Komentaryong Sumisipi para sa Exodo 3:12

AND HE OFFERED SACRIFICES UNTO THE G-D OF HIS FATHER ISAAC. The duty of honoring one’s father is more imperative than that of honoring one’s grandfather. Therefore the sacrifices are associated with the name of Isaac, and not with that of Abraham. Thus the language of Rashi. But this is not sufficient, for it would have been proper for Scripture to say, “and he offered sacrifices unto the G-d of his fathers,” without singling out any one person, just as Jacob said, The G-d before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk;⁷⁵Further 48:15. and in his prayer he said, O G-d of my father Abraham, and G-d of my father Isaac.⁷⁶Above, 32:10. Or Scripture should have said, “and he offered sacrifices to the Eternal,” just as it says in the case of Abraham, And he built there an altar unto the Eternal.⁷⁷Ibid., 12:7. And what need was there to explain it further?
However, this verse contains a secret, which the Rabbis revealed to us there in Bereshith Rabbah:⁷⁸94:5. When Jacob was about to go down to Egypt he saw that the exile was beginning for him and his children, and he feared it, and so he offered many sacrifices to the Fear of his father Isaac⁷⁹Above, 31:53. in order that Divine judgment should not be aimed against him. This he did in Beer-sheba which was a place of prayer for his father, and from there he had taken permission when he went to Haran.⁸⁰See Ramban above, 28:17.
Now Scripture uses the word z’vachim, [a term connoting peace-offerings], to inform us that they were not burnt-offerings as were his fathers’, as Abraham offered burnt-offerings. Our Rabbis have said⁸¹Zebachim 116a. that Noachides⁸²See Note 148 in Seder Vayishlach, also Note 222 in Seder Bereshith. did not offer peace-offerings; they offered burnt-offerings. And concerning Noah it is clearly written, And he offered burnt-offerings on the altar.⁸³Above 8:20. But on account of his fear of the Eternal, Jacob offered peace-offerings in order to bring all Divine attributes into accord towards him, even as the Rabbis have expounded:⁸⁴Torath Kohanim Vayikra 16:1. “They are called sh’lamim (peace-offerings) because they bring shalom (peace) into the world.” Now his original intent was directed at the Divine attribute of power, this being nearest to Isaac. This is the explanation of that which the Rabbis mentioned in Bereshith Rabbah,⁷⁸94:5. i.e., that the duty of honoring one’s father is more imperative than that of honoring one’s grandfather. This explanation applies to that which the Rabbis have said there in yet another form: “First you greet the pupil and afterward you greet the Rabbi.”⁸⁵The case refers to a procession of a Rabbi and his pupils on the road. Since the pupils travel in advance of the Rabbi, a person coming from the opposite direction would first meet the pupils and then the Rabbi. Similarly, Isaac is the pupil and Abraham is the Rabbi. Hence Jacob offered sacrifices to the G-d of his father Isaac.
