his Creator.

עם חותן משה לפני האלו-הים, “with Moses’ father-in-law in the presence of G’d.” The words: “in the presence of G’d,” mean “in front of the משכן, residence, of G’d.” Seeing that there was not yet a Tabernacle, the meaning is “in front of the pillar of cloud or pillar of fire which symbolised G’d’s residence on earth.” The meal described here was prepared in honour of Yitro’s conversion, circumcision, and ritual immersion. There can be no question that this festive meal, just like the meal Yitzchak had eaten prior to bestowing blessings, was designed to enhance the joy of the souls of the participants so that they would be granted Holy Spirit. We have explained on other occasions already that true spiritual joy is dependent on one’s body feeling well. When one’s physical powers are at their best such feelings transfer themselves also to the soul and enhance its ability to feel at its best. This has been documented in Kings II 3,15 by the prophet Elisha who demanded to be entertained by a musician in order to raise his spirit to the level of prophetic insights.

ויבא אהרן וכל זקני ישראל, “Aaron and all the elders of Israel came (to partake in the meal) Moses did not need to “come,” seeing the offerings were consumed in his tent. The other dignitaries came in honour of Yitro, Moses’ fatherinlaw.

ויבא אהרן וגו׳ AND AARON CAME, etc. — But where had Moses gone? Was it not he who had gone out to meet him and had been the cause of all the honour shown to him? But the explanation why he is not mentioned as having come to eat bread with Jethro is that he was standing by and waiting upon them (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 18:12:2).

לפני האלוקים. in front of the altar on which they offered these sacrifices. It is not clear if this was the altar Moses had built after the victory over Amalek (in the event Yitro had arrived before the revelation at Mount Sinai) or if it had been another altar whose erection had not been especially mentioned by the Torah. At any rate, the consuming of the offerings known as זבחים, “meat-offerings,” took place within view of the altar.

לפני האלוקים, “before G’d.” Nachmanides explains the word לפני in terms of location, i.e. that Moses’ personal tent was situated to the east of the Tabernacle.

לפני האלוקים, according to the plain meaning the word לפני means the same as מלפני, ‘to take part in what had been offered in the presence of the Lord,” i.e. the meat offerings. [The burnt offering was always completely burned up on the altar. Ed.]

לפני האלהים BEFORE GOD — From this statement that they were “before God” we may learn that one who takes part in (more lit., who has enjoyment from) a meal at which scholars sit may be regarded as though he has enjoyment from the splendour of the Shechina (Berakhot 64a; cf. Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 18:12:3).

ויהי ממחרת AND IT CAME TO PASS ON THE MORROW — This was really the day after the Day of Atonement: so have we learnt in Siphré (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 18:13:1). Since the Day of Atonement is not mentioned anywhere in this section that deals with the Giving of the Law what is the force of ממחרת? i. e. in relation to what particular day in the history of the Law-giving is the term ממחרת, “on the morrow”, used? It means the morrow after he (Moses) descended from the Mount Sinai, and you must admit that it is impossible to say that this was any other day but the morrow after the Day of Atonement because, before the giving of the Torah, one could not say, (v. 16) “and I do make them know the statutes [of God and His laws]” (which are part of the Torah), and from the day when the Torah was given until the Day of Atonement Moses did not sit down to judge the people, since immediately after the Torah was given he ascended the mountain and descended only on the seventeenth of Tammuz when he broke the tablets in pieces. On the next day he again ascended the mountain early in the morning and stayed there eighty days, descending on the Day of Atonement (cf. Tanchuma כי תשא, Rashi on 33:11, Deuteronomy 9:18 and 10:1). Consequently this section is not written (placed) in its chronological order, for this paragraph commencing with ויהי ממחרת and ending with “Moses let his father-in-law go and he (Jethro) went his way into his own land” was not said before the second year after the Exodus. For even according to the view of one who says that Jethro came to Moses before the giving of the Torah (Avodah Zarah 24a) his dismissal into his own land did not take place until the second year, for it is stated here (v. 27) “Moses let his father-in-law go”, and we find in the account of Israel’s journey through the wilderness beneath their banners (which according to Numbers 10:11 began in the second year) that Moses said to him, (Numbers 10:29, 31) “We are journeying etc…. Forsake us not, I pray thee”. Now if this incident happened before the giving of the Torah (including Jethro’s departure) where do we find it related that he returned after he had let him go and he had taken departure? And if you object that there (in the section in Numbers which Rashi has quoted as evidence that Jethro’s departure took place in the second year) it does not mention Jethro at all but Hobab, and that the latter was not Jethro but the son of Jethro, then I reply that Hobab is identical with Jethro and not his son, because it is written, (Judges 4:11) “of the sons of Hobab, the father-in-law of Moses”.

AND IT CAME TO PASS ON THE MORROW, i.e., on the morrow of the day on which they held the above-mentioned [feast], THAT MOSES SAT TO JUDGE THE PEOPLE. In the Mechilta, the Rabbis have said:⁸¹Mechilta on the verse here. “On the morrow. That is, on the morrow after the Day of the Atonement.” Now the intent of the Rabbis was not that on the morrow alludes to the Day of Atonement, for Scripture has not mentioned the Day of Atonement at all that it should now refer to it by saying on the morrow thereof. Nor is the term on the morrow to be understood literally, [i.e., the day after the Day of Atonement], for they did not eat on the Day of Atonement, that is, if they observed such a day in the first year before they were commanded concerning it.⁸²“It is impossible to say that they observed the Fast of the Atonement in that first year, since the people were not commanded therein until Moses came down from Mount Sinai for the third time, which was on the Day of Atonement itself” (Mizrachi). Moreover, it was on the Day of Atonement that the second Tablets of the Law were given. On the following day, Moses came and he spoke to the children of Israel, and he gave them in commandment all that the Eternal had spoken with him in Mount Sinai.⁸³Further, 34:32. It thus could not have been a day on which he sat to judge the people, when the people stood about him from the morning unto the evening. It is also impossible to say that this was on the morrow of the Day of Atonement of the second year, for after the Israelites journeyed [from Sinai on the twentieth day of Iyar in the second year (Numbers 10:11)], Hobab [i.e., Jethro], said, I will depart to mine own land, and to my kindred.⁸⁴Numbers 10:30. And even according to what Ramban has written above on Verse 1, i.e., that Jethro listened to Moses’ plea to stay with Israel and he did not leave them, it is nevertheless obvious that at that time, he intended to leave them. The narrative contained in this section concerning Jethro’s advice to Moses on the delegation of power in the administration of justice, could thus logically not have taken place on the morrow after the Day of Atonement in the second year, some four and a half months after they journeyed from Mount Sinai (Kur Zahab).
Rather, the intent of this Beraitha, [i.e., the Mechilta quoted above, “on the morrow after the Day of Atonement”], is that it was some day after the Day of Atonement, since Moses had no free day on which to sit in judgment from the day they came to Mount Sinai until after the Day of Atonement of that first year.⁸⁵Immediately after the Torah was given on the sixth day of Sivan, Moses ascended the mountain and remained there for forty days. When he descended on the seventeenth of Tammuz and found the people worshipping the golden calf, he broke the Tablets. On the next day, he again ascended the mountain to pray for G-d’s forgiveness, and stayed there forty days, which terminated on the twenty-ninth day of Ab. On the following day, he was told to come up to the mountain to receive the second Tablets. He again spent forty days there. Consequently, this forty-day period terminated on the tenth of Tishri, which is the Day of Atonement. Thus, from the time the Torah was given till after the Day of Atonement in the first year, Moses had no free day on which to sit in judgment, as is described in this section of the Torah. For the sources on the above dates, see Rashi here, and in more detail, further, 33:11, and Deuteronomy 9:18.

ויעמוד העם על משה, waiting till he would find time to address their individual problems after he had finished dealing with the collective problems pertaining to the whole community and had finished listening to the people’s dignitaries.

לשפוט את העם. Even if we accept the opinion that Moses had arrived at the encampment of the Jewish people before the revelation at Mount Sinai, mundane matters had been subject of judgment all the time. Any disagreement concerning people’s property needed adjudication. While it is true that at Marah, prior to the revelation at Sinai, not only social laws but also some ritual laws had been revealed (Exodus 15,25), the opinion that Yitro arrived after the revelation at Mount Sinai is more plausible seeing that we read here of the Israelites being encamped at the Mountain of G’d (verse 5). Moreover, chapter 19 commences with the words: “In the third month after the Exodus on the first of the month the Israelites entered the desert of Sinai after having journeyed from Refidim.” It is clear from there that what happened at Refidim and the encampment at Mount Sinai occurred before what is discussed in our paragraph, but that this paragraph was inserted here in order not to interrupt the portions dealing with all the commandments which commence in chapter 21 after the revelation at Mount Sinai.

ויהי ממחרת, “It came to pass on the morrow, etc.” According to Rashi the “morrow” was the day after the Day of Atonement, the day when the building of the Tabernacle was authorized. Rashi took his cue from the Mechilta. Nachmanides does not believe that the author of the Mechilta referred to the Day of Atonement, seeing that we had not been told about the existence of a “Day of Atonement,” how could the Torah have referred to this day as the day after a date which did not yet have a significant meaning in the Jewish calendar? Even if that day had already existed as a Fast Day, how could the Torah refer to the day after this meal as the day after Yom Kippur, seeing that the meal we have been told about surely was not consumed on Yom Kippur? Furthermore, according to tradition, Moses brought the Jewish people the second set of tablets on that day. It also could not refer to the day after Yom Kippur of the second year, as by then Yitro had already gone home to his people. The people had moved away from Mount Sinai on the 20th day of Iyar in the second year and Yitro had declined Moses’ invitation to journey with the people (Numbers 10,11, and 10,29). Furthermore, assuming we are speaking about the very day after Moses had come down with the second set of tablets, when had he had a chance to establish the pattern of judging the people which Yitro objected to, seeing that ever since the giving of the Torah up until then, when he had ascended the Mountain for 3 times 40 days, there would not have been a single day available for him to teach the people the laws of the Torah, as he told his father-in-law that he was doing on a regular basis? We must assume that the Mechilta does not refer literally to the day after the first Yom Kippur, but to some time thereafter, as distinct to this having occurred prior to the revelation at Mount Sinai over 4 months earlier. If we assume that Yitro had arrived at the encampment of the people before the giving of the Torah, what the Mechilta had in mind was the day on which Yitro personally obtained atonement, i.e when he converted to Judaism, offered his sacrifices, etc, he was forgiven for the heathen practices he had been guilty of up until that day. [the wording of the author of the Mechilta (Rabbi Yishmael) suggests that he neither wants to decide in favour either of the opinion of Rabbi Yoshua that Yitro arrived as a result of hearing about the defeat of Amalek, nor does he want to come out in favour of the opinion of Rabbi Eleazar Hamoda-i that Yitro arrived at the camp after the giving of the Torah.. Ed.] As to Moses having told his father-in-law that he informs the people about G’d’s statutes, etc., (18,15-16), we must assume that he had referred to the laws revealed by G’d while the people had been encamped at Marah. If we accept Rashi’s commentary then this whole portion [as several others. Ed.] was not written as a chronological account of what happened in the desert, seeing that according to his view the words ויהי ממחרת cannot be applied to the first year of the Israelites’ being in the desert. I have not understood what he means when he says that the time was the day after the first Yom Kippur. Perhaps what he meant was that the verse describing Moses as bidding good bye to his father-in-law (verse 27) must have occurred in the second year. By contrast then, he meant to emphasize that when the Torah spoke about ויהי ממחרת, that this referred to events during the first year.

And to what does ממחרת refer. . . It cannot refer to the day after they ate and drank [as mentioned in v. 12. For if so,] the Torah would not be using this as an indication [when this event took place], for we still do not know on what day [they ate and drank]! Perforce, it was the day after Moshe’s descent from the mountain. And [the date of] descending the mountain is clearly understood from the Torah [as Rashi explains].

(Exodus 18:13) "And it was on the morrow that Moses sat to judge the people.": on the morrow of Yom Kippur (after Moses had descended with the second tablets.) "from morning to evening": Now did Moses judge Israel from morning to evening? Do not judges judge only until the time of eating? We are hereby taught that if one judges a judgment of truth Scripture accounts it to him as if he were a partner with the Holy One Blessed be He in the creation, of which it is written (Genesis 1) "and it was evening and it was morning."

