Commentaire de citation sur Les Juges 4:11

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.

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). — 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).

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). 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”.

that shall not fall (יִצְעָן) shall not be lowered. Comp. (Jud. 4:11) “Elon-bezaanannim (אֵלוֹן בְּצַעֲנַנִּים),” which is rendered as: the plain of pits (מִישׁוֹר אַגְנַיָּא), which are pits in the fields, called kombes in O.F. Comp. (Baba Kamma 61b) “The pits of the earth (אַגְנֵי דְאַרְעָא) they are considered,” where water gathers from the mountains and the hills. I believe that the ‘beth’ of the word בְּצַעֲנַנִּים is not radical, but is a prefix.