I have seen this text in the Midrash of Rabbi Nechunya ben Hakanah:⁸⁶Sefer Habahir, 135. See Note 42 in Seder Bereshith. “And Jacob swore by the Fear of his father Isaac.⁷⁹Above, 31:53. Is there any one who swears by the belief of the Fear of his father? However, it was because Jacob was not yet given strength, and so he swore by the power given to his father, as it is said, And Jacob swore by the Fear of his father Isaac.⁷⁹Above, 31:53. And what is this? It is this concerning which Scripture writes, Then the fire of the Eternal fell, and consumed the burnt-offering,⁸⁷I Kings 18:38. and it is further written, For the Eternal thy G-d is a devouring fire, etc.”⁸⁸Deuteronomy 4:24. Thus far the Midrash. From the words of the Rabbis of this Midrash, we learn that it was for this reason that it does not say here, “and he offered sacrifices to the Eternal,” [but instead it says, “to the G-d of his father Isaac],” because now in Beer-sheba Jacob had already become privileged to possess his own portion [and needed only to bring all Divine attributes into accord towards him],⁸⁹The words in the brackets are from the Commentary of Lvush to the Rekanati on the Torah, who quotes these words of Ramban. as it is said, Thou wilt give truth to Jacob, mercy to Abraham, as Thou hast sworn unto our fathers from the days of old.⁹⁰Micah 7:20. It was therefore necessary to explain it now. Thus by the merit of the sacrifices, the G-d of his father Isaac appeared to him in the visions of the night⁹¹Verse 2 here. with an ameliorated Divine attribute of justice. It is this which Scripture says concerning them, in the visions of the night, complementing that which He said, I am G-d, the G-d of thy father,⁹²Verse 3 here. for He is the G-d of Beth-el Who said to him in Haran, I am the G-d of Beth-el, where thou didst anoint a pillar;⁹³Above, 31:13. it is He Who is the G-d of thy father. This is the Name and this is the attribute. And He assured him that he should have no fear in Egypt for he will be found righteous in Divine judgment, and he will be redeemed after the affliction. This is the meaning of the Divine promise, And I will also surely bring thee up again.⁹⁴Verse 4 here.
Now the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] has written in the twenty-seventh chapter of the first part of the Moreh Nebuchim (Guide of the Perplexed) concerning Onkelos’ translation of the verse, I will go down with thee into Egypt, and I will also surely bring thee up again,⁹⁴Verse 4 here. [which Onkelos rendered here literally]: “I will go down with thee…and I will bring thee up.” And the Rabbi was amazed at the opinion of Onkelos, [namely, that the literal translation should be used], saying that Onkelos had exerted all his effort to remove any implication of G-d’s corporeality from all narratives in the Torah. Accordingly, in the case of any expression found in the Torah implying any mode of motion that refers to G-d, Onkelos ascribed the action to a certain glory that had been created for the occasion, or a manifestation of Divine Providence. Thus he translated And G-d came down⁹⁵Exodus 19:20. as “and G-d manifested Himself;” I will go down now and see⁹⁶Above, 18:21. as “I will manifest Myself now and see.” And if so, why did Onkelos here translate literally, “I will go down”? And so the Rabbi explained that since Scripture said at the outset of the matter, And G-d spoke unto Israel in the visions of the night,⁹¹Verse 2 here. thus indicating that it is an account of what Jacob was told and not what actually took place, Onkelos therefore did not hesitate to literally translate the words as they were addressed to Jacob in the visions of the night, for the words in question represent an account of what Jacob was told, not what actually took place. There is thus a great difference between a communication transmitted in a dream or a vision of the night, or a communication designated as having been made in a vision or manifestation, and a communication given clearly, [not in a dream, such as communications introduced by phrases like these]: “And the word of the Eternal came unto me, saying,” or “And the Eternal spoke unto me, saying.” These are the words of Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon.
Similarly he said⁹⁷Moreh Nebuchim I, 48. that Onkelos never translated expressions of “hearing” literally [when the Scriptural references were to G-d], but instead explained them as expressing that a certain matter reached the Creator, or that He accepted a prayer. Thus Onkelos translated the Eternal heard⁹⁸Above, 29:33. as “it was heard before the Eternal;” he translated the verse, I will surely hear his crying⁹⁹Exodus 22:22. as “I will surely accept his complaint.”