VV. 13. —15. In diesen und den folgenden Versen gewinnen wir eine Idee von dem Lagerleben unserer Väter während der vierzig Jahre der Wanderung in der Wüste. Bei der einfachen, leicht und kurz zu bewältigenden Tätigkeit für die tägliche durch Manna versorgte Nahrung, bei der von Mosche Dewarim 8, 4. 29, 4, 5 und 2,7. gegebenen Schilderung hinsichtlich ihrer übrigen Bedürfnisse, müssen wir uns sagen: der bei weitem größte Teil ihrer Tageszeit war von keiner sonst ein Volksleben mit Industrie, Handel und häuslicher Arbeit ausfüllenden Tätigkeit in Anspruch genommen. Was füllte ihre Zeit aus? Sie kamen zu Mosche oder zu den, wie uns eben hier berichtet werden soll, ihn vertretenden Männern דרש אלקים .לדרש אלקים, wie bereits zu Bereschit 25, 22 entwickelt, heißt: von Gott Belehrung und Hilfe suchen, umfasst somit alle Beziehungen, in welchen wir mit unserm Taten- und Geschickesleben zu Gott stehen und uns erhalten müssen, wenn Gott unser Gott sein soll. Es ist somit die allumfassendste Gottesanforderung, die der Prophet in den Worten ausspricht: דרשוני וחיו (Amos 5, 4), und דורשי ד׳ zu sein ein Titel, dessen würdig zu werden, mit unserm ersten bewussten Atemzuge unsere Aufgabe zu sein beginnt und erst mit unserm letzten Atemzuge endet. Indem aber Lehre und Hilfe von Gott suchen mit "Gott suchen" ausgedrückt wird, so ist damit die beseligende Wahrheit ausgesprochen, dass mit der Lehre und der Hilfe, die wir bei Gott suchen, wir Gott selber finden, Gott selber für den Kreis unserer kleinen und kleinsten Lebensbeziehungen gewinnen, Gott einführen in unser irdisches Dasein und unser ganzes Sein göttlich gestalten, wie Gott gesprochen: ועשו לי מקדש ושכנתי בתוכם. Die Zeit der Wüstenwanderung war daher die hohe Schule des jüdischen Volkes. Die Kenntnis der Gotteslehre in alle Schichten des Volkes zu verbreiten, war ihre Arbeit für alle kommenden Jahrhunderte; das Volk umstand Mosche von morgens bis abends, und er gibt V. 15 dessen Zweck im allgemeinen an: es kommt zu mir לדרש אלקי׳.

ויהי ממחרת, “It happened on the following day, etc.” according to Rashi, this was the day following Yom Kippur, on which day Moses had returned from Mount Sinai for the third time and after G–d had forgiven the sin of the golden calf, and he had brought down with him a second set of Tablets inscribed by G–d Himself. Rashi is forced to explain it in this way as there had not been time between the revelation at Mount Sinai on the sixth day of Sivan, for Moses to have sat down to deal with the people’s personal problems, as on the day after the revelation he had been invited to the top of the mountain where he spent 40 days studying the Torah, and when he descended with the first set of tablets which he smashed when seeing the people dance around the golden calf, and his spontaneous return to the mountain to ask G–d to forgive the people seeing that they had cleansed themselves from their sin as best as they could, and the active idol worshippers had been executed. He had been invited to ascend the mountain again and bring with him a set of Tablets which he had carved out of the rock himself, and on which G–d had inscribed the text of the Ten Commandments a second time. These events have not been recorded in the Torah in their chronological order just as the events culminating in the Israelites departing from Mount Sinai have not been recorded in their chronological order; We read in Numbers 10,29 about Moses entreating Yitro to remain with the Jewish people, something that could not have occurred until the second month of the second year, as he speaks about the impending journey of the people and these are recorded as having broken camp on the twentieth day of that month. When Yitro is described as advising Moses to appoint delegates to function as judges of civil cases, this is reported in Exodus chapter eighteen, before the revelation had been reported. Moses could certainly not have sat down judging the people before the Torah had been revealed to him. Rashi therefore accepted the version of the Talmud tractate Zevachim folio 116, according to which Yitro had not arrived in the camp until after the revelation, i.e. after Yom Kippur, as how could Moses have had time to welcome him, eat with him, etc., between the revelation and the Day of Atonement, i.e. the tenth of Tishrey? Furthermore, as argued in the Tanchuma, G–d did not see why seeing the people had undergone hundreds of years of hardship in order to qualify for the revelation at Mount Sinai. Yitro who during all these years had lived tranquilly in Midian, should be granted the same privilege without having done much to earn it? [According to our tradition the privilege of being present at the revelation is one of three privileges that must be earned by having gone through יסורים, great hardships.

ויהי ממחרת, “it was on the morrow;” according to the plain meaning of the text the day referred to is the day following the meal just described. The previous day had been spent in honouring Yitro so that Moses did not have time to sit and judge the people’s complaints. Rashi’s explanation of the word ממחרת commences with the words that it was the day after the Day of Atonement when Moses had returned from Mount Sinai for the thirdtime. [This would have been way after the sin of the golden calf. Ed.] You might ask how it was possible for Moses to sit in judgment of the people at such a time, when all their sins had just been forgiven, and especially in view of the fact that the Torah testifies that immediately after Moses’ return on that occasion Moses assembled the people (Exodus 35,1) and after briefly explaining that the building of the Tabernacle which was to commence forthwith did not override the work prohibitions of the Sabbath, and that that work was completed already on the 25th day of Kislev of the same year (second year after the Exodus), we must understand the line describing Moses as sitting judging the people, does not refer to all the people who had problems lining up at that time, [after Moses for over 120 days had not spent a single full day in the camp since his ascent to Sinai to receive the first set of the Tablets. Ed]. He dealt only with the problems of the individuals who were not busy with donating for the Tabernacle or helping Betzalel in its construction. Rashi himself, in his commentary on Exodus 34,2932, comments that after descending from the Mountain, Moses sat down to teach Torah to all those not preoccupied with the building of the Tabernacle. Rashi in his commentary on our verse here writes: “this paragraph has not been written (or inserted) in the chronological order of events, seeing that the words: ויהי ממחרת, seeing that Moses did not part with Yitro who returned home until the second year of the Israelites wanderings as we know from Numbers 10,29, something even admitted by the scholars who claim that Yitro had arrived at the camp of the Jewish people already before the revelation at Mount Sinai.” If the lines in Number 10,29 referred to an event before the revelation, why did the Torah not record that Yitro did not even stay for that event? Moreover, when we read in Judges 4,11, that the descendants of Yitro at that time had lived near Kedesh near the shores of the sea of Galilee, how come that their even leaving their homeland Midian was not mentioned anywhere? (part of Rashi on our verse) Our author continues: Yitro, in Numbers definitely declined Moses’ offer of becoming part of the Jewish people, when he said: “I will not go (with you).” (Numbers 10,30) If this statement were to apply to a point in time before the revelation, i.e. that our paragraph describes events before the revelation, what was the point of Moses being quoted as debating Yitro’s remaining with the Israelites at a time at least a year later?We have a verse in Proverbs 14,10: לב יודע מרת נפשו ובשמחתו לא יתערב זר, “the heart knows of its soul’s bitterness; a stranger does not share its joy.” Our sages in an early version of Midrash Tanchuma, interpreted this verse to mean that G-d did not want that Yitro should share the joy of the Jewish people at the time of the revelation at Mount Sinai, as this was reserved for the people who had endured the hardships of slavery at the hands of the Egyptians. At any rate, Moses did not bid farewell to Yitro at the time discussed here. If he had come to the Jewish camp prior to the revelation, then he had had to temporarily withdraw during these days before rejoining the Israelites for almost another year. As soon as he returned from his temporary absence he observed Moses teaching the Torah, and he questioned the fact that the people had to stand, and that Moses had not appointed any delegates at all. When we read in verse 27 of our chapter that Moses bade his fatherinlaw farewell, and the Torah adds that he returned to his homeland, it is clear that he had bid him farewell once before when Yitro had not yet returned to his homeland.

וישב משה וגו׳ ויעמד העם MOSES SAT … AND THE PEOPLE STOOD He was sitting like a king and they all stood, and the thing was distasteful to Jethro in that he made light of the respect due to Israel. He therefore reproved him for this, as it is said (v. 14) “Why sittest thou only” — and they all stand! (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 18:14)

Scripture says, a burnt-offering and sacrifices to G-d,⁸⁶Above Verse 12. because Jethro did not yet know the Eternal. It was Moses who said, all that the Eternal had done unto Pharaoh and to the Egyptians for Israel’s sake… and how the Eternal delivered them,⁸⁷Ibid., Verse 8. but Jethro sacrificed to Elokim (G-d). You will not find this concerning any of the sacrifices in Torath Kohanim (the law of the priests) [i.e., the Book of Leviticus], as I will explain with the help of G-d.⁸⁸Leviticus 1:9. Similarly, Because the people come unto me to inquire of G-d… and I make them know the statutes of G-d,⁸⁹Further. Verses 15-16. are the words of Moses to his father-in-law, [who did not yet know the Eternal]. It is possible that Moses spoke to him thus, [using the name Elokim and not the Tetragrammaton], because of the verse which states, for the judgment is G-d’s,⁹⁰Deuteronomy 1:17. just as our Rabbis always mention:⁹¹Bereshith Rabbah 73:2. “Elokim (G-d): this is the attribute of justice.”

מן הבקר עד הערב, seeing he was the only judge and he had no assistants.

Even according to one who says that Yisro came before the giving of the Torah. . . According to the view that Yisro came after the giving of the Torah, the parsha obviously is not recorded in order. Since [the giving of the Torah is not stated until the next chapter,] even the beginning of the parsha — when Yisro came — is not in order. Rather, Rashi is explaining that even if Yisro came before the Torah, it still is not in order. Until this verse the sequence is indeed in order, but from here on, it is not.

וישב משה לשפוט, Moses sat down in order to hand down judgments or rulings; whenever we encounter the term וישב, it refers to someone who sat down in the expectation that he would remain seated for a longer period. An example of this is found in Deuteronomy 1,46, where it meant that the Israelites stayed in Kadesh about 19 years.

מן הבקר עד הערב FROM MORNING UNTO EVENING — Is it really possible to say so — that Moses sat the whole day long? But the explanation is that any judge who gives a rightful decision as truth demands it, even though he spends but one hour on it, Scripture accounts it to him as though he had occupied himself with the Torah the whole day long, and as though he became co-partner with the Holy One, blessed be He, in the work of the Creation of which it is stated, “It was evening and it was morning” (cf. Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 18:13; Shabbat 10a).

Until the second year. . . This is according to regular years, i.e., counting from Tishrei. Rashi is bringing another proof that beginning from this verse, the parsha is not recorded in order, as he continues to explain: “For it says here. . .”

לשפוט את העם, “to judge the people.” Some commentators believe that the word: העם refers to the mixed multitude, the fellow travelers whom Moses had accepted as converts, and who, as a result, had demanded from him that they receive a share of the loot of their fellow Jews who had taken these from their former relatives In Egypt. (Compare Torah shleymah by Rabbi M. Kasher in his notes on item 95)

Where do we find that he returned? [You might ask: Why is this a proof? Many events are not expressly stated in the Torah! The answer is:] If Yisro was sent away after the giving of the Torah, then [even if he returned,] the Torah does not mention his return because it is of no importance. He already accepted Torah and mitzvos. But if he was sent away before the giving of the Torah, [he must have returned, as Rashi proved. And then] he came to accept the Torah, which is the main purpose of his coming. The narrative would then mention his return, so people will not say that Yisro came once, and only in order to bring Moshe’s wife and sons — for his return is not mentioned. See all this in Re”m, who wrote at great length, citing various versions of Rashi and discussing them. The main point is as I wrote.

מן הבקר עד הערב, “from the morning till the evening.” Is it conceivable that Moses spent the entire day judging? We therefore have to pay closer attention to the precise wording. The words: מ! הבקר, mean: from after the morning, not the entire morning. Similarly, the words: עד הערב, “until evening,” are meant to exclude the period called evening. If it were to be understood literally, when would the students have time to study Torah? Therefore the word מן here as well as elsewhere, is meant as a limitation, not the whole morning but part of the morning hours. Similarly, when the word appears in connection with היום, it does not refer to the whole day but to part of the day. Our sages suggested that what was meant is the first six hours. (Based on the Baraitha of Rabbi Eliezer.)

He was not showing proper respect to Yisrael. . . The Ibn Ezra objected that this was not disrespectful, for judges always sit while the litigants stand. Re”m writes that this is no objection: Yisro was displeased that everyone stood, even those who had no litigation. He thought that they stood before Moshe to afford him princely honor. [Alternatively,] the Maharshal wrote that this is no question: litigants stand (Devarim 19:17) only during the hearing. But with Moshe they stood even before the hearing, for Moshe was the only judge and they were unable to come before him [immediately]. Sometimes they would stand until the evening, waiting to come before him. For this, Yisro reproved him. (Maharshal)

Can this be taken literally. . . This parsha speaks of the day after Yom Kippur, when Moshe needed to gather Yisrael and command them to build the Mishkan. If so, how could he have sat to judge from morning to evening?

As if he has become a participant with Hashem. . . Since the world’s existence depends on judgment. The proof is that the Flood [destroyed the world, and it] came because there was no judgment among them and people were robbing each other. As it is written, “The land was filled with robbery” (Bereishis 6:13). Therefore, he who judges truthfully supports the world’s existence, and it is as if he is partnership with Hashem.

מדוע אתה יושב לבדך?, why are only you dealing with public affairs?

מדוע אתה יושב לבדך?, and as a result of your being the sole judge the entire people have to stand in line before you from morning to evening.

(Exodus 18:14) "And Moses' father-in-law saw": What did he see? He saw him sitting like a king sitting on his throne and all paying attendance upon him, whereupon he said to him: "What is this that you are doing to the people? Why are you sitting alone?"

אשר הוא עושה לעם, “what he was doing to the people.” They were making one another impatient. On the one hand, the common people were forced to stand in line most of the day waiting for their turn. On the other hand, Moses was becoming more and more weary having to deal with so many disputes.

וכל העם, and all the people who for whatever reason need your private services have to wait in line from morning to night?

