Comentário sobre Êxodo 18:13

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 d'Rabbi Yishmael 18:13:1). 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”.

AND IT CAME TO PASS ON THE MORROW, i.e., on the morrow of the day on which they held the above-mentioned [feast], THAT MOSES SAT TO JUDGE THE PEOPLE. In the Mechilta, the Rabbis have said:⁸¹Mechilta on the verse here. “On the morrow. That is, on the morrow after the Day of the Atonement.” Now the intent of the Rabbis was not that on the morrow alludes to the Day of Atonement, for Scripture has not mentioned the Day of Atonement at all that it should now refer to it by saying on the morrow thereof. Nor is the term on the morrow to be understood literally, [i.e., the day after the Day of Atonement], for they did not eat on the Day of Atonement, that is, if they observed such a day in the first year before they were commanded concerning it.⁸²“It is impossible to say that they observed the Fast of the Atonement in that first year, since the people were not commanded therein until Moses came down from Mount Sinai for the third time, which was on the Day of Atonement itself” (Mizrachi). Moreover, it was on the Day of Atonement that the second Tablets of the Law were given. On the following day, Moses came and he spoke to the children of Israel, and he gave them in commandment all that the Eternal had spoken with him in Mount Sinai.⁸³Further, 34:32. It thus could not have been a day on which he sat to judge the people, when the people stood about him from the morning unto the evening. It is also impossible to say that this was on the morrow of the Day of Atonement of the second year, for after the Israelites journeyed [from Sinai on the twentieth day of Iyar in the second year (Numbers 10:11)], Hobab [i.e., Jethro], said, I will depart to mine own land, and to my kindred.⁸⁴Numbers 10:30. And even according to what Ramban has written above on Verse 1, i.e., that Jethro listened to Moses’ plea to stay with Israel and he did not leave them, it is nevertheless obvious that at that time, he intended to leave them. The narrative contained in this section concerning Jethro’s advice to Moses on the delegation of power in the administration of justice, could thus logically not have taken place on the morrow after the Day of Atonement in the second year, some four and a half months after they journeyed from Mount Sinai (Kur Zahab).
Rather, the intent of this Beraitha, [i.e., the Mechilta quoted above, “on the morrow after the Day of Atonement”], is that it was some day after the Day of Atonement, since Moses had no free day on which to sit in judgment from the day they came to Mount Sinai until after the Day of Atonement of that first year.⁸⁵Immediately after the Torah was given on the sixth day of Sivan, Moses ascended the mountain and remained there for forty days. When he descended on the seventeenth of Tammuz and found the people worshipping the golden calf, he broke the Tablets. On the next day, he again ascended the mountain to pray for G-d’s forgiveness, and stayed there forty days, which terminated on the twenty-ninth day of Ab. On the following day, he was told to come up to the mountain to receive the second Tablets. He again spent forty days there. Consequently, this forty-day period terminated on the tenth of Tishri, which is the Day of Atonement. Thus, from the time the Torah was given till after the Day of Atonement in the first year, Moses had no free day on which to sit in judgment, as is described in this section of the Torah. For the sources on the above dates, see Rashi here, and in more detail, further, 33:11, and Deuteronomy 9:18.

ויעמוד העם על משה, waiting till he would find time to address their individual problems after he had finished dealing with the collective problems pertaining to the whole community and had finished listening to the people’s dignitaries.

לשפוט את העם. Even if we accept the opinion that Moses had arrived at the encampment of the Jewish people before the revelation at Mount Sinai, mundane matters had been subject of judgment all the time. Any disagreement concerning people’s property needed adjudication. While it is true that at Marah, prior to the revelation at Sinai, not only social laws but also some ritual laws had been revealed (Exodus 15,25), the opinion that Yitro arrived after the revelation at Mount Sinai is more plausible seeing that we read here of the Israelites being encamped at the Mountain of G’d (verse 5). Moreover, chapter 19 commences with the words: “In the third month after the Exodus on the first of the month the Israelites entered the desert of Sinai after having journeyed from Refidim.” It is clear from there that what happened at Refidim and the encampment at Mount Sinai occurred before what is discussed in our paragraph, but that this paragraph was inserted here in order not to interrupt the portions dealing with all the commandments which commence in chapter 21 after the revelation at Mount Sinai.