But if the matter is as the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] said, why does Onkelos shun literal translations of expressions of movement, and also avoid literal expressions of hearing due to his fear that they might indicate corporeality, but he does not in any place shy away from literally expressing “saying,” “speaking” or “calling,” whether the communication was in a dream or manifestation or overt speech, for in every case he translates: “and G-d said,” “G-d spoke,” “and G-d called unto Moses”? These expressions likewise signify corporeality, and Onkelos should have translated, “and it was said from before G-d,” or “and the glory of G-d said,” or “and G-d willed,” as is appropriate in each case, just as the Rabbi has explained¹⁰⁰Moreh Nebuchim I, 65. with reference to the terms “speaking” and “saying” when they refer to G-d. And why did Onkelos avoid literal translation in the case of “hearing” and did not do so with respect to “seeing,” which he translated as: “and the Eternal saw”?¹⁰¹Above, 6:5. And that which the Rabbi has said¹⁰²Moreh Nebuchim I, 48. that “seeing” indicates mental perception as well as the sensation of sight, this applies all the more to “hearing” for it is employed in many places to indicate mental perception and will, such as: And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai;¹⁰³Above 16:2. Hear the voice of my supplications;¹⁰⁴Psalms 28:2. Yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear;¹⁰⁵Isaiah 1:15. And it shall come to pass, if thou shalt hearken diligently unto the voice of the Eternal thy G-d.¹⁰⁶Deuteronomy 28:1. And so also, leiv shomei’ah¹⁰⁷I Kings 3:9. (literally: a hearing heart, an understanding heart), and so also in the case of most of [the verses cited by Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon]. So Onkelos should not have been apprehensive of expressions of “hearing” as they only indicate acceptance of a matter by G-d and His being pleased with it, for he does not avoid literal translations of expressions of sight any place, but translates it literally in all cases even when seeing alone is involved. However, where a matter is not conceived by sight alone, but requires attention and discernment, Onkelos renders it as befits the subject. For example, when Scripture says, Because the Eternal hath looked upon my affliction,¹⁰⁸Above, 29:32. [Onkelos rendered it as, “because my affliction is manifested before the Eternal”]. The verse, I have surely seen the affliction of My people,¹⁰⁹Exodus 3:7. [was rendered by Onkelos as, “the enslavement of my people is manifest before me,” and the verse], And G-d saw the children of Israel,¹¹⁰Ibid., 2:25. [he rendered as, “and the enslavement of the children of Israel was manifest before G-d],” since His seeing them was not just as a matter of perceiving their bodies but of His attention to their situation and His knowledge thereof. This is Onkelos’ method throughout the Torah, and not as the Rabbi’s opinion would have it, as a consquence of which opinion he had to declare [our version of Targum Onkelos] erroneous¹¹¹Ramban refers here to Chapter 48 of the first part of the Moreh Nebuchim mentioned above, in which Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam) sets forth the theory that Onkelos always renders “seeing” literally except where it is connected with wrong, injury or violence, in which cases he expresses it as “It was manifest before the Eternal.” Onkelos is thus consistent with the prophetic phrase, Thou canst not look on iniquity (Habakkuk 1:13). However, Rambam mentions that he found three passages which contradict his theory. One is the verse, And the Eternal saw that the wickedness of man was great upon the earth, (above, 6:5), and the other two are mentioned in the following note. In these three cases which are connected with wrong and violence, Onkelos should have expressed “seeing” in the form of “being manifest before the Eternal,” and yet he translated them literally! Rambam then concludes that our version of Onkelos is inaccurate in those three cases! It is this conclusion of Rambam with which Ramban takes issue in the text before us. in [the following three places: the verse mentioned above, namely, And the Eternal saw],¹⁰¹Above, 6:5. and two other verses,¹¹²And G-d saw the earth, and behold it was corrupt, (above, 6:12). And the Eternal saw that Leah was hated, (above, 29:31). which Onkelos translated as, “and He saw,” since these translations do not fit his theory.