?מדוע אתה יושב לבדך, “why are only you seated?” Yitro did not criticize Moses for sitting and the people having to stand; he meant that if Moses would delegate some of his tasks there would not be such long queues. The Torah itself expects the litigants to be standing, as we know form Deuteronomy 19,17: 'ועמדו שני האנשים אשר להם הריב לפני ה, “and the two men who have a dispute are to stand in the presence of the judges;”Besides, it would not have been appropriate for Yitro to chastise a great man like Moses, someone who was even addressed as “my master” by his own brother Aaron who was three years his senior. (Compare Numbers 12,11) The verse in front of us has to be understood as follows: “what made you decide to shoulder the entire burden of judging all the people’s problems all by yourself, without assistance from anyone? You would do well to appoint junior judges that can share the burden with you, so that you would only have to deal with the litigations that these juniors could not find a proper solution for. All this will result in your burden being decreased so that you do not break down under it prematurely. Moses had first misunderstood his fatherinlaw as being critical that he alone remained seated throughout these proceedings. This is why he had replied that the people had come to him; (verse 15)

מן בקר עד ערב, from morning till evening. Yitro meant that “even if you were to sit here from morning till evening you could still not cope with such a load.”

כי יבא — This is the same as כי בא because the people comes”, the imperfect tense expressing continuous action.

FOR THE PEOPLE COME UNTO ME TO INQUIRE OF G-D. Moses answered his father-in-law: “They must stand about me a great part of the day, for they come before me for many things. Because the people come unto me to inquire of G-d, that is, to pray for their sick, and to inform them of the whereabouts of what they have lost,” this being “the inquiring of G-d.”
And thus the people did with the [later] prophets, just as it is said, In former times in Israel, when a man went to inquire of G-d, thus he said: Come and let us go to the seer.⁹²I Samuel 9:9. The matter there concerned the finding of Saul’s lost asses. The prophet was Samuel. Similarly, Go meet the man of G-d, and inquire of the Eternal by him, saying: Shall I recover from this sickness?⁹³II Kings 8:8. The speaker is Ben-hadad, king of Aram, and he is sending Hazael to the prophet Elisha, who had come to Damascus. meaning that the prophet should pray for his recovery and that he should inform him if his prayer was accepted. This is also the meaning of the verse, and she [Rebekah] went to inquire of the Eternal,⁹⁴Genesis 25:22 (Vol. I, p. 316). as I have explained there.
“Moreover,” [Moses continued], “I adjudicate matters between them, when they have a matter, it cometh unto me, and I judge.⁹⁵Verse 16. And I also teach them Torah, and I make them know the statutes of G-d and His laws.”⁹⁵Verse 16.

לדרוש אלוקים, the princes and leaders of the community who come to me to consult me on matters of public concern, come to seek out the word of G’d because only after getting such a ruling will the people be able to come to rest.

כי יבא אלי העם לדרוש אלוקים "for the people come to me to seek out G'd." What did Moses want to accomplish with this reply? Did Yitro not see for himself that the people came to Moses to seek out G'd (judgment approved by G'd)? Yitro's question had been why Moses followed a particular procedure, one which was inconvenient for the people. He did not ask what Moses was doing.

כי יבא אלי העם לדרוש אלוהים, only I am able to call directly upon G’d, as they are not in the habit of speaking to G’d. Hence I remain by myself.

כי יבוא אלי העם לדרוש אלוקים, “for the people are in the habit of coming to me to seek out G’d’s judgment.” Moses answered Yitro that the people, by the nature of things, need to stand in line before me for a considerable period of time as many of them need to have many different problems to be resolved.

כי יבא אלי העם לדרוש אלו-הים, “for the people come to me to seek G’d.” Moses did not say that the people came to him to seek Hashem.” The reason was that Moses was engaged in dealing with litigation. The attribute of אלו-הים is appropriate in that connection as we know from Deut. 1,17 כי המשפט לאלו-הים הוא, “for matters of judgment are reserved for the attribute אלו-הים is why Moses used this attribute when he explained to Yitro what he was doing (and why he remained seated). He said והודעתיו את חוקי האלו-הים ואת תורותיו “I acquaint them with the statutes of אלו-הים and with His teachings.” The meaning of the whole verse is: “they need to stand in line before me for a long time because they inquire concerning so many things.” Some of them ask me to pray on behalf of their sick family members; some want me to locate lost property for them; we find that the expression דרישת אלו-הים is used in Scripture in connection with both of these requests; in Kings II 8,8, when Chazael wants to know from the prophet Elisha if he would recover from his sickness, he does so saying ודרשת את ה' מאותו לאמור האחיה מחלי זה? “and through him inquire from the Lord: ‘will I recover from this sickness?’” Chazael meant for Elisha to pray on his behalf and to inform him afterwards if his prayer had been answered. Rivkah did the same when the twins were quarreling in her womb and the Torah says ותלך לדרוש את ה', “she went to inquire from G’d” (Genesis 25,22). With regard to the restoration of lost objects we read in Samuel I 9,9: “Formerly, in Israel, when a man went to inquire of G’d he said: “come, let us go to the Seer.” The subject under discussion in that chapter was the lost donkeys of Kish, Saul’s father. Clearly, the prophet was expected to be able to tell the petitioner where to find things he had lost. In addition, Moses explained to Yitro that he functioned as a judge and in that capacity he taught the people the laws of the Lord.

[The same as:] כי בא in the present tense. I.e., כי יבא is not in the future tense, otherwise Moshe would not have sat before they came to seek instruction.

"and Moses said to his father-in-law, etc.": They said: This is what Yehudah of Kfar Acco asked R. Gamliel: Why did Moses see fit to say (Ibid.) "Because the people come to me"? (i.e., Does this not seem vain in him?) R. Gamliel: What else should he say? His concluding (Ibid.) "to enquire (concerning the law) of G d" suffices (to free him of this charge).

לדרש אלהים TO ENQUIRE OF GOD — Understand this as the Targum does: למתבע אלפן, to seek instruction from the mouth of the Almighty.

This included appeals to Moses to pray on behalf of sick family members, to see if Moses could help them, something also known as דרישת אלוקים, a service frequently performed for the people by prophets, as we know from prophets being asked if sick members of one would recover from one’s sickness. (Kings I 8,8, 8,9)

I believe that Moses referred to the emphasis Yitro had placed on the words אשר אתה עשה לעם, "which you are doing to the people." Moses understood that Yitro implied that Moses forced the people to appear before him, that he was not willing to let other people function as judges, and that as a result the people suffered inconvenience. If only Moses were willing to delegate he could save the people all this inconvenience. Moses replied to this accusation by saying that the matter was not of his choosing but that the people insisted on bringing their problems to him personally. He also explained to Yitro who could not understand why the people were willing to put up with this inconvenience that "anyone who has some matter comes to me." The Zohar second volume page 78 explains the words דבר בא אלי to mean that "a Divine ruling comes to me," i.e. Moses' decision would be divinely inspired. Since no other judge had been so favoured by G'd, the people are willing to put up with the inconvenience.

As a result of these considerations there was no point in appointing other judges for the people to go to. Moses concluded by saying: "I make them know the statutes of G'd;" this too was something no one else was able to do.

Yitro was not sure that he had understood Moses' words correctly seeing that they were capable of two interpretations. 1) Moses could have meant that inasmuch as the people came to him voluntarily he felt he had to fulfil the מצוה to settle arguments between two people personally. 2) The people did not want anyone else but Moses to preside over their litigation as I have already explained. Yitro worded his proposal in such a way that it would fit either of the reasons Moses had mentioned why he alone had to preside over litigation. Concerning Moses' argument that he wanted to fulfil the מצוה of judging personally, Yitro said: לא טוב הדבר, "this is not a good method." He then proceeded to explain why it was not a good system. Concerning Moses' argument that the people insisted that only he should be their judge, Yitro said: "I will give you some advice, etc." He presented his scheme in such a way that both litigants in a quarrel would return home satisfied. Should one of them not be satisfied he would still have the option of Moses personally hearing his case. The total number of cases submitted to Moses would be greatly reduced. As a result there would be a great reduction in personal tensions. If, per chance, the lower court would declare itself incompetent to settle an issue, והיה (verse 22), the judges of that court could in turn come to Moses and submit the problem to him. Yitro demonstrated to Moses that the fact that people wanted him to hear their problems personally did not obligate him unless they could not be made happy any other way.

כי יהיה להם דבר בא WHEN THEY HAVE A MATTER THEY COME (lit., “he comes”) — “He”, viz., who has the matter comes to me.

כי יהיה להם דבר, when someone among these people who hold positions of public trust has a disagreement with one of his colleagues he brings it to me,

Whoever has the matter comes to me. Rashi is answering the question: Why does it begin in plural: [ להם ], but conclude in singular: בא אלי ? Thus Rashi explains: “Whoever has. . .” [In vs. 15-16,] Moshe is answering Yisro, who thought that Moshe’s sitting is [inappropriate] princely behavior. [The thrust of] Moshe’s answer is only, “I judge between man and his neighbor.” I.e., Moshe is answering that the people stand for judgment, not for his honor. [The thrust of] Moshe’s answer is not, “I impart to them Hashem’s statutes and His laws,” [which, taken on its own, could] mean that he is teaching them [and not judging them. This would not answer Yisro] because [in the early generations] both master and disciple stood while studying. Due to the fact [that everything revolves around, “I judge between man and his neighbor,”] Rashi explains that [everything] refers to judgment — even כי יבא in v. 15, and כי יהיה להם דבר in this verse. This is against [the simple understanding of] Onkelos, [that v. 15 speaks of teaching, not judgment].

(Ibid. 16) "When they have a matter (to be resolved), he (the one who 'has the matter') comes to me": ("a matter") as to uncleanliness or cleanliness. "and I judge between a man": This is a judgment where there is no compromise. "and his neighbor": this is a judgment where there is compromise, where they take leave of each other as "neighbors." "And I make known to them the statutes of G d": These are inferences (from what is written). "and His Toroth": His (written) teachings. These are the words of R. Yehoshua. R. Elazar Hamodai says: "statutes" (the laws governing) illicit relations, as in (Leviticus 18:30) "not to follow the abominable statutes (i.e., the lewd practices) which were practiced before you." "and His Toroth": His teachings.

V. 16 präzisiert dies im Einzelnen. Zuerst: כי יהי׳ להם דבר בא אלי wenn sie irgend ein Anliegen haben, hinsichtlich dessen sie Belehrung oder Hilfe bedürfen, kommen sie zu mir. Sodann ושפטתי וגו׳ habe ich ihre Streitsachen zu schlichten. Beides heißt "Gott suchen" in speziellen Fällen und für spezielle Fälle. Endlich והודעתי וגו׳ kommen sie zu mir, um von mir Gottes Gesetze und Lehren kennen zu lernen. Dies ist das "Gott suchen" im allgemeinen. Gottes Beistand selbst ist bedingt durch die Gestaltung unseres Lebens nach seinem Willen und diese Gestaltung durch Kenntnis dieses Willens. Der göttliche Wille für unser äußeres praktisches Leben ist hier in חוקים zusammengefasst, die unser ganzes Tun innerhalb der Schranken des Gebührenden und Rechten umgrenzen. Seinen Willen für unser inneres Leben, für Geist und Gemüt, umfassen תורותיו, seine unser Inneres mit den Lebenskeimen der Wahrheit und Güte befruchtenden Lehren. Auch vor der sinaitischen Gesetzgebung hatten sie bereits Gesetze, die noachidischen Gebote, Mila, Schabbat, die, wie z. B. דינין und עריות, einer ausführlichen Erläuterung und Belehrung bedurften.

את חוקי האלוקים ואת תורותיו, “G-d’s statutes and His teachings.” Moses refers to the statutes and teachings that G-d had already taught him prior to the revelation at Mount Sinai, and his ascending that Mountain to receive the whole Torah. Those teachings had been referred to when the people had been encamped around Marah when the bitter waters had been turned into sweet waters (Exodus 15,25)

בא אלי ושפטתי בין איש ובין רעהו, between these leaders of the community who come to me about matters of public concern.

והודעתי את חקי האלוקים ואת תורותיו, to these highly placed individuals who approach me with the concerns of the public. We encounter similar occurrences described in slightly different words, such as in Exodus 34,31-32 “Moses called to them and Aaron and all the chieftains in the assembly returned to him, and Moses spoke to them.” Our sages in Eyruvin 54 describe the hierarchy of transmitting G’d’s word to the people. Moses learned the Torah directly from G’d; when Aaron entered his tent he told him what he had learned. Aaron would move over and take his seat on Moses’ left. After that Aaron’s sons would enter and Moses would instruct them in what G’d had taught him. This continued until Moses had taught the same lesson no fewer than 4 times. We can see that all this took time, and as a result the ordinary people had to stand in line for a long time.

ויאמר חתן משה AND MOSES’ FATHER-IN-LAW SAID — By way of honour Scripture describes him as the father-in-law of the king.

As a way to honor him. . . Why did Rashi not make this comment before, where it said, “Moshe’s father-in-law saw” (v. 14)? The answer is: This verse here is preceded by (v. 15), “Moshe said to his father-in-law.” So here it should say, “His father-in-law said,” not, “Moshe’s father-in-law said.” Thus Rashi explains that [Moshe was mentioned] as a way to honor Yisro. And this is why Rashi did not make this comment before.

