Pensée juive sur Le Deutéronome 4:34

The list of all the journeys the Jewish people made in the desert, is to illustrate all the goodness they received at the hands of G'd during all those long years. After listing a review of the last forty years, the Torah gives instructions for the future, i.e. to drive out the Canaanites, division of the land by lottery, the reason why former residents must not be tolerated in their midst, i.e. to insure their religious and national purity. Spiritual well being is even more important than the physical amenities the land had to offer. For that reason, G'd is apparently cruel, in insisting that all the survivors of the seven nations in Canaan be killed, i.e. an act of kindness towards Israel. They are warned that survivors would become "pricks in their eyes" (33,55) blinding them concerning their real interests if they would be tolerated. In the book of Judges 2,3, we find details about how toleration of the remnants of the Canaanites spelled trouble for Israel in its homeland for many hundreds of years. After that we read about the laws concerning murder in its varying degrees. In discussing the nuances of awareness by the murderer of the severity of his crime, one point needs special emphasis. Any killer, however innocent, must be aware that the victim would revenge himself, were he but able to do so. For this reason, the relative of the victim can be expected to take the place of the murdered person and execute this revenge. Even the avenger, however, is duty bound to consider the killer's motivation, degree of awareness etc. Therefore, the Torah establishes some objective criteria by describing the weapon that caused the death. If the instrument of death is one that would not normally be used to commit murder, then surely the killer's intent had not been murderous. If bad blood had existed between the victim and the killer, even a harmless looking instrument might have been rigged to become lethal. If, however, neither the instrument of death could be classified as a weapon, nor was there evidence that animosity had existed between the victim and the killer, then no criminal intent is presumed to have existed.

Since it is the duty of the father or husband to provide basic needs for his wife and children, a wife and children who have been abandoned do not normally make the first move in an effort at reconciliation. If, as in this case, the wife has care of her husband's children and is under the protection of a highly placed father, she has even less reason to seek out her errant husband. Lost objects do not as a rule chase after their owner. Tzipporah, it seems, had ample reason to feel the aggrieved party. Even if the wife is consumed by love for her husband and initiates the conciliatory moves, her father does not need "to lose face" by running after his son-in-law. (1) Yitro overcame all those feelings because he recognised the great and altruistic nature of Moses’s preoccupation with his people. Therefore, he decided not to stand on ceremony. Possibly, G-d had helped along in framing his state of mind so Moses’s family as well as Yitro would have a chance to participate in the revelation at Mount Sinai. Alternately, surely Moses would not have sent for them in time for the revelation at Mount Sinai. Our verse then reiterates the position of Yitro to tell us that in spite of his eminence, he made the first move in reuniting Moses and Tzipporah. (2) Since, after the Exodus, the reason for Moses to have temporarily abandoned his family at Aaron's behest had disappeared, the Torah mentions this fact to give an additional reason why reunion at this time was particularly opportune. Although this would have provided additional reason for Moses to make the first move, Yitro did not wait for this. (3) The reason it says "and the name of the one is Eliezer," is because normally Moses’s firstborn should have been called by that name, as a sign of gratitude for G-d having saved Moses from Pharaoh. Since at the time of Gershon's birth however, Moses was still in danger- a warrant being out for him,- he could not name Eliezer until G-d had told him that all his enemies had died already. Athough both Yitro and Tzipporah had waived any injured pride they might have felt, they were not certain of their welcome. Therefore, in the first instance, Tzipporah and her sons came to "the desert in which Israel was encamped," and only Yitro approached Moses (6) right away to find out how Moses felt about them. The enquiries after each other's welfare could only take place later. Once having ascertained that both he and Tzipporah were welcome, an official reception was arranged. According to our sages, the initial meeting was either by letter or intermediary. (2) The report about what G-d had done for Israel, is added to show that Yitro rejoiced in the new found freedom of the Jewish people. Also, of course, he recognised the "tit for tat" kind of G-d’s justice that had been at work in visiting retribution on Egypt. This added to the awe Yitro felt when he contemplated the might of the G-d of Israel. (7+8) It is extremely unlikely that Yitro's observations made "on the day after" refers to the day after the Day Of Atonement. More likely the reference is to the day after Yitro had arrived. All this was before matan Torah, the revelation at Mount Sinai, a time when Torah laws had not yet been promulgated. (11) Therefore, Moses’s personal judgment was essential in arriving at decisions, and the long line up is understandable. It would have been impossible for Moses to find a multitude of judges whose objectivity etc. could be assumed, and who had not received guidelines other than to consult their consciences. To win acceptance, Moses needed to explain the reasons for his decisions. Had Torah legislation existed already, it would have been so much simpler. All Moses would have had to do would have been to quote the Torah commandment in question. (9) When Yitro observed all this, he told Moses that his scrupulous efforts to win over both litigants to accept his judgment would prove counter productive, would tire him out and create impatience among all those who had to wait in line all this time. They would all become short tempered, the opposite of the objective of settling disputes. (10) Yitro's suggestion was that Moses should ask G-d for guidelines "and the Lord will be with you," so that he would only have to act as a mouthpiece and supervisor over what the other judges who would be taught the guidelines would judge. Yitro expressed his conviction that his advice was so sound that "and the Lord will command you," surely G-d would issue an order in line with what he had suggested. When Moses listened to his father-in-law, he in fact accepted the suggestion to ask G-d for the requisite legislation. Since Yitro's advice could not be carried out till after matan Torah when the (12) legislation would have been received and the people could have been trained, (all while encamped around the mountain, i.e. 11 months) Yitro remained with the Jewish people until all his suggestions had been implemented. The report in Parshat Behalotcha as well as the one in Parshat Devarim are then all in keeping with this interpretation. Although, of course, Torah existed long before Yitro had been born, according to our principle that a meritorious act is rewarded by benefits accruing to others through the merit of the person carrying out that meritorious deed, Yitro became the catalyst for Torah to be revealed at this juncture. We can now well understand that a whole Parshah has been named after him.

Second, the knock of the Beloved was heard on the battlefield. The tiny defense forces of ‎‎[the ‎State of] Israel defeated the mighty Arab armies. The miracle of “the many delivered into ‎the ‎hands of the few” materialized before our eyes, and an even greater miracle happened! ‎God ‎hardened the heart of Ishmael and commanded him to go into battle against the State of ‎Israel. ‎Had the Arabs not declared war on Israel and instead supported the Partition Plan, the State ‎of ‎Israel would have remained without Jerusalem, without a major portion of the Galilee, ‎and ‎without some areas of the Negev. If thousands of years ago Pharaoh had allowed the children ‎of ‎Israel to leave immediately, as Moses had originally requested, Moses would have been bound ‎by ‎his word to return in three days. Pharaoh, however, hardened his heart and did not listen ‎to ‎Moses. “The Holy One then took Israel out with a mighty hand and by an outstretched ‎arm” ‎‎(Deuteronomy 4:34). Consequently, the force of the promise [that the children of Israel ‎would ‎return to Egypt] was vitiated. No contract that is based upon mutuality of promise binds one ‎side if ‎the other party refuses to fulfill its obligations. Listen! My Beloved Knocks!‎