With reference to expressions of “passing” Onkelos paraphrased and thus translated the expression, And the Eternal passed by before him,¹¹³Exodus 34:6. as, “and He caused His Presence to pass before his [Moses’] face.” He did this so that the passing object would be, in accordance with Onkelos’ opinion, something created, as he would not ascribe any expression of motion to the Creator in accordance with what the Rabbi has mentioned.¹¹⁴Moreh Nebuchim I, 21. But if this is so, why did Onkelos literally translate the verse, The Eternal thy G-d, He will go over before thee?¹¹⁵Deuteronomy 31:3. In our version of Onkelos, the text reads, “His word will go over.” Ramban’s objection is thus removed. This is a form of motion occurring in a narrative¹¹⁶As opposed to “the visions of the night.” See the beginning of the section where Ramban explains this distinction which Rambam makes. and yet Onkelos was not apprehensive about it! Similarly, Onkelos translated the verse, And Israel saw the great hand,¹¹⁷Exodus 14:31. as, “and Israel saw the power of the great hand.” He added the term “power” due to the subsequent expression, that the Eternal did,¹¹⁷Exodus 14:31. yet he left intact the expression, “the great hand” and was not apprehensive and fearful of the term “hand” being ascribed to G-d and did not paraphrase it at all! He did the same in literally translating, written with the finger of G-d.¹¹⁸Ibid., 31:18. The Rabbi’s answer¹¹⁹Moreh Nebuchim I, 66. that Onkelos thought that “the finger” was a created instrument which, by the will of the Creator, engraved the writing on the tablets, is not the truth. There is the verse, At His right hand was a fiery law unto them,¹²⁰Deuteronomy 33:2. in translation of which Onkelos wrote, “His right hand,” and he was not apprehensive of “the right hand writing,” that is lest it indicate corporeality, and such is the case also with “the finger” as mentioned above. He furthermore literally translated: Thou stretchest forth Thy right hand¹²¹Exodus 15:12. as, “Thou raisest Thy right hand.” So also the verses: Thy right hand, O Eternal, dasheth in pieces the enemy;¹²²Ibid., Verse 6. Thy strong hand;¹²³Deuteronomy 3:24. By a mighty hand, and by an outstretched arm;¹²⁴Ibid., 4:34. And My hand take hold on judgment;¹²⁵Ibid., 32:41. The eyes of the Eternal thy G-d are always upon it.¹²⁶Ibid., 11:12. [Onkelos literally translated all of these verses without fear that the terms “hand” and “eyes” might indicate corporeality.] Now in the case of Jacob, the Scriptural narrative begins, And he dreamed, and behold a ladder set up on the earth, etc., and yet Onkelos, fearing corporeality, translated [the verse, And, behold, the Eternal stood beside him],¹²⁷Above, 28:12-13. as “and, behold, the Glory of G-d stood beside him,” and he did not translate literally, “and, behold, the Eternal” although it was in a dream.¹²⁸Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon’s thesis is that the reason Onkelos did not paraphrase the verse, I will go down with thee into Egypt, but translated it literally, is that the narrative begins with a statement that it was in a vision of the night. Ramban questions this thesis, for in the story of the ladder, which is also introduced as a dream, Onkelos avoided possible indications of corporeality, and accordingly he paraphrased the verses. He further translated the expression, And, behold, I am with thee,¹²⁹Above, 28:15. as “and, behold, My word will be in thy help,” and did not say literally, “and, behold, I am with thee,” just as he literally translated, “I will go down with thee,” even though the story of the ladder is a statement of what Jacob was told, [not a narrative of what took place], and is completely analogous to the narrative of the dream here. Again, Onkelos literally translated the expression, And I will be with thy mouth,¹³⁰Exodus 4:12. [even though the story there is not introduced as a vision of the night or a dream], and on the other hand he translated the verse, And He said, Certainly I will be with thee, and this shall be the token unto thee,¹³¹Ibid., 3:12. as “behold, My word will be with thee.” Furthermore, Onkelos does not always translate