(Exodus 18:18) "You will languish": R. Yehoshua says: They will wear you out and cause you to collapse. R. Elazar Hamodai says: They will belabor you and vex you, as a fig tree whose leaves are wilted, viz. (Isaiah 1:30) "like an elah of wilted leaf." "also you": Moses; "also": Aaron; "also this people": the seventy elders. These are the words of R. Yehoshua. R. Elazar Hamodai says: "you" — Moses; "also" — Aaron, Nadav, and Avihu; "this people" — the seventy elders.

V. 17. נבל (verwandt mit נול, Trümmer, נפל, fallen), bedeutet ein Schwinden der Lebenskraft, bei Pflanzen: welken, bei Tieren: נְבֵלה, das Aas, ein Schwinden der sittlichen Kraft: נָבָל, der sittlich Entartete, hier: ein Schwinden der Tatkraft, ermüden.

לא טוב הדבר, “the matter is not right;” in my eyes what you are doing now is not good;

נבל תבל — Explain this as the Targum does: thou will certainly become weary. Its meaning expresses the idea of withering, old French flestre, just as. (Jeremiah 8:13) “and the leaf is withered (נבל)”; (Isaiah 34:4) “as withereth (כנבל) the leaf from off the vine” — the meaning being that it becomes shrivelled through the heat and through the frost, and so its strength diminishes and it becomes, as it were, weary, and falls from off the vine (מגפן)‎.

גם העם הזה אשר עמך, the member of your court.

נבול תבול, "you will surely become weary, etc." Yitro repeated the word נבול because it has two meanings. We apply this term to describe anything which has lost some of its original strength, and as a result has become weary, fatigued, relative to its original state. Nonetheless the subject under discussion is still able to perform its basic task though with greater exertion. The second meaning of נבול is a feeling of weariness which is felt so keenly that the subject is unable to carry out his regular routine at all. Yitro warned Moses that though, intially, he would feel only slightly weary, eventually he would become so weary, נבול תבול, that he would be unable to function at all. Yitro underlined this by saying: "you will not be able to carry on by yourself." Alternatively, the reason he repeated the word was simply because he wanted to illustrate how both Moses and the litigants would become weary.

נבל תבל, the word is similar to the word נבלה in Genesis 11,7 when G’d announced the confounding of man’s languages, using the words ונבלה שם שפתם, “and confound their speech.” Yitro is telling Moses that his words will create confusion as he has to deal with so many people simultaneously so that his listeners would also become confused by what they heard. As a result, one would shout at the other. Yitro tells Moses that he cannot accomplish what he sets out to do by the method he has chosen.

This includes Aharon, Chur. . . Question: Was not Chur killed when they made the Golden Calf, and this parsha comes afterward? The answer is: Rashi mentions Chur according to a different Aggadah which opines that Chur was not killed when they made the Golden Calf. According to the first Aggadah, גם אתה includes only Aharon and the seventy elders. (Maharshal)

"for this thing is beyond your strength": He said to him: Look at that beam. When it is moist, two or three get under it but cannot lift it; four or five get under it and can lift it. "For this thing is beyond your strength you will not be able to do it alone."

גם אתה, the word גם is meant to include Aaron and Chur. This seems odd, as Chur was killed during the incident with the golden calf as explained by Rashi on Exodus 32,5 on the words ויבן מזבח לפניו, where Rashi says the word מזבח is to be read as if the vowels had been mi-zavoach; we would have to answer that that interpretation was based on the scholars who claim that Yitro arrived before the revelation at Mount Sinai, at which time Chur had still been alive.

נבול תבול, “you will definitely become worn out;” the word is similar to ערבוב, “being confused.” Compare Genesis 11,7 Where G-d confused man’s languages. Yitro felt that Moses would confuse the litigants because each one would shout that he wanted to be heard next. As a result, he himself would become confused. This would be due to his inability to hear each person correctly.

גם אתה THOU ALSO — The word גם “also” was added in order to include Aaron and Hur and the seventy elders (cf. Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 18:17).

לא תוכל עשוהו לבדך, you cannot all by yourself listen to the problems of all the leaders and subsequently to all the problems of the individuals who feel they need your personal attention, believing that no one but you can deal with their specific problems.

גם אתה גם העם הזה, "both you and this people, etc." Yitro used the word גם twice to indicate that not only Moses whose powers were very great and close to inexhaustible would tire (seeing he had to preside over litigation daily for many hours), but also the people who would have to stand in line would find this too tiresome.

גם אתה, “you also.” Rashi understands the word גם as including Aaron and Chur, and the seventy elders. If you were to point out that in Exodus 32,5, on the words: ויבן מזבח לפניו, “he built an altar in front of it (the golden calf),” Rashi comments that Aaron, having seen that Chur (his nephew) had been killed by the mob when he tried to interfere with their worshipping the golden calf, decided to instead build an altar and declare the following day a holiday in honour of G-d. The events related there occurred on the 17th of Tammuz in the first year of the people’s wanderings. Yitro meant that even if Aaron, Chur and the seventy elders were to assist Moses, this would not nearly be enough for governing such a large nation. We find an example of such thinking in Jeremiah 15,1, where G-d tells the prophet that even if Moses personally as well as the prophet Samuel were to intercede on behalf the people of the Kingdom of Yehudah at that time, their merits would not suffice to make Him change His mind concerning the impending doom of that kingdom. G-d mentioned Moses and Samuel who had already long ago passed on, The events recorded in the paragraph that we are dealing with here occurred the day after the Day of Atonement on the eleventh day of Tishrey, over 80 days after Chur had been killed. Nonetheless, Rashi saw fit to mention him as an example of a worthy assistant of Moses. However, in verse 23 in our chapter, Chur is not mentioned by Rashi. When Rashi understands the words: וכל העם הזה (and all this people) as applicable to Aaron, his two older sons, and the seventy elders, no mention is made of Chur. וכל העם הזה, they will also not be able to endure the long wait all day long to have their litigation dealt with.

כי כבד ממך FOR [THIS THING] IS TOO HEAVY FOR THEE — its weight is far more than thy strength can bear.

The Mechilta understands the word גם as referring to Aaron, whereas the word העם would refer to the seventy elders. We need to understand the reason for this interpretation. If they considered only the word גם they would have had to explain these two words in the same way as we have done. However, the sages realised that if Moses would follow Yitro's advice he would have had to appoint close to 80,000 judges. He therefore indicated that even seventy elders were far too few. The sages therefore understood the word גם to refer to the additional judges Moses would have to appoint. They interpreted the second גם to refer to judges in addition to Moses. In each instance the word גם added a new element. According to the sages, the first גם meant that although Moses was such a superior judge, others, less competent would also have to be appointed, whereas the second גם meant that although the elders were numerous, even their number did not suffice to ensure that the litigation procedure would run smoothly and promptly. It is also possible that the words גם אתה included the people who would feel weary because of standing in line, waiting. Yitro added a second גם to tell Moses that even if he co-opted the seventy elders this would still be far short of what was needed.

איעצך ויהי אלהים עמך I WILL GIVE THEE COUNSEL BUT LET GOD BE WITH THEE in considering this counsel. This is really what he said to him: Go and consult with the Almighty as regards the counsel I give you (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 18:19).

AND G-D BE WITH THEE. “I.e., in this counsel. Jethro said to Moses, ‘Go and consult with the Almighty.’” Thus Rashi’s language. And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote: “‘Listen to me, and G-d will help you to succeed as I have counselled you.’ Further, however, Jethro said, ‘If thou shalt do this thing, and G-d command thee so,⁹⁶Verse 23. which means ‘if you will do this thing — i.e., that you will consult with the Almighty — and He will command you to do it, then you will be able to endure.’ And there is no doubt that Moses did so” [i.e., he first consulted with G-d and received His sanction and then proceeded to make this arrangement].

היה אתה לעם מול האלוקים, be their intermediary to advise the people of the various commandments G’d wants them to perform.

ויהי אלוקים עמך, meaning you will be able to stand the pressure. (compare verse 23)

ויהי ה' עמך, “and may the Lord be with you.” According to Rashi this was an advice to govern the people with fortitude, with confidence in his ability to judge them fairly. Ibn Ezra feels that the meaning of Yitro’s words שמע בקולי ויהי אלוקים עמך, were a prayer that Moses would succeed in carrying out his advice. At the tail end of his remarks Yitro suggested that Moses obtain G’d’s consent for adopting his suggestions. This is what he meant when he said וצוך אלוקים ויכלת לעמוד, “when G’d will give you the requisite instructions you will be able to be equal to the task.” He entertained no doubt that Moses would carry out the suggestions and govern the people with determination.

היה אתה לעם מול האלו-הים, “be you a representative of the people before G’d.” Yitro meant: “you are to present the people’s prayer to G’d on their behalf,” as we find in Psalms 88,2 “when I cry out in the night before You.” The psalmist uses the word נגדך.

(Ibid. 19) "Now, hearken to my voice": If you hearken to me, it will go well with you. "I will counsel you and G d will be with you." Go and consult the Omnipotent. "You be to the people": as a vessel, full of pronouncements. "And you shall bring the matters": The things that you hear, bring and relate to them.

V. 19. ויהי אלקי׳ עמך, mein Rat enthält nichts von Gott zu Missbilligendes, nichts, wofür du nicht auf Gottes Beistand rechnen dürftest. — היה וגו׳, sei du für das Volk Gott gegenüber, d. h. vertritt du das Volk vor Gott, und wenn sie durch dich Belehrung und Hilfe von Gott suchen, so bringe du ihr Anliegen vor Gott. Dies ist eine Funktion, in welcher dich kein anderer vertreten kann. Ebenso

היה אתה לעם מול האלוקים, “be you for the nation an intermediary between them and G-d;” Yitro meant that Moses appoint himself as intermediary due his constantly being prepared through ritual purity and readiness to warn them against trespassing any of G-d’s laws.

היה אתה לעם מול האלהים BE THOU FOR THE PEOPLE TO GOD-WARD — be thou the agent and intermediary between them and the Omnipresent, and be thou the one who enquires of Him regarding the judgments.

BE THOU FOR THE PEOPLE ‘MUL’ G-D. That is, “‘before’ G-d.” Jethro told Moses, “Be thou their intercessor before G-d, to pray to Him.” This is like the verse, I call by day; I cry in the night before Thee.⁹⁷Psalms 88:2.

והבאת אתה את הדברים אל האלוקים, An example of such a case is presented in Numbers 9,8 as well as in Numbers 27,5 where Moses submitted a problem to which he did know the answer to G’d before communicating the answer he received to the people afterwards.

היה אתה לעם מול האלוקים, for those rulings which require Divine revelation you will act as the people’s mediator by listening to what G’d has decided, and you will warn them accordingly. This is the meaning of the words הדבר הקשה יביאו אליך in verse 22. Any other matters the helpers, i.e. the chiefs of ten, fifty, etc. will decide by themselves. The result will be that you will be greatly relieved.

היה אתה לעם מול האלוקים, “you be a representative of the people vis-à-vis G’d.” Nachmanides explains concerning Yitro’s initial reaction to Moses telling him that the people come to him in their search for G’d, that Yitro completely agreed that this was Moses’ function, i.e. to be the intermediary between the people and G’d. He realized that no one else could take Moses’ place in this respect. He also agreed that not only was it Moses’ duty to submit the people’s requests to G’d, but also to communicate G’d’s answer to them. He further agreed that it was Moses’ task to instruct the people initially in all these matters. He did not agree however, that it was necessary for Moses, personally, to get involved in every little judicial dispute between individuals, i.e. in what Moses had referred to as ושפטתי בין איש לרעהו , “I have to render judgment between man and his fellow.” These matters, Yitro told him he must learn to delegate, else he would undo more than he had set out to accomplish. It is also possible that even in matters which did need clarification by G’d directly, Yitro told Moses that this did not need to take place in full view of the people, etc, but that Moses should sit inside the Tabernacle, able to give his full attention to G’d’s answer, etc., instead of being surrounded by a mob of people all the time. He did urge him to exercise extreme caution when handing down decisions so that it would never appear as if he arrived at such decisions arbitrarily. All of this is part of the meaning of והזהרתה, והודעת, etc. You will note that in this connection Yitro did not mention the need to employ judges and law enforcers. He was fully aware that Moses had many officials at his service who would see to it that judgment once pronounced, would be carried out. He allowed that matters beyond the competence of the judges should be submitted to Moses personally for adjudication.

והבאת אתה את הדברים אל האלו-הים, “and you will bring the matters to G’d.” Yitro acknowledged the first of Moses’ explanations, i.e. that the people ask him to intercede on their behalf.

את הדברים [AND THOU SHALT BRING] THE MATTERS — i. e. the matters of their strife.

AND BRING THOU THE CAUSES — namely, which they will ask — UNTO G-D. Jethro conceded the first matter that Moses had said, i.e., Because the people come unto me to inquire of G-d.⁹⁸Above, Verse 16. It is possible that in this too there was counselling on his part. Jethro would thus be saying: “Be thou for the people before G-d, to sit in the Tent of Meeting before Him, ready to inquire of Him [on the matters they bring to you]. And this should not be at the place where you sit in judgment [to adjudicate their disputes].”