ויהי ממחרת, “It came to pass on the morrow, etc.” According to Rashi the “morrow” was the day after the Day of Atonement, the day when the building of the Tabernacle was authorized. Rashi took his cue from the Mechilta. Nachmanides does not believe that the author of the Mechilta referred to the Day of Atonement, seeing that we had not been told about the existence of a “Day of Atonement,” how could the Torah have referred to this day as the day after a date which did not yet have a significant meaning in the Jewish calendar? Even if that day had already existed as a Fast Day, how could the Torah refer to the day after this meal as the day after Yom Kippur, seeing that the meal we have been told about surely was not consumed on Yom Kippur? Furthermore, according to tradition, Moses brought the Jewish people the second set of tablets on that day. It also could not refer to the day after Yom Kippur of the second year, as by then Yitro had already gone home to his people. The people had moved away from Mount Sinai on the 20th day of Iyar in the second year and Yitro had declined Moses’ invitation to journey with the people (Numbers 10,11, and 10,29). Furthermore, assuming we are speaking about the very day after Moses had come down with the second set of tablets, when had he had a chance to establish the pattern of judging the people which Yitro objected to, seeing that ever since the giving of the Torah up until then, when he had ascended the Mountain for 3 times 40 days, there would not have been a single day available for him to teach the people the laws of the Torah, as he told his father-in-law that he was doing on a regular basis? We must assume that the Mechilta does not refer literally to the day after the first Yom Kippur, but to some time thereafter, as distinct to this having occurred prior to the revelation at Mount Sinai over 4 months earlier. If we assume that Yitro had arrived at the encampment of the people before the giving of the Torah, what the Mechilta had in mind was the day on which Yitro personally obtained atonement, i.e when he converted to Judaism, offered his sacrifices, etc, he was forgiven for the heathen practices he had been guilty of up until that day. [the wording of the author of the Mechilta (Rabbi Yishmael) suggests that he neither wants to decide in favour either of the opinion of Rabbi Yoshua that Yitro arrived as a result of hearing about the defeat of Amalek, nor does he want to come out in favour of the opinion of Rabbi Eleazar Hamoda-i that Yitro arrived at the camp after the giving of the Torah.. Ed.] As to Moses having told his father-in-law that he informs the people about G’d’s statutes, etc., (18,15-16), we must assume that he had referred to the laws revealed by G’d while the people had been encamped at Marah. If we accept Rashi’s commentary then this whole portion [as several others. Ed.] was not written as a chronological account of what happened in the desert, seeing that according to his view the words ויהי ממחרת cannot be applied to the first year of the Israelites’ being in the desert. I have not understood what he means when he says that the time was the day after the first Yom Kippur. Perhaps what he meant was that the verse describing Moses as bidding good bye to his father-in-law (verse 27) must have occurred in the second year. By contrast then, he meant to emphasize that when the Torah spoke about ויהי ממחרת, that this referred to events during the first year.

And to what does ממחרת refer. . . It cannot refer to the day after they ate and drank [as mentioned in v. 12. For if so,] the Torah would not be using this as an indication [when this event took place], for we still do not know on what day [they ate and drank]! Perforce, it was the day after Moshe’s descent from the mountain. And [the date of] descending the mountain is clearly understood from the Torah [as Rashi explains].

(Exodus 18:13) "And it was on the morrow that Moses sat to judge the people.": on the morrow of Yom Kippur (after Moses had descended with the second tablets.) "from morning to evening": Now did Moses judge Israel from morning to evening? Do not judges judge only until the time of eating? We are hereby taught that if one judges a judgment of truth Scripture accounts it to him as if he were a partner with the Holy One Blessed be He in the creation, of which it is written (Genesis 1) "and it was evening and it was morning."