literally in the case of dreams. Thus he rendered the verses, And G-d came to Abimelech in a dream of the night,¹³²Above, 20:3. And G-d came to Laban in a dream,¹³³Ibid., 31:24. as “and the word came from before G-d.” Should you say that Onkelos paraphrased it there because he was concerned lest one think that G-d came to them before the dream, and one might thus think that G-d’s appearance actually took place, [this would still not justify his using the expression, “and the word came,”] for in the case of Solomon it is written, In Gibeon the Eternal appeared to Solomon in a dream,¹³⁴I Kings 3:5. and yet Jonathan ben Uziel¹³⁵See Note 152 in Seder Noach. translated it as, “G-d revealed Himself to Solomon,” even though, according to Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon, a narrative introduced as a dream is rendered by Onkelos and Jonathan as it was actually said. They find no difficulty in translating such a statement literally, even though the expression connotes corporeality, because since it occurs in a dream, they understand that it is inexact. Thus in the case of Solomon, since the Eternal appeared to him in a dream, it was proper for Jonathan to give a literal account of the occurrence, for since Scripture relates that it was in a dream by night,¹³⁴I Kings 3:5. one would himself infer that it was not real but only a dream in which the person dreaming imagined it to be so. [Now since Jonathan did not paraphrase the account of Solomon’s dream, although Onkelos did so in the case of the dreams of Abimelech and Laban, it thus helps to disprove the thesis of Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon that accounts of what occurred in man’s imagination are not paraphrased by the Targum.] Now do not think that Jonathan ben Uziel did this because the term “seeing” in reference to dreams is not found in Aramaic — for the verse, And I saw in my dream,¹³⁶Above, 41:22. is indeed translated [in Targum Onkelos] as “I saw,” and in the case of the dream of Nebuchadnezzar, it likewise says in Aramaic, Thou O King, sawest.¹³⁷Daniel 2:31.
And so did Onkelos translate the verse, Your murmurings are not against us, but against the Eternal,¹³⁸Exodus 16:8. as “but against the word of G-d.” Onkelos thus paraphrased here even though there is no fear or apprehension of corporeality connoted by literal translation. Likewise, he translated And the people spoke against G-d, and against Moses¹³⁹Numbers 21:5. as, “and the people murmured against the word of G-d.” So also the verses, Between Me and you,¹⁴⁰Above, 9:12. and Between G-d and every living creature,¹⁴¹Ibid., Verse 16. were translated by Onkelos as: “between My word and you,” “between the word of G-d and every living creature.” There are many similar examples [of verses which he paraphrased in spite of the fact that there would have been no apprehension of intimating corporeality had he translated literally]. And so also he translated The Eternal watch¹⁴²Ibid., 31:49. as “the word of G-d watch;” G-d is witness¹⁴³Ibid., Verse 50. as “the word of G-d is witness.” Yet there would be no apprehension of corporeality had those expressions been literally translated. Besides, what sense is conveyed here by the expression, “the word of G-d’ watch or witness”? Similarly the verse, Swear unto me here by G-d,¹⁴⁴Ibid., 21:23. is rendered by Onkelos as “swear unto me by the word of G-d,” although people who swear do not mention, “I swear by the word of G-d.” There are many other such cases in Onkelos, and their secret meaning is known to the learned students [of the mystic lore of the Torah].
Likewise, with respect to the term “standing” when applied to G-d, the Rabbi said¹⁴⁵Moreh Nebuchim I, 28. that Jonathan ben Uziel’s intent was to explain it as meaning “to endure permanently,” and therefore he translated the expression, And His feet shall stand,¹⁴⁶Zechariah 14:4. as “and He will appear in His might.” So also all expressions denoting contact and motion were rendered by him as “the might of G-d.” Yet Onkelos had no apprehension of the term “standing.” and he translated it literally: Behold, I will stand before thee there upon the rock.¹⁴⁷Exodus 17:6.
