출애굽기 18:8의 인용 해설

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.

Kap. 12. VV. 1 u. 2. ותדבר מרים. Diese Verse bieten dem Verständnis erhebliche Schwierigkeiten. Sie berichten, daß Mirjam und Aharon Nachteiliges über Mosche geredet und zwar in Veranlassung האשה הכשית אשר לקח, welches ohne weiteres heißen würde: in Veranlassung der äthiopischen Frau, die er geheiratet hatte, כי denn, wurde hinzugefügt, das Faktum an sich wäre wahr, er hatte eine äthiopische Frau geheiratet, אשה כושית לקח. So weit wäre das Verständnis klar, und wäre dann nur nicht sowohl auffallend, daß Mirjam und Aharon sich über dieses Faktum aufgehalten, als daß in der Tat Mosche eine Äthiopierin geheiratet haben sollte! Wollte man aber in dieser Äthiopierin oder Abessynierin keine andere als die Midjanitin Zipora erblicken, so wäre, abgesehen davon, daß כוש doch nicht identisch mit מדין ist, ein Zweifaches nicht abzusehen, einmal, was in dieser Heirat Tadelnswertes gewesen, und ferner ist uns das Faktum längst ja bekannt und braucht wahrlich nicht erst noch als ein Novum bestätigt zu werden: כי אשה usw. Allein sofort die uns V. 2 mitgeteilten Worte Mirjams und Aharons lassen ja überhaupt es gar nicht zu, daß die Heirat mit der אשה כשית an sich, möge sie nun gewesen sein, wer sie wolle, Gegenstand der tadelnden Äußerung der Geschwister gewesen sein könne. Offenbar setzen nämlich die Worte: הרק אך במשה דבר ד, das Faktum כי אשה כשית לקח im engen Zusammenhang zu Mosche Prophetie und zwar ebenso unzweideutig dargestellt, daß Mosche אשה כשית לקח, weil דבר ד׳ בו die Geschwister aber in diesem דבר ד׳ במשה keine Rechtfertigung für לקיחת אשה כשית fanden, indem Mosche nicht der einzige war, mit welchem Gott geredet, und alle die andern, Mirjam und Aharon selbst, obgleich auch sie der Prophetie gewürdigt worden, doch darum sich nicht veranlasst gesehen לקחת אשה כושית! Nun liegt es aber völlig außer dem Bereiche denkbarer Möglichkeit, daß Mosche, daß überhaupt irgend jemand, weil er der Prophetie von Gott gewürdigt worden "deshalb" eine Äthiopierin geheiratet haben solle! Ist daher, wie der ganze Zusammenhang nicht anders zulässt, das Faktum, כי אשה כשית לקח, durch Mosches prophetischen Beruf motiviert, so muss damit etwas anderes ausgedrückt sein, als daß er eine Äthiopierin geheiratet habe! Sehen wir uns im ganzen Bereiche des Gotteswortes nach einer Beziehung ehelicher Verhältnisse zur Prophetie um, so finden wir nur die einzige Stelle Schmot 19, 15, wo das Volk, das der unvermittelten Vernehmung des göttlichen Wortes gewürdigt werden sollte, als Vorbereitung dazu des ehelichen Umganges mit den Frauen sich zu enthalten hatte, und zwar muss diese Vorbedingung eine so wesentlich von dem Momente geforderte sein, daß sie stillschweigend in der allgemeinen Anordnung וקדשתם וגו׳ והיו נכונים וגו׳ (Verse 10 und 11 daselbst) enthalten war. In der Tat erklärt auch die Überlieferung (ספרי) als Gegenstand der tadelnden Äußerung der Geschwister die Entfernung, in welcher sich Mosche von seiner Frau gehalten, פירש מן האשה, ein Umstand, der ihnen erst bei Gelegenheit der Prophetie der berufenen Ältesten bekannt geworden, den sie lediglich im Interesse der Frau für unrecht, weil eben durch Mosche Prophetenberuf