VV. 13. —15. In diesen und den folgenden Versen gewinnen wir eine Idee von dem Lagerleben unserer Väter während der vierzig Jahre der Wanderung in der Wüste. Bei der einfachen, leicht und kurz zu bewältigenden Tätigkeit für die tägliche durch Manna versorgte Nahrung, bei der von Mosche Dewarim 8, 4. 29, 4, 5 und 2,7. gegebenen Schilderung hinsichtlich ihrer übrigen Bedürfnisse, müssen wir uns sagen: der bei weitem größte Teil ihrer Tageszeit war von keiner sonst ein Volksleben mit Industrie, Handel und häuslicher Arbeit ausfüllenden Tätigkeit in Anspruch genommen. Was füllte ihre Zeit aus? Sie kamen zu Mosche oder zu den, wie uns eben hier berichtet werden soll, ihn vertretenden Männern דרש אלקים .לדרש אלקים, wie bereits zu Bereschit 25, 22 entwickelt, heißt: von Gott Belehrung und Hilfe suchen, umfasst somit alle Beziehungen, in welchen wir mit unserm Taten- und Geschickesleben zu Gott stehen und uns erhalten müssen, wenn Gott unser Gott sein soll. Es ist somit die allumfassendste Gottesanforderung, die der Prophet in den Worten ausspricht: דרשוני וחיו (Amos 5, 4), und דורשי ד׳ zu sein ein Titel, dessen würdig zu werden, mit unserm ersten bewussten Atemzuge unsere Aufgabe zu sein beginnt und erst mit unserm letzten Atemzuge endet. Indem aber Lehre und Hilfe von Gott suchen mit "Gott suchen" ausgedrückt wird, so ist damit die beseligende Wahrheit ausgesprochen, dass mit der Lehre und der Hilfe, die wir bei Gott suchen, wir Gott selber finden, Gott selber für den Kreis unserer kleinen und kleinsten Lebensbeziehungen gewinnen, Gott einführen in unser irdisches Dasein und unser ganzes Sein göttlich gestalten, wie Gott gesprochen: ועשו לי מקדש ושכנתי בתוכם. Die Zeit der Wüstenwanderung war daher die hohe Schule des jüdischen Volkes. Die Kenntnis der Gotteslehre in alle Schichten des Volkes zu verbreiten, war ihre Arbeit für alle kommenden Jahrhunderte; das Volk umstand Mosche von morgens bis abends, und er gibt V. 15 dessen Zweck im allgemeinen an: es kommt zu mir לדרש אלקי׳.

ויהי ממחרת, “It happened on the following day, etc.” according to Rashi, this was the day following Yom Kippur, on which day Moses had returned from Mount Sinai for the third time and after G–d had forgiven the sin of the golden calf, and he had brought down with him a second set of Tablets inscribed by G–d Himself. Rashi is forced to explain it in this way as there had not been time between the revelation at Mount Sinai on the sixth day of Sivan, for Moses to have sat down to deal with the people’s personal problems, as on the day after the revelation he had been invited to the top of the mountain where he spent 40 days studying the Torah, and when he descended with the first set of tablets which he smashed when seeing the people dance around the golden calf, and his spontaneous return to the mountain to ask G–d to forgive the people seeing that they had cleansed themselves from their sin as best as they could, and the active idol worshippers had been executed. He had been invited to ascend the mountain again and bring with him a set of Tablets which he had carved out of the rock himself, and on which G–d had inscribed the text of the Ten Commandments a second time. These events have not been recorded in the Torah in their chronological order just as the events culminating in the Israelites departing from Mount Sinai have not been recorded in their chronological order; We read in Numbers 10,29 about Moses entreating Yitro to remain with the Jewish people, something that could not have occurred until the second month of the second year, as he speaks about the impending journey of the people and these are recorded as having broken camp on the twentieth day of that month. When Yitro is described as advising Moses to appoint delegates to function as judges of civil cases, this is reported in Exodus chapter eighteen, before the revelation had been reported. Moses could certainly not have sat down judging the people before the Torah had been revealed to him. Rashi therefore accepted the version of the Talmud tractate Zevachim folio 116, according to which Yitro had not arrived in the camp until after the revelation, i.e. after Yom Kippur, as how could Moses have had time to welcome him, eat with him, etc., between the revelation and the Day of Atonement, i.e. the tenth of Tishrey? Furthermore, as argued in the Tanchuma, G–d did not see why seeing the people had undergone hundreds of years of hardship in order to qualify for the revelation at Mount Sinai. Yitro who during all these years had lived tranquilly in Midian, should be granted the same privilege without having done much to earn it? [According to our tradition the privilege of being present at the revelation is one of three privileges that must be earned by having gone through יסורים, great hardships.