And concerning that which the Rabbi has said¹⁴⁸Moreh Nebuchim I, 27. that all expressions denoting any mode of motion are rendered by Onkelos as the revelation of the Divine Presence, or the manifestation of a certain Glory that had been created for the occasion, now Onkelos avoids even literal translation of verses which mention “seeing” the Glory [of G-d, and would certainly oppose using it to denote expressions of motion]. Thus he translates the verse, And the glory of the Eternal appeared unto all the congregation,¹⁴⁹Numbers 16:19. as “and the glory of G-d was manifested,” just as he said in translation of the verse, And the Eternal came down,¹⁵⁰Exodus 19:20. “and the Eternal manifested Himself,” and did not translate it literally as “and the glory of the Eternal appeared.” He also likewise translates “seeing,” when referring to angels, as “and he manifested himself.”¹⁵¹Onkelos, ibid., 3:2. Now if it is as the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] said¹⁴⁸Moreh Nebuchim I, 27. that in the case of angels, or manifestation of a certain glory that had been created for the occasion, Onkelos does not hesitate to literally translate expressions denoting corporeality, it would have been proper for him not to avoid expressions of literal “seeing” of angels by man, and should there translate it as “and he appeared,” just as he has literally rendered the verse, For I have seen ‘Elokim’ face to face,¹⁵²Above, 32:31. as “for I have seen an angel of G-d.” Heaven forbid that the Divine Presence or the Glory created for the occasion be anything except the glorious Divine Name, blessed be He, as the Rabbi has expressed himself here¹⁴⁸Moreh Nebuchim I, 27. and in many chapters of his book. Thus Onkelos translated the expression, If Thy face go not,¹⁵³Exodus 33:15. as “if Thy Divine Presence go not among us.” Now, other than the glorious Divine Name, blessed be He, Moses did not want a special Glory created to go with him, since the Holy One, blessed be He, had already told him, Behold Mine angel shall go before thee,¹⁵⁴Ibid., 32:34. and Moses was not pleased with it. He instead wanted that G-d in His own glory should go with him. Also, after G-d heard his plea and told him, I will do this thing also that thou hast spoken,¹⁵⁵Ibid., 33:17. Moses said, Let the Lord, I pray thee, go in the midst of us,¹⁵⁶Ibid., 34:9. and this Onkelos rendered as “let now G-d’s Divine Presence go among us.”¹⁵⁷We thus see that even here, where it is clear from the context that the verse refers to G-d and not an angel, Onkelos does not hesitate to translate “going” literally. He similarly translated the expression, Thou canst not see My face,¹⁵⁸Ibid., 33:20. “thou cannot see the face of My Divine Presence, for man shall not see Me.” [In translating the verse in the book of Ezekiel, Blessed be the glory of the Eternal from His place,]¹⁵⁹Ezekiel 3:12. Jonathan ben Uziel said, “Blessed be the glory of the Eternal from the region of His Divine abode.” Now if by this “Glory,” [which is mentioned in the book of Ezekiel] Scripture refers to the Creator in His true essence, analogous to the verse, Show me, I pray Thee, Thy glory,¹⁶⁰Exodus 33:18. which the Rabbi has indeed so interpreted,¹⁶¹Moreh Nebuchim I, 54 and 64. then how did [Jonathan ben Uziel] in translating the verse mention “the region of His Divine abode” [when the terms “region,” “abode,” etc., indicate corporeality]? And if one would say that the verse in Ezekiel refers to a certain glory that had been created for the occasion, as is the opinion of the Rabbi with respect to the verse, And the glory of the Eternal filled the tabernacle,¹⁶²Exodus 40:35. Moreh Nebuchim I, 64. and other similar verses, then how did the angels direct their words, “Blessed, etc.,” towards it when he who blesses and prays to a glory created for an occasion is as he who worshipped idols? The teachings of our Rabbis also contain many texts which indicate that the name Shechinah (Divine Presence) is identical with G-d, blessed be He. But all these subjects, [some of which are rendered literally and some of which are paraphrased, are not influenced by a fear of using terms denoting corporeality but rather by secrets] of the Cabala¹⁶³See Note 56 in Introduction to Sefer Bereshith. known to Onkelos and Jonathan ben Uziel, and the secrets thereof are revealed to those who know the mystic lore of the Torah. Thus in the Revelation on Mount Sinai, wherever Elokim is mentioned in that section, Onkelos renders it as “the Glory” or “the Word of G-d,” but when Scripture mentions the Tetragrammaton he does not so render it. All this is done by Onkelos with extraordinary care and wisdom, and I will yet mention¹⁶⁴See Ramban on Exodus 20:19. this with the help of G-d, blessed be He. Now the reason that Onkelos literally translated the verse, And ‘Elokim’ spoke all these words, saying,¹⁶⁵Ibid., 20:1. [rather than render it, “and the Glory of G-d spoke,” as he usually does wherever Elokim is mentioned], is that it is said, Face to face the Eternal spoke¹⁶⁶Deuteronomy 5:4. unto your whole assembly.¹⁶⁷Ibid., Verse 19. The student learned [in the mystic lore of the Cabala] will understand.