nicht geboten hielten, da sie selber und so ja auch die Väter vor ihnen des göttlichen Wortes gewürdigt worden waren, ohne daß dadurch das eheliche Zusammenleben hätte Störung erleiden müssen. Sie übersahen den Abstand zwischen Mosche Stufe und der ihrigen und wussten nicht, daß als nach Schluss der Sinaioffenbarung an das Volk (Dewarim 5, 27) diesem mit den Worten: שובו לכם לאהליכם die Rückkehr ins Familienleben und in die eheliche Gemeinsamkeit gestattet und geboten wurde, Mosche das Verharren in der Entfernung mit den Worten: ואתה פה עמד עמדי ואדברה אליך וגו׳, zur Pflicht gemacht war (daselbst 28). Dass dies der Sinn unserer Stelle ist, ist nach dem ganzen Zusammenhange ganz unzweifelhaft. Unterstützt dürfte sich diese Erklärung noch durch die Erwägung finden, daß in allen Stellen, in welchen der Ausdruck על אודות in ähnlichem Zusammenhange in der תורה vorkommt, er stets den leidenden Gegenstand bezeichnet, dessen Interesse zur Sprache kommt. So Bereschit 21, 11: וירע וגו׳ על אודות בנו, daselbst 25: והכיח וגו׳ על אדות באר. Schmot 18, 8: אשר עשה ד׳ לפרעה וגו׳ על אודת ישראל. So ist auch hier die אשה כושית nicht der Gegenstand, über welchen, sondern in dessen Interesse die Klage geführt wurde. Es bleibt nur noch die Bedeutung des האשה הכשית אשר לקח aus dem Zusammenhange mit dem unzweifelhaften Sinne der Stelle zu erörtern übrig, und da möchten wir zu glauben wagen, es sei nicht unmöglich, daß לקוח אשה כושית eben nichts anderes als ein umschreibender Ausdruck für: "in getrennter Ehe leben" sein möge. Der Ausdruck כושי findet sich noch einigemal in typischer Bedeutung. In היהפוך כושי עורו (Jirmija 13, 23) bezeichnet es den Schwarzen, den Mohren überhaupt. In הלא כבני כושיים אתם לי (Amos 9,7) bezeichnet es die allerletzten und tiefstehenden Menschengeschlechter unter den Völkern. "Und wäret ihr die Kinder der Negervölker, wäret ihr nicht gleichwohl mein?!" In שגיון לדוד אשר שר לד׳ על דברי כוש בן ימיני (Ps. 7, 1). bezeichnet es die ganze Tiefe des Gegensatzes, welchen Sauls Handlungsweise zu dem an den Tag legte, was von einem בן ימיני von dem Sohne eines jüdischen Stammes zu erwarten gewesen wäre. Es war dies eine solche moralische Entartung, wie es eine physiologische wäre, wenn von einem jüdischen Stamme ein Neger geboren worden wäre. Sollte die geschlechtliche Verbindung mit einer Mohrin nicht als etwas also Widerstehendes und Unvereinbares betrachtet worden sein, daß eine Ehe eingegangen sein, in welcher doch die Gatten ein getrenntes Leben führen, "eine Mohrin geheiratet haben" genannt werden konnte? Wir können dies allerdings nur als Vermutung geben, glauben aber damit nichts Unwahrscheinliches angenommen zu haben, und hätte, wenn wir das Richtige getroffen, damit unsere Stelle ihre natürlichste Deutung gefunden.

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.

Gall and bitter plants. As in, “gall and bitter fruit.”⁴Devarim 29:17. The Midrash Aggadah [states] that רֹאשׁ, refers to Nevuchadnetzar in the exile of Yehoyachin; and תְלָאָה [refers to] Nevuzaradan, who completed the blow in the days of Tzidkiyahu, and he wearied me.⁵According to this Midrash, תלאה is an expression similar to Shemos 18:8, where it means travail, hardship. (Sifsei Chachomim)