창세기 29:18의 인용 해설

וישלח יצחק את יעקב, “Yitzchak sent Yaakov, etc. Here the question arises that seeing Yaakov left his father’s home at the command of his parents, why do the sages claim that the separation of 22 years which Yaakov experienced from his son Joseph was due to his failure to observe the commandment of honouring father and mother during that period? (compare Megillah 17) Perhaps we must assume that his parents had meant for him to marry Leah and to return home forthwith when his father would send for him. Yaakov, however, had set his mind on marrying Rachel on account of her beauty; he was therefore not fulfilling a parental command by doing so and his delay in returning home was accounted against him. In fact, he had volunteered to serve seven years for Rachel (Genesis 29,18).

In the same way that it is difficult to find two more similar stories than the respective exiles of Ya’akov and Moshe,¹⁴⁸See Chapter 3. it is equally difficult to find two more disparate parallels than the roles played in these stories by their respective fathers-in-law.¹⁴⁹For our present purposes, we are assuming that the various names for the man referred to as Moshe’s father-in-law (i.e. Yitro, Re’uel, Chovev) all describe the same person, whom we will, for simplicity’s sake, call Yitro. While this point is a matter of debate and there are those who suggest that the various names refer to different people, most of the relevant citations are, in any case, from sections where the father-in-law is explicitly referred to as Yitro. Whereas Lavan seems to do something disagreeable every step of the way, Yitro does just the opposite, constantly providing help and support to his son-in-law. Ya’akov has to ask to marry one of Lavan’s daughters (Bereshit 29:18),¹⁵⁰Bereshit 29:18. whereas Yitro offers Zipporah to Moshe as his bride (Shemot 2:21).¹⁵¹Shemot 2:21. Not only that, Lavan makes the terms of the marriage agreement almost unbearable (Bereshit 29:26–7);¹⁵²Bereshit 29:26–7. in the case of Moshe, we don’t hear of any formal terms whatsoever. Most significantly, when Ya’akov asks to leave, we see Lavan trying repeatedly to foil his desires (Bereshit 30:25-35; Bereshit 31:22-24).¹⁵³Ibid., 30:25–35, 31:22–24. Regarding Moshe, he is not only given permission but an apparent blessing as well (Shemot 4:18).¹⁵⁴Shemot 4:18. On the one hand, Lavan runs after Ya’akov in what could be understood as an effort to kidnap the wives and the children, whom Lavan describes as his own (Bereshit 31:43).¹⁵⁵Bereshit 31:43. Yitro, on the other hand, runs after Moshe for just the opposite reason – to bring his son-in-law’s children and wife back to him (Shemot 18:1–6).¹⁵⁶Shemot 18:1–6. Finally, when Lavan catches up with Ya’akov, he tries to impose his own religious preferences on his son-in-law, making sure that their non-belligerence pact makes reference to his own god as well as the God of Ya’akov (Bereshit 31:53).¹⁵⁷Bereshit 31:53. In comparison, when Yitro finds Moshe in the desert, he makes the decision to offer sacrifices to his son-in-law’s God alone and to leave sacrifices to his own gods for a more appropriate time.¹⁵⁸Of course Yitro’s sacrificing only to God would be a foregone conclusion if he himself had completely converted to the Jewish faith, as indicated by many rabbinic statements. We will explain later, however, that such a reading doesn’t seem to fit well with the text’s simple meaning, nor does it seem to be a consensus position among the sages. As a result, we will assume that Yitro had not completely left idolatry at this time and that he made a conscious choice to worship only the Israelite God in Moshe’s presence.

“Our toil” (Deuteronomy 26:7): This refers to the (“Banim”) boys, as it is said, “Let every new born boy be cast into the Nile and let ever girl live” (Exodus 1:22): What is it about the expression “Our toil” that leads the Maggid to assume that it is referring to the Israelite boys who were drown in the Nile River? The word “Amal, toil” or “burden” is often used to refer to labor whose outcome is purposeless and in vain. See Ecclesiastes, 1:3, “What profit has a person of all his toil wherein he toils under the Sun?” or Job 4:8, “They sow wickedness and reap toil.” The Hebrew boys were born and immediately killed by the Egyptians so that the labor of carrying them for nine months and then giving birth to them was in the end in vain. Their mothers toiled and carried these children only to see their sons die. But why, then, does the Maggid also quote the final part of the verse, “and let every girl live?” Since the girls were allowed to live the labor of carrying them was not in vain. Pharaoh’s decree would appear to have been directed at the baby boys and not the girls. They were drowned in the Nile and not the girls. The girls, however, were also “born in vain” since they would remain single and alone all their lives if the Israelite boys were all put to death. They would not be able to establish Jewish homes. Pharaoh’s decrees affected both the boys and the girls. The Israelite boys were killed so that the girls would have no one to marry among their own people. Rabbi Epstein explains the derivation of the words “Ben, son” and “Bat, daughter” in light of this comment. He derives the word “Ben,” from the Hebrew verb “boneh” which means “to build,” because it was the job of the boys to build a future for the Israelite people. He then suggests that the word “Bat” comes from the word “Bayit” or “house.” How could the women establish a “Bayit” if there were no men with whom to help build it?