However, the reason why Onkelos here literally translated, I will go down with thee to Egypt, [and did not paraphrase it as “My Glory will go down with thee],” is that he wanted to allude to that which the Rabbis have said:¹⁶⁸Mechilta Shirah 3. See also Megillah 29a. “When they were exiled to Egypt, the Divine Presence went with them, as it is said, I will go down with thee to Egypt. When they were exiled to Elam, the Divine Presence went down with them, as it is said, And I will set My throne in Elam.”¹⁶⁹Jeremiah 49:38. Thus both the verse which speaks of G-d “saying” [namely, And He said, I am G-d, the G-d of thy father, etc.],¹⁷⁰Verse 3 here. and [the verse which speaks of G-d] “going down,” [namely, I will go down with thee], are alike [for they both refer to the Creator in His true essence], as I have explained above, and therefore he could not, under any circumstances, have translated in any other way, as I have hinted. But there in the case of Jacob’s dream, Onkelos could not have literally translated, “and behold I am with thee,” [and was forced to paraphrase it as, “and My word will be in thy help],”¹²⁹Above, 28:15. because it is written there, And, behold, the Eternal stood beside him.¹⁷¹28:13. Since the Tetragrammaton (“the Eternal”) represents the attribute of mercy, had Onkelos literally translated Verse 15, “and, behold, I am with thee,” it would have indicated that this attribute would follow Jacob into exile since at the outset of this matter in Verse 13, Scripture uses the Tetragrammaton. Hence Onkelos translated Verse 15 as, ‘and My word will be in thy help,’ which is a reference to the attribute of judgment. (Bei’ur Ha’lvush to Rekanati on the Torah, who quotes the words of Ramban.) The student learned [in the mystic lore of the Cabala] will understand. And due to the fact that Onkelos found the meaning of this verse not to be in line with its plain meaning, he therefore spurned [literally translating the rest of the verse, and rendered it as referring to assistance], and thus he said, “My word will be in thy help,” instead of saying “My word will be with you,” as he said in the case of Moses.¹³¹Ibid., 3:12. And may G-d show us wonders in His Torah.

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.

IN THE THIRD MONTH. Scripture should have said, “And they journeyed from Rephidim and they encamped in the wilderness of Sinai, in the third month after their going forth from the land of Egypt,” just as it said above concerning the wilderness of Sin.¹³¹Above, 17:1: And all the congregation of the children of Israel journeyed from the wilderness of Sin… and encamped in Rephidim. But [Scripture’s manner of expression here is] due to the fact that their coming into the wilderness of Sinai was an occasion for joy and a festival to them, and that since they left Egypt they had been yearning for it. They knew that they would receive the Torah there, for Moses had told them what was said to him, Ye shall serve G-d upon the mountain.¹³²Above, 3:12. And to Pharaoh also he said, Let us go, we pray thee, three days’ journey, into the wilderness and sacrifice unto the Eternal our G-d.¹³³Ibid., 5:3. For this reason, Scripture begins the section with the statement that in the third month… the same day that the month began,¹³⁴Mechilta on the verse here, and mentioned in Rashi. they came there [as they had eagerly anticipated]. Following this opening, Scripture reverts [to the usual style] as in the other journeys: And they journeyed from Rephidim.¹³⁵Verse 2.