AND THOU SHALT TEACH THEM THE STATUTES AND THE LAWS, AND SHALT SHOW THEM THE WAY WHEREIN THEY MUST WALK. That is, “according to the law and the commandment with which you will strongly admonish them, and you will teach the law and the commandment.” Thus Jethro also conceded to Moses on this matter, of which he had said, and I make them know the statutes of G-d, and His laws.⁹⁸Above, Verse 16. In this too there was counsel [on the part of Jethro], i.e., that Moses should strongly admonish them and warn them of the commandments and [Divine] punishments [in case of transgression], since he himself would not be involved in the execution of the law. “But in matters of judgment whereof you said, and I judge between a man and his neighbor,⁹⁸Above, Verse 16. designate judges to act with you, for the thing is too heavy for thee.⁹⁹Verse 18. That is, the judging of disputes between them is heavier than all, and it would be good for you and for them to make it easier for you and they shall bear the burden with thee.”¹⁰⁰Verse 22. The purport of Jethro’s counsel to Moses, according to Ramban, was thus: “You are indeed correct in not delegating to others the inquiry of G-d on all matters they desire. So also in the matter of instructing the people in G-d’s laws. But in judging their disputes, add other judges to join with you.” Now it is known that Moses had officers in charge of the people. [It was the duty of these officers] to bring before him the persons against whom claims had been made and to force them to comply with the verdict of the judges. He assigned many of these officers as these judges. This is why Moses said in Deuteronomy, and I made them heads over you, captains of thousands… and officers, tribe by tribe.¹⁰¹Deuteronomy 1:15. There was no need to mention them here since their appointment was not part of Jethro’s counsel.

והזהרת אתהם את החקים ואת התורה, “and you will caution them regarding the decrees and the teachings.” Yitro also acknowledged the need for Moses to deal with the second matter he had mentioned personally, i.e. to inform the people of the decrees and the teachings mentioned in verse 16. However, concerning the third matter, i.e. Moses being the adjudicator of every dispute, Yitro did not agree that Moses personally had to deal with such matters. This is why he said to him (verse 18) “this matter is too hard for you (personally)”. He therefore suggested that Moses deputise people to carry out litigations in his place. He stipulated that the people appointed for such a task be אנשי חיל, (an attribute we will discuss in verse 21).

V. 20. והזהרתה. Es ist hier das einzige Mal, dass הזהיר mit doppeltem Akkusativ vorkommt. Es steht entweder absolut: והזהיר את העם Jechesk. 33, 3 oder: להזהיר רשע מדרכו und heißt in beiden Fällen offenbar: warnen, sowie im Nifal (33 ,8) .הזָהֵר ,נזהר, sich warnen lassen. Von anderer Seite heißt זהר entschieden: Helle, Lichtglanz, und חזהיר: Hellung verbreiten, והמשכילים יזהירו כזהר הרקיע (Daniel 12. 3). Es ist verwandt mit צֹהַר, wovon צָהָרַיִם, der Mittag. Es muss somit הזהיר wohl einen Gegenstand für jemanden beleuchten heißen, der ihn sonst nicht gesehen, nicht beachtet hätte. Daher auch wohl der doppelte Akkusativ: machen, dass ein Gegenstand Strahlen erhalte und dass diese Strahlen in das Auge eines Menschen fallen. Also hier: machen, dass die Gesetze und Lehren ihnen hell ins Auge leuchten und sie ihnen so wichtig werden, dass sie sich vor Verletzung derselben hüten; הזהרפה, das musst du selber tun, also die warnende Mitteilung der Verbote, והודעת להם וגו׳, die Mitteilung der Gebote.

ב׳׳מ 30 b werden diese Sätze also erläutert: והודעת להם זה בית חייהם (פירשי׳ ללמוד להן אומנות להתפרנס בו) את הדרך זו גמילות חסדים אשר ילכו זה ביקור חולים )אפי׳ לבן גילו( בה זו קבורה )אפי׳ לזקן ואינו לפי כבודו) ואת המעשה זה הדין אשר יעשון זו לפנים דרך .משורת הרין ist überall die Bewegung zu einem Ziele, somit das Streben zur Erreichung eines Zweckes und bezeichnet im Gebiete der Lebenstätigkeiten in der Regel die individuelle Erwerbs- und die individuelle Genussestätigkeit, von deren Reinheit die Reinheit des sittlichen Wandels bedingt ist. Hier wird nun die Belehrung hierüber also begriffen: Lehre du sie dieses sonst nur selbstsüchtige Streben der Sorge für die eigene Existenz und Wohlfahrt also, dass nicht nur damit die liebestätige Sorge für die Wohlfahrt der Mitmenschen bestehe, sondern dass das Liebeswirken für andere ganz eigentlich das Ziel der Sorge für das eigene Selbst werde, jeder nur für sich um des andern willen, ja, sie diese Liebestätigkeit mit Hintenansetzung ihrer eigenen Erhaltung (z. B. Krankenpflege selbst auf Gefahr der Ansteckung בקור חולים לבן גילו) — und der eigenen Ehre (z. B. Leistungen für Leichenbestattung und Begräbnis, die man sonst aus Rücksicht für den eigenen Stand und sein Alter nicht leisten würde קבורה לזקן ואינו לפי כבודו) erfüllen mögen. Sich selbst überlassen, sieht der unerleuchtete Mensch als Ziel seines דרך, seines irdischen Wandels, nur den eigenen Vorteil und das eigene Wohl. והודעת להם, von dir aufgeklärt, wird er sein Dasein und seine Erhaltung auf Erden nur für das Wohl anderer begreifen, wird er den דרך für בית חייו nur in גמילות חסד suchen und ילכו: mit persönlicher Dahingebung danach strebend, בה, ganz darin aufgehen. Und ebenso והודעת להם את המעשה אשר יעשון, kläre sie auf über ihre Tat, über ihr Verhalten von Mensch zu Mensch אשר יעשון, wie sie dasselbe zur Ausführung bringen sollen. Das gewöhnliche Maß, mit dem der Mensch seine Handlungen in Beziehung zu dem Nebenmenschen misst, sieht diese Handlungen nur objektiv an sich an, und misst dieselben höchstens nach dem Maße des strengsten Rechts, את המעשה זה הדין vergisst aber, dass etwas an sich strengstens Recht und der andere gar nichts anderes zu fordern berechtigt sein kann, und er dennoch um seiner eigenen Persönlichkeit willen, aus Rücksicht auf die eigene sittliche Würde und der mit seiner Persönlichkeit verknüpften Aufgabe selbstaufopfernder Liebe ein weit mehreres und ein anderes zu tun verpflichtet sein könne: אשר יעשון זו לפנים משורת הדין, das Verzichten auf sein Recht; es ist dies das Hineintragen des גמילות חסר in דין, der Liebe ins Recht, die der Richter nicht fordern darf, die aber der Rechtsuchende sich selbst diktieren soll. Auch diese Belehrung über die höchste Potenz der sittlichen sozialen Aufgabe, meint Jitro, müsse auch ebenfalls von Mosche ausgehen. War diese Begebenheit, wie wir annehmen, vor מתן תורה, so entspricht dem umsomehr, dass hier unter den Geboten des Wandels und der Tat zunächst allgemein menschliche Pflichten verstanden werden.

ואתה תחזה MOREOVER THOU SHALT PROVIDE through the Holy Spirit that is upon thee (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 18:21:1),

MEN OF ‘CHAYIL.’ This means men who are capable of leading a great multitude of people. Every assembly and gathering is called chayil, and it does not apply only to soldiers going forth to war. Thus it is said [of the dry bones that Ezekiel resurrected], a great ‘chayil’ (host).¹⁰²Ezekiel 37:10. Of the locusts it is said, My great ‘chayil’ (army).¹⁰³Joel 2:25. Of wealth it is stated, My power and the might of my hand hath gotten this ‘chayil’ (wealth);¹⁰⁴Deuteronomy 8:17. they carry upon the shoulders of young asses ‘chayaleihem’ (their riches).¹⁰⁵Isaiah 30:6. Of fruits it is said, the fig-tree and the vine do yield ‘cheilam’ (their strength).¹⁰⁶Joel 2:22. Thus an ish chayil in the administration of justice is one who is wise, alert, and fair; in war, an ish chayil is one who is strong, alert, and who knows the art of arraying forces in battle. A woman also is an eisheth chayil (a woman of valor)¹⁰⁷Proverbs 31:10. when she is alert and knows how to conduct the management of a home.
Jethro thus spoke in general and in particular. [In general], he told Moses to select people with powers of leadership in the administration of justice for this great people. In particular, they should be such as fear G-d, men of truth, hating unjust gain, for it is impossible for them to be “men of chayil” in judgment, without these qualities. It was not necessary for him to mention that they must be wise and understanding, for it is clear that these qualities are included in the term “men of chayil.” Further on, when it says, And Moses chose men of ‘chayil,’¹⁰⁸Further, Verse 25. everything is already included — i.e., that they were G-d-fearing, men who hated unjust gain, wise and understanding. Moreover, Scripture says [that Moses chose them] out of all Israel,¹⁰⁸Further, Verse 25. which means [that they were] the preferred of all Israel, being the ones who have all of these qualities. Since Scripture states that he chose them out of all Israel,¹⁰⁸Further, Verse 25. it is already stating that they were chosen in preference to all, for it is known that the better ones in Israel possess all good qualities. Jethro, however, not being familiar with them, found it necessary to explain in detail [that they be G-d-fearing, men of truth, etc.]
Some scholars¹⁰⁹Ibn Ezra here. Also, R’dak in Sefer Hashorashim, on the root chayil. explain anshei chayil as men of physical strength and zeal, such as have ability to stand in the king’s palace.¹¹⁰Daniel 1:4. Similarly, eisheth chayil¹⁰⁷Proverbs 31:10. is a woman of strength and industry in the work of the home, as Scripture explains there in that section.¹¹¹Proverbs 31:10-31. Likewise, Make them wander to and fro ‘b’cheilcha,’¹¹²Psalms 59:12. which means “by Thy power.” Also, Neither doth it, [i.e., the horse], afford escape by its great ‘cheilo,’¹¹³Ibid., 33:17. [which means “by its great strength”]. The word [chayil] is associated with the Aramaic, as is evidenced by the [Hebrew] expression, ‘yesh l’eil yadi’ (It is in the power of my hand),¹¹⁴Genesis 31:29. which is rendered in the Targum: “there is cheila in my hand.” And further on it says, And Moses chose men of ‘chayil’ out of all Israel,¹⁰⁸Further, Verse 25. which means the preferred ones of the entire nation and all qualities are included, as I have explained.

ואתה תחזה מכל העם, select, and then appoint. The only area in which you alone are competent is the choosing of suitably qualified helpers, in accordance with the guidelines Yitro outlined. When it came to handing down judicial decisions, however, there would be 78600 appointees of four different levels of competence who would deal with all but the most perplexing problems without having to come to Moses for approval of their rulings. Initially a problem would be submitted to one of the 60000 men appointed as “chief” of ten. If such a man did not know the answer he would refer it to one of the 12000 chiefs of 50, and so on in an ascending order. The different levels of judges would in effect act as appellate judges, reviewing if judgments made by the lower ranking judges and appealed should be changed.

ואתה תחזה מכל העם אנשי חיל "and you shall seek out from amongst all the people able men, etc." This does not mean that the people should appoint the judges, but that Moses should look for suitable candidates. The Torah also hints that inasmuch as Moses would do the appointing, he could view himself as the judge seeing his appointees were his delegates.

אנשי חיל, wealthy and influential people who had no reason to be afraid of any of their peers.

אנשי חיל, “competent people,” people capable of dealing with the masses, i.e. people who have been endowed with numerous qualities, otherwise they would not be equal to the task. Having summed up the nature of such people, Yitro proceeds to list the specific qualities such people must possess in order to carry out their duties satisfactorily. Before referring to such people’s common sense, he mentions that their motivations must be above board, such as their being G’d-fearing, not greedy for money, truthful, etc., but all this is not enough unless they have been endowed with common sense, such as being נבונים. The latter quality need not be spelled out, as it is self-evident. [both Isaiah 5,21, and Jeremiah 4,22, refer to the basic requirement of this “common sense.” It is also the first attribute mentioned by Joseph in his advice to Pharaoh to appoint people who would administer the surplus during the seven bountiful years to come. Genesis Ed.] When reviewing these events in Deuteronomy 1,12, Moses does mention that he had asked the people to furnish him men endowed with common sense in addition to the other attributes as his assistants. [certain details which Moses saw fit to spell out to the common people, Yitro did not have to spell out to his brilliant son-in-law. Ed.] It is also possible that when we read in verse 25 that Moses selected men מכל ישראל, this term already includes that he had narrowed down the selection to the elite of the people, so that he did not need to repeat more than the term אנשי חיל to show that he had taken Yitro’s advice to heart.