ויהי ממחרת, “it was on the morrow;” according to the plain meaning of the text the day referred to is the day following the meal just described. The previous day had been spent in honouring Yitro so that Moses did not have time to sit and judge the people’s complaints. Rashi’s explanation of the word ממחרת commences with the words that it was the day after the Day of Atonement when Moses had returned from Mount Sinai for the thirdtime. [This would have been way after the sin of the golden calf. Ed.] You might ask how it was possible for Moses to sit in judgment of the people at such a time, when all their sins had just been forgiven, and especially in view of the fact that the Torah testifies that immediately after Moses’ return on that occasion Moses assembled the people (Exodus 35,1) and after briefly explaining that the building of the Tabernacle which was to commence forthwith did not override the work prohibitions of the Sabbath, and that that work was completed already on the 25th day of Kislev of the same year (second year after the Exodus), we must understand the line describing Moses as sitting judging the people, does not refer to all the people who had problems lining up at that time, [after Moses for over 120 days had not spent a single full day in the camp since his ascent to Sinai to receive the first set of the Tablets. Ed]. He dealt only with the problems of the individuals who were not busy with donating for the Tabernacle or helping Betzalel in its construction. Rashi himself, in his commentary on Exodus 34,2932, comments that after descending from the Mountain, Moses sat down to teach Torah to all those not preoccupied with the building of the Tabernacle. Rashi in his commentary on our verse here writes: “this paragraph has not been written (or inserted) in the chronological order of events, seeing that the words: ויהי ממחרת, seeing that Moses did not part with Yitro who returned home until the second year of the Israelites wanderings as we know from Numbers 10,29, something even admitted by the scholars who claim that Yitro had arrived at the camp of the Jewish people already before the revelation at Mount Sinai.” If the lines in Number 10,29 referred to an event before the revelation, why did the Torah not record that Yitro did not even stay for that event? Moreover, when we read in Judges 4,11, that the descendants of Yitro at that time had lived near Kedesh near the shores of the sea of Galilee, how come that their even leaving their homeland Midian was not mentioned anywhere? (part of Rashi on our verse) Our author continues: Yitro, in Numbers definitely declined Moses’ offer of becoming part of the Jewish people, when he said: “I will not go (with you).” (Numbers 10,30) If this statement were to apply to a point in time before the revelation, i.e. that our paragraph describes events before the revelation, what was the point of Moses being quoted as debating Yitro’s remaining with the Israelites at a time at least a year later?We have a verse in Proverbs 14,10: לב יודע מרת נפשו ובשמחתו לא יתערב זר, “the heart knows of its soul’s bitterness; a stranger does not share its joy.” Our sages in an early version of Midrash Tanchuma, interpreted this verse to mean that G-d did not want that Yitro should share the joy of the Jewish people at the time of the revelation at Mount Sinai, as this was reserved for the people who had endured the hardships of slavery at the hands of the Egyptians. At any rate, Moses did not bid farewell to Yitro at the time discussed here. If he had come to the Jewish camp prior to the revelation, then he had had to temporarily withdraw during these days before rejoining the Israelites for almost another year. As soon as he returned from his temporary absence he observed Moses teaching the Torah, and he questioned the fact that the people had to stand, and that Moses had not appointed any delegates at all. When we read in verse 27 of our chapter that Moses bade his fatherinlaw farewell, and the Torah adds that he returned to his homeland, it is clear that he had bid him farewell once before when Yitro had not yet returned to his homeland.

וישב משה וגו׳ ויעמד העם MOSES SAT … AND THE PEOPLE STOOD He was sitting like a king and they all stood, and the thing was distasteful to Jethro in that he made light of the respect due to Israel. He therefore reproved him for this, as it is said (v. 14) “Why sittest thou only” — and they all stand! (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 18:14)

Scripture says, a burnt-offering and sacrifices to G-d,⁸⁶Above Verse 12. because Jethro did not yet know the Eternal. It was Moses who said, all that the Eternal had done unto Pharaoh and to the Egyptians for Israel’s sake… and how the Eternal delivered them,⁸⁷Ibid., Verse 8. but Jethro sacrificed to Elokim (G-d). You will not find this concerning any of the sacrifices in Torath Kohanim (the law of the priests) [i.e., the Book of Leviticus], as I will explain with the help of G-d.⁸⁸Leviticus 1:9. Similarly, Because the people come unto me to inquire of G-d… and I make them know the statutes of G-d,⁸⁹Further. Verses 15-16. are the words of Moses to his father-in-law, [who did not yet know the Eternal]. It is possible that Moses spoke to him thus, [using the name Elokim and not the Tetragrammaton], because of the verse which states, for the judgment is G-d’s,⁹⁰Deuteronomy 1:17. just as our Rabbis always mention:⁹¹Bereshith Rabbah 73:2. “Elokim (G-d): this is the attribute of justice.”