Now here too Scripture should have said “and they journeyed from Rephidim and encamped in the wilderness of Sinai.” Instead it writes, and they came to the wilderness of Sinai. This is because Scripture’s intent is to state that as soon as they came to the wilderness of Sinai and saw the mountain in front of them, they encamped in the wilderness and did not wait until they would enter a spot better for encampment. Instead, they camped in the wilderness or in Horeb,¹³⁶Deuteronomy 4:10. which was a waste land before the mountain. This is the purport of the verse; and they encamped in the wilderness, and there Israel encamped before the mount.¹³⁵Verse 2.
It is possible that they separated from their midst all the mixed multitude that was among them,¹³⁷Numbers 11:4. See also above, 12:38. and the children of Israel alone camped before the mountain while the mixed multitude was behind them. For the Torah was given to Israel, as He said, Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel,¹³⁸Verse 3. and this is the meaning of the expression, and there Israel encamped.¹³⁵Verse 2. It may be that [the name “Israel”] is mentioned as a mark of honor at the time of their acceptance of the Torah.
Now Rashi wrote: “And they journeyed from Rephidim. What need was there for Scripture to state again expressly from where they set forth on the journey? Is it not already stated that they were encamped in Rephidim¹³¹Above, 17:1: And all the congregation of the children of Israel journeyed from the wilderness of Sin… and encamped in Rephidim. and it is thus evident that they journeyed from there? It [i.e., the intent of the verse] is to declare that their departure from Rephidim was like their encampment¹³⁹“Encampment.” In our Rashi: “coming.” in the wilderness of Sinai. Just as their encampment¹³⁹“Encampment.” In our Rashi: “coming.” [in the wilderness of Sinai] was with repentance,¹⁴⁰The repentance is indicated by the word vayichan, which is in the singular, thus indicating that Israel encamped before the mountain as one man and with one mind, “while all other encampments were with murmerings and with dissension” (Rashi, quoting Mechilta). so also was their departure [from Rephidim] with repentance.”¹⁴¹See above, 17:7, for their sin in Rephidim. The present analogy between their coming into the wilderness of Sinai, which was surely in a spirit of repentance, as explained above, and their departure from Rephidim, thus teaches us that their departure was also with repentance. Thus Rashi’s language. But I have not understood this. It says in connection with all journeys: and they pitched [camp] in Elim;¹⁴²See Numbers 33:9. And they took their journey from Elim… and they came unto the wilderness of Sin;¹⁴³Above, 16:1. And they journeyed from the wilderness of Sin… and encamped in Rephidim;¹⁴⁴Ibid., 17:1. and so the entire section of Mas’ei¹⁴⁵Numbers 33:1-49. is written [with the name of the place whence they set forth on the journey repeated after it had already been mentioned that they had encamped there]. The intent of the repetition by Scripture is that there were no other encampments between them.
In the Mechilta, we find the following text¹⁴⁶Mechilta on the verse here. [on the same theme that Rashi mentioned, but presented in such a form that the above difficulties are eliminated]: “And they departed from Rephidim and came to the desert of Sinai.¹³⁵Verse 2. Has it not already been stated in the section of the Torah dealing with all stages of the journey [from Egypt to the Jordan]: And they journeyed from Rephidim, and pitched in the wilderness of Sinai?¹⁴⁷Numbers 33:15. And what need is there for Scripture to state here, and they came to the desert of Sinai? It [i.e., the intent of the verse] is to declare that their departure from Rephidim [was like their encampment in the wilderness of Sinai], etc.” The purport of this text of the Mechilta is to explain why, on account of certain new details mentioned there,¹⁴⁸Ibid., Verses 9 and 14. Scripture repeated in the section of Eileh Mas’ei¹⁴⁵Numbers 33:1-49. all stages of the journey from Elim and Rephidim mentioned here, although this journey [from Rephidim to the wilderness of Sinai] is mentioned in identical language both here and there. It was for this reason that [the Mechilta] was compelled to interpret that [the Scriptural restatement] was on account of the above analogy: [Just as their encampment at Sinai was with repentance, so also etc.].