Commento su Esodo 18:1

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”?