ואתה תחזה, “as for you, you are to discern, etc.” We would have expected Yitro to say: “you shall select,” instead of “you will discern.” In fact, when it came to carrying out Yitro’s advice the Torah reports that Moses ויבחר אנשי חיל, “selected men who were accomplished.” The reason two different words were used for the selection of the appointees is that whereas man sees with his eyes, the exterior, i.e. תחזה, Yitro who was aware of man’s limitations in the matter advised Moses to do the most he could, i.e. judge by appearances. He hoped that Moses would have the prophetic insight, i.e. חזיון, visionary quality, to select the right people. When it came to carrying out the advice the Torah reports that Moses had Divine assistance so that the people he “selected,” were confirmed to possess the attributes Moses had judged that they had.
Another approach to the words: ואתה תחזה. We have stated on another occasion that the truly righteous person reflects this quality in his face so that even ferocious beasts do not attack him. Similarly, great men such as Yaakov can read facial expressions accurately so that they know what quality of person they face. Here too, Yitro told Moses that he was the kind of individual who could make such judgments based on merely looking at people from the outside. By emphasizing the word ואתה, Yitro meant that he was confident that Moses was able to select the right people without special Divine assistance.

Through the Divine Spirit which is upon you. [Rashi knows this] because תחזה is an expression related to חזיון (prophetic vision). Otherwise, it should say תבחר (choose). Alternatively, [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, how would Moshe be able to choose the capable and the truthful from among 600,000 men?

V. 21. חיל, jede Sammlung von Kräften an Besitz, Macht, sittlicher oder geistiger Begabung heißt חַיִל, daher: Vermögen, Heer, Bravheit, Tüchtigkeit, Tapferkeit. Daher auch חֵל, die alles umschließende Mauer. — בֶצַע, verwandt mit עsפ, verwunden: ein auf Kosten anderer errungener Vorteil (vergl. נשך). Daher auch בַצֵעַ, die Vollendung eines Werkes, das nur durch Vernichtung des Gegensätzlichen zu Stande kommen kann. —

שרי אלפים, “chiefs over a thousand each.” In the chapter of the Talmud tractate Sanhedrin dealing with this chapter it is pointed out that there were 600 chiefs over a thousand each, 6000 chiefs over 100 each and 60000 over each group of 10 Israelites plus 12000 over each group of 50 Israelites. If that had been so, there were no 600000 privates left in that army. We would have to assume therefore that Moses started with appointing 60000 potential chiefs. Having done so, he proceeded step by step to appoint the most capable of them to become either chiefs over 50, or over 1o00, or over 1000 each. As to the statement in the Talmud there that there were a total of 78600 chiefs of different ranks, this number applied to the people appointed as judges. Alternately, whereas the active soldiers were all of the ages between 20 and years of age, the officers over 50, 100, and 1000, respectively, could have been over 60 years of age.

אנשי חיל, “men who are mentally able to through the strength of their personalities to endure the people demand and not be cowed by their threats."

אנשי חיל MEN OF ABILITY (but חיל may mean “wealth” and in this sense the words would mean) — rich men who will not need to flatter or to show favour (cf. Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 18:21:1).

HATING UNJUST GAIN. “Men who disdain their own money in a law-suit, just as we say:¹¹⁵Baba Bathra 58b. ‘Any judge from whom money is collected by a judgment is not qualified as a judge.’” Thus Rashi’s language. By this, Rashi meant to explain that they disdain all money which they know can be collected from them by law, and return it themselves even though it is truly theirs, such as the case wherein one bought a slave without witnesses,¹¹⁶And the owner comes to reclaim him. Now even though the slave is rightfully the buyer’s, the latter knows that because he has no witnesses who can attest to the sale, the original owner will regain possession of the slave in a law-suit. The buyer therefore voluntarily returns the slave to the original owner. See my Hebrew commentary, p. 381, as to why Ramban mentioned such a specific case. or a similar example.
But the text in the Mechilta is not so, [i.e., as Rashi commented]. Rather, this is the way it is taught there:¹¹⁷Mechilta on the verse here. “‘Hating unjust gain. I.e., those who, when sitting in judgment, disdain to accept money.’ These are the words of Rabbi Yehoshua. Rabbi Eleazar of Modi’im says: ‘Hating unjust gain. I. e., those who disdain their own money. If they disdain their own money, how much more will they despise the money of their friends!’” The explanation [of this text of the Mechilta] is that Rabbi Yehoshua interprets the expression hating ‘botza’ as meaning “hating bribery,” the usage of the word [betza] being similar to: Every one is greedy for ‘botza’ (gain);¹¹⁸Jeremiah 6:13. Each one ‘l’bitzo’ (to his gain), one and all.¹¹⁹Isaiah 56:11. Rabbi Eleazar of Modi’im explained that hating ‘botza’ means that they despise abundance of money and have no desire to increase their silver and gold, something like the verse, If I rejoiced because my wealth was great, and because my hand had gotten much.¹²⁰Job 31:25. Money [or profit] is called betza [in Hebrew]: What ‘betza’ (profit) is it if we slay our brother?¹²¹Genesis 37:26. Is it any ‘betza’ (profit or advantage) to the Almighty that thou art righteous?¹²²Job 22:3. And thou shalt devote ‘bitz’am (their gain) unto the Eternal, and their substance unto the Lord of the whole earth.¹²³Micah 4:13.
Again, I have seen in the Yelamdeinu:¹²⁴See Sifre, Devarim 17. For the name Yelamdeinu, see Seder Bo, Note 196. “Hating unjust gain [means] those who disdain their own money, and needless to say, they disdain the money of others. They are the ones who say, ‘Even if this man will burn my stack, even if he will destroy my plants, I will render judgment correctly.’” This is the intent of Rabbi Eleazar of Modi’im, who said that they disdain their own money, meaning that they pay no regard to their property when sitting in judgment, that is, if they will suffer a loss of money on account of it. Moses further admonished them on this, saying, Ye shall not be afraid of the face of any man.¹²⁵Deuteronomy 1:17. [Thus according to the Yelamdeinu], betza means money, as I have explained. Onkelos rendered it: “those who hate to receive money.” But the word “money,” [as Onkelos uses it], does not mean a bribe, [which of course is forbidden in itself]. It means rather that they should never accept money from people as a gift or loan, so that they should show them no favoritism at the time of judgment. It is similar to what the Rabbis have said:¹²⁶Kethuboth 105b. “A judge who is in the habit of borrowing things [from his neighbors] is forbidden to act as judge in a law-suit involving them.”
In line with the plain meaning of Scripture, men of truth, hating ‘botza’, means those who love the truth and hate “oppression.” When they see oppression and violence, they cannot tolerate them, their whole desire being only to deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor.¹²⁷Jeremiah 21:12.

שנאי בצע, people who hated ill gotten gains. Bribery and robbery are often referred to as בצע. (compare Chabakuk 2,9). Compare also Genesis 37,26 where Yehudah when saying מה בצע כי נהרוג את אחינו, means: “any gain that we would derive from killing our brother would be illegitimate, illegal.” In Job 27,8 we find a similar use of the word בצע.

שונאי בצע, “men who despise money acquired by unfair means.” According to the plain meaning of the text, what Yitro had in mind were people who could not be bribed. Some commentators see in this term a reference to people who despise amassing financial wealth as an investment in the future, people who demonstrate their lack of faith in G’d the provider, by building a “nest-egg.” [after all the idea of G’d providing manna for only a day at time was meant to instill in the people this very trust in G’d as their Provider. Ed.] Rashi [according to some views. Ed.] understood the term literally, people who hated the very idea that money would be obtained though legally, only through the intervention of a tribunal which had to assess one’s legal claim to it. A שונא בצע would be a person who pays up rather than allows the claim against him to be decided in court, even when he thinks he does not owe the money demanded. [we may each have our own views about the unworldly nature of such people and their use in judging the people. This editor cannot imagine that Yitro was so naive as to think that such men could be found in large numbers. Ed.] Still other commentators understand the term שונאי בצע as referring to judges who resist being intimidated by litigants who threaten them if they do not rule in their favour. [this would be equivalent to Moses warning the judges (Deut. 1,17) לא תגורו מפני איש, “do not tremble before any man.”]

מכל העם אנשי חיל, “from amongst all the people men of accomplishment.” The term אנשי חיל is a collective term and presupposes that these people possessed all the individual qualities Yitro had enumerated such as being “G’d-fearing, men of truth, people despising money.” The title אנשי חיל is applied to people who can lead the nation by judging fairly. It is impossible for fair judgment to be dispensed unless those dispensing it possess reverence for G’d and His Torah, despise ill gotten gain such as bribes, and are truthful. Our sages (Sanhedrin 7) have stated that a true judge is someone who in his mind’s eye constantly sees a sword at his neck above, and gehinom opening before him below, he being in the middle. If he merits it he will be saved from both, if not he will be afflicted by both. Judges must also be “men of truth,” meaning they must love truth as a value by itself choosing to side only with truth, refusing to accept arguments based on lies. They must personify the principle expressed in Exodus 23,7 applying to judges (according to Ibn Ezra) “keep your distance from anything deceitful.” They must also be שונאי בצע, i.e. display a disdain for money. This applies to a disdain for their own money, money acquired honestly (‎Sifri on Deut. 1,17). It goes without saying that they must hate money that was taken from others illegally. (compare Genesis 37,26). The author quotes Scripture to show that the word בצע may mean simply ”money.” An alternative meaning of the word בצע may be “robbery.” The requirement of the psychological makeup of the personality of a judge would have to be a hatred against anything acquired by means of violence direct or indirect, i.e. the threat of violence.
In order to appreciate how highly these virtues were esteemed by the Torah we need only look at instances of the Torah complimenting outstanding individuals. Noach (Genesis 6,9) was praised for being righteous and perfect (תמים), a contrast to the violence which permeated mankind at the time and resulted in the decree of the deluge. Avraham was praised and instructed to be תמים, (Genesis 17,1). Yaakov was described as תם, (Genesis 25,27) Moses was described as extremely ענו, humble, the opposite of arrogant, demanding. All of this goes to show that the principal quality of a judge is not his intellect but his personal virtue. Just as the trunk of a tree is not its most important component but the fruit it yields, our sages taught us that the meaning of Psalm 111,10 שכל טוב לכל עושיהם, is that not the לומדיהם, the intelligence itself, is the principal value of a clever brain but the use to which he puts such intelligence., i.e. עושיהם (Berachot 17).

Any judge from whom property is taken. . . Re”m writes: The adage which Rashi cited does not exactly fit the point of discussion. [This is because property, if taken away through litigation, is not their own property. On the contrary, it rightfully belongs to the other party.] The answer [to the Re”m is as follows: Rashi’s adage] refers to the case [stated in Midrash Tanchuma, Yisro ch. 2] where one litigant says to the judge, “If you do not rule in my favor, I will burn down your house.” The judge rules in his favor, out of fear. Yet, the judge knows that the other litigant will sue him for the false ruling, and the judge will have to compensate him [from his own property] for the loss he caused him. About this Rashi said, “Any judge from whom property is taken through litigation.” In other words: Any judge who must pay money because he ruled against the innocent party is not fit to be a judge, for it is written: “Do not fear any man” (Devarim 1:17).

מכל העם, "from amongst all the people, etc." This means that although Moses might find candidates acceptable to him he should not appoint them until they also proved acceptable to all the people and the people asked for these men to be appointed as judges.

Die von Jitro vorgeschlagene und von Mosche ausgeführte Organisation bedarf einer eingehenden Erwägung. Wenn das שרי אלפים וגו׳ dahin zu verstehen wäre, dass sechshundert Richter je über Tausend, sechstausend je über Hundert usw. eingesetzt worden und diese Richter alle eine gleiche Kompetenz gehabt, so wäre jeder einzelne des Volkes vier Richtern untergeben gewesen, seinem Zehntrichter, seinem Fünfzigrichter, seinem Hundertrichter und seinem Tausendrichter, und es wäre in der Ausführung ein solcher Kompetenzzweifel notwendig entstanden, der weit entfernt von dem "Frieden" gewesen sein müsste, der durch diese Einrichtung hat gefördert werden sollen. Es scheint daher durch diese Einrichtung vielmehr eine Rangordnung der Kompetenz begründet worden zu sein und שר אלפים usw., nicht sowohl den über Tausend etc. Gesetzten, als vielmehr den aus Tausend etc. als der tüchtigste und beste der Auserwählten zu bedeuten. Ein שר אלף war ein aus Tausend, ein שר מאה etc., ein aus Hundert etc. Erwählter. Es. ist klar, dass, wenn man zuerst ein Volk in Gruppen von Tausend zusammentreten lässt und aus je Tausend den besten heraushebt, und dann in Gruppen von Hundert und aus ihnen den besten aushebt, und so weiter bis zu Gruppen von Zehen verfährt, man vier Kategorien von Männern erhält, deren jede vorangehende der nachfolgenden an Charakter und Tüchtigkeit überlegen ist. Erwägt man, wie aus Dewarim 1, 13 hervorzugehen scheint, dass alle die einzusetzenden Männer vom Volke selbst vorgeschlagen und von Mosche nur bestätigt und ernannt worden, — es heißt dort: wählet, eigentlich gebet, euch weise und einsichtsvolle und euren Stämmen bekannte Männer, die will ich an eure Spitze setzen — so wird diese Erwählungsart noch entsprechender erscheinen. Es hätten zuerst je Tausend aus sich den Besten und Tüchtigsten auszuwählen und dann je Hundert. und so weiter bis zum kleinsten Wahlkörper von Zehnen. Es gab somit vier Kategorien von Tüchtigkeit und Vertrauenswürdigkeit, die einander übergeordnet waren. Wie hier unter Mosche vier einander übergeordnete Gerichtskategorien waren, so gab es auch im spätern jüdischen Staat vier Kategorien einander übergeordneter Gerichtshöfe unter dem großen Sanhedrin, welches die Stelle Mosche vertrat. Ein Kollegium von dreien in jedem Orte; ein Kollegium von dreiundzwanzig in jeder größeren Stadt; zwei Kollegien von dreiundzwanzig am Eingang zum Tempelberg und zur Tempelvorhalle; und als höchstes Tribunal das Kollegium von Einundsiebenzig in der Steinhalle. Wie die ersten jüdischen Richter von dem Volke und aus dem Volke erwählt wurden, so wird auch noch nachher die zum Richter erforderliche Qualifikation מומחה לרבים, ein dem Volke Erprobter, genannt. Es gab einen Apell von den kleinen Gerichten an die größern, bis hinauf zu dem großen Sanhedrin. Allein nicht die Parteien appellierten, sondern die kleinen Gerichtskollegien selbst wandten sich in Fällen, die ihnen zweifelhaft waren, an die ihnen übergeordneten Stellen. Ähnlich wie es ja auch hier heißt: כל הדבר הגדול יביאו אליך, die Richter selbst bringen Fälle, deren Entscheidung sie sich nicht zutrauen, bis zu dir, und darf dies sehr wohl voraussetzen, dass sie zuvor sich an die ihnen übergeordnete Kategorie um Entscheidung zu wenden hatten, bevor sie zu Mosche kamen (siehe סנהדרין b 88)

יראי אלוקים, men who only fear G-d, and not their fellow human beings.