מן הבקר עד הערב, seeing he was the only judge and he had no assistants.

Even according to one who says that Yisro came before the giving of the Torah. . . According to the view that Yisro came after the giving of the Torah, the parsha obviously is not recorded in order. Since [the giving of the Torah is not stated until the next chapter,] even the beginning of the parsha — when Yisro came — is not in order. Rather, Rashi is explaining that even if Yisro came before the Torah, it still is not in order. Until this verse the sequence is indeed in order, but from here on, it is not.

וישב משה לשפוט, Moses sat down in order to hand down judgments or rulings; whenever we encounter the term וישב, it refers to someone who sat down in the expectation that he would remain seated for a longer period. An example of this is found in Deuteronomy 1,46, where it meant that the Israelites stayed in Kadesh about 19 years.

מן הבקר עד הערב FROM MORNING UNTO EVENING — Is it really possible to say so — that Moses sat the whole day long? But the explanation is that any judge who gives a rightful decision as truth demands it, even though he spends but one hour on it, Scripture accounts it to him as though he had occupied himself with the Torah the whole day long, and as though he became co-partner with the Holy One, blessed be He, in the work of the Creation of which it is stated, “It was evening and it was morning” (cf. Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 18:13; Shabbat 10a).

Until the second year. . . This is according to regular years, i.e., counting from Tishrei. Rashi is bringing another proof that beginning from this verse, the parsha is not recorded in order, as he continues to explain: “For it says here. . .”

לשפוט את העם, “to judge the people.” Some commentators believe that the word: העם refers to the mixed multitude, the fellow travelers whom Moses had accepted as converts, and who, as a result, had demanded from him that they receive a share of the loot of their fellow Jews who had taken these from their former relatives In Egypt. (Compare Torah shleymah by Rabbi M. Kasher in his notes on item 95)

Where do we find that he returned? [You might ask: Why is this a proof? Many events are not expressly stated in the Torah! The answer is:] If Yisro was sent away after the giving of the Torah, then [even if he returned,] the Torah does not mention his return because it is of no importance. He already accepted Torah and mitzvos. But if he was sent away before the giving of the Torah, [he must have returned, as Rashi proved. And then] he came to accept the Torah, which is the main purpose of his coming. The narrative would then mention his return, so people will not say that Yisro came once, and only in order to bring Moshe’s wife and sons — for his return is not mentioned. See all this in Re”m, who wrote at great length, citing various versions of Rashi and discussing them. The main point is as I wrote.

מן הבקר עד הערב, “from the morning till the evening.” Is it conceivable that Moses spent the entire day judging? We therefore have to pay closer attention to the precise wording. The words: מ! הבקר, mean: from after the morning, not the entire morning. Similarly, the words: עד הערב, “until evening,” are meant to exclude the period called evening. If it were to be understood literally, when would the students have time to study Torah? Therefore the word מן here as well as elsewhere, is meant as a limitation, not the whole morning but part of the morning hours. Similarly, when the word appears in connection with היום, it does not refer to the whole day but to part of the day. Our sages suggested that what was meant is the first six hours. (Based on the Baraitha of Rabbi Eliezer.)

He was not showing proper respect to Yisrael. . . The Ibn Ezra objected that this was not disrespectful, for judges always sit while the litigants stand. Re”m writes that this is no objection: Yisro was displeased that everyone stood, even those who had no litigation. He thought that they stood before Moshe to afford him princely honor. [Alternatively,] the Maharshal wrote that this is no question: litigants stand (Devarim 19:17) only during the hearing. But with Moshe they stood even before the hearing, for Moshe was the only judge and they were unable to come before him [immediately]. Sometimes they would stand until the evening, waiting to come before him. For this, Yisro reproved him. (Maharshal)

Can this be taken literally. . . This parsha speaks of the day after Yom Kippur, when Moshe needed to gather Yisrael and command them to build the Mishkan. If so, how could he have sat to judge from morning to evening?

As if he has become a participant with Hashem. . . Since the world’s existence depends on judgment. The proof is that the Flood [destroyed the world, and it] came because there was no judgment among them and people were robbing each other. As it is written, “The land was filled with robbery” (Bereishis 6:13). Therefore, he who judges truthfully supports the world’s existence, and it is as if he is partnership with Hashem.