אנשי אמת MEN OF TRUTH — These are people commanding confidence (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 18:21:1); who are deserving that one should rely upon their words — appoint these as judges because on account of this their words will be listened to.

שרי אלפים ושרי מאות, “leaders of thousands, and leaders of hundreds.” This verse answers the problem raised by Ibn Ezra, who could not understand why fully one eighth of the people (78600) were “chiefs” of one kind or another. (compare Deut. 1,15) Here there was no need to spell out how many of these people were appointed as judges, how many law enforcers, seeing that the appointment of judges without law enforcers is something quite futile. Clearly, the people described as ראשי שופטיכם, “your chief justices,” must have been drawn from the group described here as שרי אלפים “leaders of thousands.”

אנשי חיל, יראי אלוקים, וגו׳ "able and G'd-fearing men, etc." Yitro spoke of four different qualifications corresponding to the four levels of judges he had suggested, i.e. chiefs of tens, chiefs of fifties, chiefs of hundreds and chiefs of thousands. The expression אנשי חיל is an all encompassing term, i.e. people who possess all the necessary qualifications mentioned to the fullest extent. Such people would be appointed as chiefs of thousands. In order to qualify as a chief of hundreds, Yitro demanded that the judges possess fear of the Lord; the reason that he mentioned יראי אלוקים (instead of יראי השם, for instance) was that their fear of the Lord need comprise only fear of punishment if they trespassed the Lord's commandments. This qualification was adequate to qualify a person to be a chief of hundreds. Although fear of the Lord in His capacity as the tetragram might be perceived as a higher qualification, in this instance it was not. Fear of the Lord as awe of the majesty represented by G'd includes awareness of all of G'd's attributes including the fact that He may be forgiving, display patience, etc. These latter considerations would make a judge think that if he committed an error G'd would be indulgent with him. It was important to Yitro that the judge would be constantly aware of the penalty he would face if he perverted justice. Yitro's point is best illustrated in Chagigah 4 where the prophet Samuel who had been raised from the dead by the witch employed by King Saul was visibly frightened (Samuel 28,15). If Samuel had reason to be concerned, how much more must ordinary individuals be afraid of G'd's justice. The Talmud reports that Samuel did not make an appearance until Moses himself accompanied him as a protector. The chiefs of thousands also possessed this quality of fear of punishment; in their case they possessed an additional qualification which the chiefs of hundreds did not need to possess. Concerning the qualifications needed in order to be appointed as one of the chiefs of fifties, Yitro demanded that these judges be known as truthful. Although these people did not possess the level of fear of punishment which characterised their colleagues the chiefs of hundreds, their reputation as truthful men sufficed to make them eligible as chiefs of fifties. Finally, in order to qualify as a chief of tens it was only necessary to have a reputation that one spurned ill-gotten gains. Yitro was careful to describe these people as "hating" ill gotten gains. It was not enough that they could curb their desire for such gains; they had to be people who never allowed themselves to lust after such gains. These last-mentioned qualifications were, of course, presumed to be possessed also by the chiefs of fifties and the chiefs of hundreds. If Yitro had meant for these various qualifications he mentioned to be be cumulative, i.e. that even a person who was a chief of tens had to possess all of these attributes, the attributes should have been linked to each other by the conjunctive letter ו i.e. אנשי חיל ויראי אלוקים.

Auffallend könnte die große Anzahl Richter erscheinen. Es ergibt sich nämlich eine Zahl von 78.600 Richtern, somit war der siebente oder achte Mann in Israel ein Richter. (סנהדרין יח א) Allein jeder rechtschaffene und des Gesetzes einigermaßen kundige Mann war in Israel zum Richter berufen. Rechtschaffen und des Gesetzes nicht unkundig sollte ja eigentlich jeder sein. Und so ward das ganze Volk und somit jeder im Volke als Träger und Vertreter des Gesetzes betrachtet, dass je drei rechtschaffene Männer aus dem Volke zu einem Richterkollegium zusammentreten und jeden Rechtverweigernden aburteilen und zur Erfüllung des Rechts nötigen konnten. סנהדרין 5a, תוספו׳ ד׳׳ה אפי׳). Die Wohltat einer solchen Institution lässt sich leicht an der Schwierigkeit und Kostspieligkeit der Rechtsauslegung in andern Kreisen ermessen und würdigen. Es dürften aber überdies diese Erwählten des Volkes nicht bloß zu Entscheidungen von Prozessen bestellt gewesen sein, sondern ihnen auch die Belehrung des Volkes obgelegen haben, also, dass die Mosche geoffenbarten Gesetze vermittelst derselben dem Volke mitgeteilt, zum Verständnis gebracht und im Gedächtnis wach gehalten wurden. So fasst auch רמב׳׳ם in seiner Einleitung zur Mischna die (עירובין נד ב׳) mitgeteilte Lehrordnung: כיצד סדר משנה וכו׳ auf, dass die zuerst von Mosche dem Aaron, sodann in dessen Gegenwart seinen Söhnen, sodann den Ältesten in Gegenwart aller dreier, und endlich in Gegenwart Aarons, seiner Söhne und der Ältesten der Volksgesamtheit mitgeteilten Gesetze, sodann durch die השרים על כל ישראל, somit durch die hier erwählten Gesetzesbeamten dem Volke bis zur vollständigsten Aneignung gelehrt wurden. וישוטו השרים על כל ישראל ללמוד ולהגות עד שידעו בגרסה המצוה ההיא וירגילו לקרותה עכ׳׳ל.

שונאי בצע, men who despise to make money only through being successful in litigation. Rashi bases himself on the saying in the Talmud in Baba Batra folio 58; “any judge from whom one extracts money only by means of legal proceedings, is not fit to be a judge.”What is the correct interpretation of the expression: “they hate money gained through litigation?” Example: one of the litigants threatens the judge that if he is not found justified in his claim against his fellow man, that litigant will burn the judge’s house down, or threats of a similar nature. If such a judge is undeterred by such threats, he truly fits the definition of people whom Yitro called שונאי בצע. If, however he indicts the innocent and convicts the guilty, out of fear of the threats that had been made against him, the opposite party of the one who had won in the litigation is considered as having won judgment only by dint of legal proceedings but not by dint of having been found righteous in his claim.

שנאי בצע HATING LUCRE — men who hate (pay no regard to) their property when it is to be made the matter of a law-suit (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 18:21:1), in accordance with what we say: Any judge from whom one has to wring the money he owes only by means of a law-suit is no fitting judge (Bava Batra 58b).

It is obvious that if Moses were able to find a sufficient number of people possessing the highest of these attributes this would be wonderful; as it turned out, the Torah reports that Moses was indeed able to find close to 80,000 people who could qualify for the title of אנשי חיל. This also proves that Yitro had spoken of these qualifications in a descending order. Had Yitro intended for these qualifications to be cumulative, the Torah would have had to report that Moses found people who were men of truth, G'd-fearing, hated ill gotten gains, etc. We must certainly not assume that the reason the Torah does not mention Moses as having selected men of truth, G'd-fearing men, etc. was because he could not find such people. The only reason that Yitro had mentioned a variety of qualifications in a descending order was that he was afraid Moses might not be able to find a sufficient number of people with the highest attribute of all.

שרי אלפים, “chiefs in charge of thousands; according to Rashi, there would be 600 such “chiefs.” There would be six thousand chiefs” of hundreds and 60000 chiefs of ten Israelites each, so that there would be a total of 78600 “judges.” If so we have to assume that these were in addition to the 600000 ordinary Israelites, and who had not been included in the census. [There are numerous problems with this count. See Tossaphot Baba Batra 121, Ed.] Some commentators suggest that there is no problem at all as all these “judges” were over the age of 60, and thus would not have been included in the census at any rate. The Talmud stated explicitly that males under 20 years of age and over 60 years of age were never included in any census. A third opinion holds that each group of “chiefs” was included in the census of his particular category, i.e. the chiefs of thousands in the count of each one thousand Israelites, etc.

שרי אלפים OFFICERS OF THOUSANDS — there were six hundred such officers for the six hundred thousand men of Israel.

I have given some thought as to the reason why Yitro merited that this whole portion bears his name. While it is true that inasmuch as Yitro paid honour to Moses the servant of G'd, G'd repaid him by honouring him, G'd could have found many other ways of compensating Yitro for his good deeds. Why did the Torah have to create the impression that if it had not been for Yitro a priest from Midian, Moses together with G'd's chosen people would not have known how to administer the Israelites' affairs?

שרי חמשים OFFICERS OF FIFTIES — twelve thousand.

שרי מאות OFFICERS OF HUNDREDS — there were six thousand of them.

I believe the reason for all this is that G'd wanted to show the Jewish people already at that time and for all future generations that there are great and intelligent men to be found amongst the nations of the world. Vitro was an example of an enlightened Gentile who demonstrated this point beyond question. It is to teach us that if G'd chose the Jewish people as His people this is not because they possess superior intellectual qualities. G'd chose the Jewish people as a reward for the loyalty the patriarchs had shown Him and as an act of love towards this people. There is a discussion in Zevachim 116 as to whether Yitro arrived in the desert prior to the revelation at Mount Sinai or after. According to the view that he arrived prior to the revelation, the point we just made that G'd did not choose the Jewish people because of their intellectual superiority is reinforced. Although the Gentiles number more wise men than the Jews G'd still decided to make us His pilot project. This imposes an additional duty on us to praise Him for having chosen us as an act of love. Even according to the opinion that Yitro arrived in the desert only after מתן תורה, the reason that the Torah reports his arrival before it reports the revelation indicates that the Torah wishes us to learn this lesson.

שרי עשרת OFFICERS OF TENS — sixty thousand (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 18:21:2, Sanhedrin 18a).

ושפטו — Onkelos translates this by וידונון AND LET THEM JUDGE (not “and they judged”, as in v. 26) — the word expresses a command.

AND LET THEM JUDGE THE PEOPLE AT ALL TIMES. The meaning thereof is that “when there will be many judges available, the oppressed one will go to the judge at any time he desires and he will find him ready [to listen to his grievance]. He cannot come near you [i.e., Moses] at any time because of the great multitude of people before you and on account of your many preoccupations. The result of this is that many of them will rather tolerate the violence committed against them because they have no opportunity to tell it to you. They do not want to abandon their work and affairs to wait for a free moment when they will be able to approach you.” This is the sense of the expression, each one shall go to his place in peace.¹²⁸Verse 23. At present, because they cannot come near for judgment at all times, they will not rest in peace, since this opens a door for unjust people to commit violence and for oppressors to cause contention. And the meaning of the expression to his place¹²⁸Verse 23. is that to whatever place they will come, [they will live in peace] as long as they are in the camp in the wilderness.
From the language, And let them judge the people ‘at all times,’ our Rabbis have derived the principle¹²⁹Sanhedrin 34b. that in civil cases, the verdict may be reached even during the night,¹³⁰In capital cases, the verdict must be reached during the daytime (ibid., 32 a). The trial itself, in both capital and non-capital cases, must be held during the daytime (ibid.) since it does not say here, “[and let them judge the people] the whole day.”

והקל מעליך, the many minor disputes which do not need to be adjudged by you, personally.

בכל עת, "at all times." The Torah hints that even at times when Moses was busy receiving instructions from G'd these judges would continue to dispense justice, something that Moses had not been able to do.

כל הדבר הגדול, needs to be addressed to G’d.

ושפטו את העם בכל עת, “they shall judge the people at all times.” The meaning of the words בכל עת is “at all times convenient to the people.” As long as Moses was the only judge it was obviously impossible for a litigant to get justice when he wanted to. Moses was constantly swamped with petitioners. If Yitro’s advice were accepted this would change.

וידונון — an expression of a command. It means “They shall always judge,” which is called the “future progressive” tense. I.e., they will always be judging. But the second ושפטו (v. 26) is translated by Onkelos as ודיינין , which means: “They were always judging.” This is called the “past progressive” tense.

ושפטו את העם בכל עת, “they would be ready to sit in judgment of the people at any time.” The reason they would always be available, said Yitro, was that they did not have to take time out to speak with G-d as Moses often was in the habit of doing.

והקל מעליך lit., AND TO LIGHTEN the burden FROM OFF YOU — this thing will serve to lighten it from off you. והקל — the grammatical form is similar to (Exodus 8:11) ”and to harden (והכבד) his heart”; (2 Kings 3:24) “and to smite (והכות) Moab” — both of which words are infinitives expressing present time.

ונשאו אתך, they will give you the chance to give your full attention to those problems that are complicated by sharing the burden of leadership with you. They will also dispense knowledge to the people.

The present tense. I.e., it is not an expression of a command because the above-mentioned appointing of the judges already made things easier, and no further action is necessary. It means, “This is the way to make things easier; not any other way.”

והקל מעליך ונשאו אתך, "so they shall make it easier for you and bear the burden with you." Yitro meant that his suggestion was intended to lighten Moses' burden, not that he would not be allowed to judge any other than the most difficult cases. The idea was that the other judges should share the burden together with Moses.

והקל מעליך, “thus you can make it easier for yourself;” according to some commentators this phrase can be understood not only as advice or prediction, but as tantamount to a command.

וצוך אלהים ויכלת עמד This implies: Consult the Almighty; if He commands thee to do this, thou wilt be able to stand, and if He prevents thee thou wilt be unable to stand (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 18:23).

על מקומו יבא בשלום, seeing that the knowledge of the law will be widespread in so many lower courts, every litigant will know that the judgment he received was true and impartial. They will therefore not continue to constantly appeal such judgments.

אם את הדבר הזה תעשה וצוך השם, "if you will do this thing and the Lord will command you, etc." Why did Yitro add the rider about G'd commanding Moses to accept his suggestion? If Yitro wanted for Moses to consult with G'd about the matter, he had already done so in verse 19 when he said: "I will give you an advice and G'd will be with you." Why did he have to repeat himself? Perhaps Yitro was afraid of Moses arguing that after all was said and done he would forfeit the opportunity to perform the commandments of teaching the people G'd's commandments and that it was not the way of the righteous to look for ways to ease their burdens even if they would tire from shouldering them. After all, man was born in order to carry burdens (Job 5,7). In order to forestall such an argument, Yitro said: "and if the Lord will command you." Yitro was not unaware of the physical strength required to be a prophet. We have a description of how Daniel found himself physically weak in the presence of an angel (Daniel 10,8). Imagine how much weaker he would have been had he faced G'd as Moses did on an almost daily basis. Our sages in Nedarim 38 state that the spirit of prophecy rests only on people who are physically superior, of heroic dimensions. Moses had refined his body so that he did not experience weakness even when he had a gruelling day of sitting in judgment. Nonetheless he was only a human being with all that this implies. Yitro told him therefore that he should forego this particular commandment which was capable of fulfilment by others in order to be able to fulfil his task as a prophet in the best manner possible. When Yitro said: "if you do this thing and G'd commands you, you will be able to endure," he meant that if Moses accepted his advice he would be able to endure as a prophet, i.e. when G'd would communicate with him and teach him other commandments because you have husbanded your strength. When Yitro said ויכלת עמוד, you will be able to stand, he meant that Moses would retain sufficient strength to receive G'd's communications while remaining standing on his feet. We have proof that this is what occurred in Exodus 34,2 where G'd tells Moses: "stand with Me there on top of the Mountain," and in Deut. 5,28 where G'd invited Moses: "stand here with Me." Yitro was afraid that unless Moses reduced his present workload this would undermine his physical ability to carry out his prophetic duties to the full.

וצוך אלוקים, when G’d will command the answer you are to give to the judges.

If He will command you to do so. . . [The verse literally means: “Hashem will command you, and you will be able to survive.” Thus] Rashi explains that it [should be understood] as if it said: “If Hashem commands you, then you will be able to survive.” For how could it mean, “Hashem will command you”? How did Yisro know that Hashem will command Moshe to do as he proposed?

(Ibid. 23) "If you would do this thing, etc.": Go and take counsel with the Omnipotent. "and G d command you, you will be able to bear up." If He consents to you, you will be able to bear up. If not, you will not be able to bear up. "and also all of this people, etc.": Aaron, Nadav and Avihu and the seventy elders of Israel "shall come to their place in peace.

V. 23. Da es nicht אל מקומו, sondern על מקומו יבא בשלום heißt, so ist damit wohl nicht ein bloßes friedliches Nachhausekommen, sondern ein "auf die ihm gebührende Stelle und Stellung kommen" ausgedrückt. Das ist ja ganz eigentlich Frucht der Tätigkeit des Richters, dass sie jeden und jedes auf den ihm gebührenden Standpunkt verweist, bringt und darauf sicher stellt. Darum heißt er ja שפת ,שפד) שופט): Ordner!

על מקומו, “to his tent.”

וגם כל העם הזה AND ALL THIS PEOPLE ALSO — Aaron, Nadab and Abihu and the seventy elders who are now associated with you (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 18:23).

ויכלת לעמוד, with the help of your assistants.

And the seventy elders. . . [How does Rashi know this? An answer is:] Because it cannot mean the litigants. For in the desert, there were no farmers or craftsmen who would miss work by [standing and] waiting. Although the Torah seemingly says that Moshe was judging alone, our Sages interpret “You, and also this people” (v. 18) to mean that Moshe was accompanied by the elders even before Yisro’s advice. (Re”m) [An alternative answer:] גם comes to include Aharon and the elders, and כל comes to include Nadav and Avihu, who were not yet elders. Rashi did not want to mention Chur here, since one Midrash says he had already died, so there is no point in mentioning him. (Maharshal)

יבוא בשלום, they will immediately be able to go home, as they did not have to line up at a single point [in a camp the size of which was over 12 by 12 kilometers. Ed.]

וגם כל העם הזה, the ones standing in line before you from morning to evening, יבא בשלום, will each be able to go home in short order.

V. 24. Nichts ist so lehrreich, als der Bericht über diese erste staatliche Einrichtung des jüdischen Volkes unmittelbar vor dem nun folgenden Kapitel der Gesetzgebung. So wenig war Mosche aus sich ein legislatorisches Genie, so wenig organisatorisches Talent war ihm eigen, dass er die ersten Elemente einer Staatseinrichtung erst von seinem Schwiegervater lernen musste. Der Mann, der sich bis zur Erschöpfung abmühte und nicht von selbst eine so naheliegende, ihm, dem Volke und der Sache wohltuende Einrichtung oder eine ähnliche traf, der Mann, dem erst ein Jitro die Einsetzung von Richtern raten musste, der Mann hat nicht aus sich dem Volke Verfassung und Gesetze erteilt, der Mann war nur, und zwar eben darum das treueste Organ Gottes!

ויבחר משה אנשי חיל, after he had looked in vain to find men with all the qualifications Yitro had suggested. These men were experienced in ferreting out the truth so that they could bring litigation to a speedy conclusion. Men of this caliber were more important in such positions than men who could truthfully be described as G’d-fearing, but naïve and inexperienced in the ways of the world. Our sages in Shabbat 63 have said: “if a scholar is in the habit of taking revenge and holding grudges, gird him around your loins, whereas if an ignoramus is very pious do not live in his proximity.”

ויבחר משה אנשי חיל, “Moses selected capable men;” the meaning of the words אנשי חיל, is that he selected men whose qualities corresponded to the criteria stipulated by his fatherinlaw, Yitro in verse 21. Moses at least knew beyond doubt who were the wealthy men among the Israelites, and who could therefore be more or less immune to the temptation of bribes. As far as the invisible virtues were concerned that his fatherinlaw had stipulated as criteria for making someone suitable to be a judge, he had to rely on his intuition and G-d’s help. This is why they were not mentioned here, as Moses’ judgment was not based on evidence acceptable in a court of law. Even forty years later when Moses recalls the episode, he speaks only about characteristics which are visible, i.e. possessing insight, displaying wisdom and possessing knowledge, i.e חכמים נבונים, ידועים. (Compare Deuteronomy 1,13) No one, on the other hand, can be sure if his fellow man truly is a G-d fearing person.

ושפטו — Onkelos translates by ודינין ית עמא “and they were judging the people” (cf. Rashi on v. 22).

ישפוטו הם, they will judge in a number of locations. The construction pu in this word is in lieu of the normal construction פו with the vowel cholem.

V. 26.ישפוטו : eine ungewöhnliche Form für ישְפְטי. Man vergleicht damit das ähnliche לא תַעבורי מזה (Ruth 2, 8) für לא תַעְבְרִי. Wir möchten die Vermutung wagen, ישפוטו sei eine aus Singular und Plural, aus ישפוט und ישפטו komponierte Form, und würde dann ausdrücken: auch die von ihnen ausgehenden Entscheidungen, ישפטו waren eigentlich Mosche Entscheidungen ישפוט, in seinem Geiste, nach den von ihm empfangenen Prinzipien und Regeln. Ebenso mag das לא תעבורי in Ruth ein Kompositum aus masc. תעבור und das femin. תעברי sein und der Ausdruck absichtlich zwischen beiden Geschlechtern schwanken, um eben von dieser Menschenfreundlichkeit des Boas jeden Argwohn eines geschlechtlichen Gedankens fern zu halten. Vergl. den Geschlechtswechsel oben Kap. 2, 17 in einem ähnlichen Falle.

יביאון — Onkelos translates this by מיתין (participle) “they were bringing” (or “they always brought”).

יִשְׁפּוּטוּ הֵם — This is the same as יִשְׁפְּטוּ; similar is (Ruth 2:8) לֹא תַעֲבוּרִי which is the same as לֹא תַעַבְרִי. Its translation in the Targum is דינין אינון “they were judging”. The above verses (i. e. the verbs in v. 22) express the command and consequently they are translated by וידונון and ייתון and ידונון, “and let them judge”, and “let them bring”, and “let them judge”; but these verses express the doing of what was commanded (they state that the command was actually carried out).

וילך לו אל ארצו AND HE WENT HIS WAY INTO HIS OWN LAND, for the purpose of making proselytes of the members of his family (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 18:24:2).

וישלח משה את חותנו, for he did not want to join the fate of the Jewish people by going with them to the land of Canaan. He had said clearly: לא אלך, “I am not going, for I am going back to my own country to my birthplace.” (Numbers 10,30) Perhaps this was due to his being of advanced age; we encounter such reticence to move to a better place when David offered Barzilai a home in Jerusalem and he declined, citing that at his age he would not enjoy what Jerusalem had to offer anyway. (Samuel II 19,38) He preferred to be buried with his father and mother. Yitro’s sons (and daughters?) however definitely joined the Jewish people in their journey to the Holy Land, as we know from Judges 1,16 where they are described as the children of the Keyni, the father-in-law of Moses. Bileam also prophesied concerning their future in Numbers 24,21.

Moshe sent his father-in-law off. He honored him by escorting him part of the way. This proved that the honor he showed him when he first arrived was not merely for the sake of his wife and children, whom Yisro had brought with him.

Converting his family. [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, why was the sending attributed to Moshe? Perforce, because it was to convert Yisro’s family. And [the Torah considers] this to Moshe’s credit, for it is written, “The children of Keini, Moshe’s father-in-law, ascended from the city of palm trees with the children of Yehudah. . . and dwelt among the people” (Shoftim 1:16).

וישלח, “he accompanied him, (when Yitro left for home;)” This is what he had learned from Avraham, who after royally hosting the angels saw them off by accompanying them some distance as reported in Genesis.ואברהם הולך עמם לשלחם :18,16Some commentators believe that the entire episode reported from the beginning of chapter 18, took place after the revelation of G-d at Mount Sinai when the people received the second set of the Tablets, Moses having smashed the first set. Moses had descended from the Mountain with that set on the tenth day of Tishrey, and the verse beginning with the words: ויהי ממחרת, “it was on the following day, etc.” would have been the 11th day of that month. (18,13) What had been reported prior to this, i.e. Yitro’ arrival, being welcomed, and offering sacrifices all took place still on the tenth, after Moses had arrived and placed the Tablets in the ark which had been prepared for it. This corresponds to the way Rashi explains all this at the end of Parshat ki tissa, (Exodus 33,11 and 34,29. Compare Rashi on Deuteronomy 1,9 on the whole subject and the apparent contradictions there.) Whether Yitro had arrived at the camp of the Israelites prior to the revelation or subsequently, there is unanimity amongst the sages that he did not return to his homeland before the second year in the month of lyar when the people made ready to proceed to the Holy Land, having been encamped around Mount Sinai for almost an entire year. If the line reporting Moses accompanying Yitro on his departure occurred in the chronological sequence reported by the Torah, then both he, Tzipporah, Moses’ wife, and his two sons would have belonged to the only generation that ever experienced such a revelation. If the Torah did not report events in their chronological sequence, we have to make peace with the fact that Tzipporah and her sons did not experience this event. [Yitro’s experiencing it or not is of secondary significance in the opinion of this editor. Ed.] The fact that neither of Moses’ sons are ever mentioned again by name in the Torah lends some support to the opinion that they had not stood at Mount Sinai.