ייִדישער מחשבֿה אויף משלי 12:15

Since it is the duty of the father or husband to provide basic needs for his wife and children, a wife and children who have been abandoned do not normally make the first move in an effort at reconciliation. If, as in this case, the wife has care of her husband's children and is under the protection of a highly placed father, she has even less reason to seek out her errant husband. Lost objects do not as a rule chase after their owner. Tzipporah, it seems, had ample reason to feel the aggrieved party. Even if the wife is consumed by love for her husband and initiates the conciliatory moves, her father does not need "to lose face" by running after his son-in-law. (1) Yitro overcame all those feelings because he recognised the great and altruistic nature of Moses’s preoccupation with his people. Therefore, he decided not to stand on ceremony. Possibly, G-d had helped along in framing his state of mind so Moses’s family as well as Yitro would have a chance to participate in the revelation at Mount Sinai. Alternately, surely Moses would not have sent for them in time for the revelation at Mount Sinai. Our verse then reiterates the position of Yitro to tell us that in spite of his eminence, he made the first move in reuniting Moses and Tzipporah. (2) Since, after the Exodus, the reason for Moses to have temporarily abandoned his family at Aaron's behest had disappeared, the Torah mentions this fact to give an additional reason why reunion at this time was particularly opportune. Although this would have provided additional reason for Moses to make the first move, Yitro did not wait for this. (3) The reason it says "and the name of the one is Eliezer," is because normally Moses’s firstborn should have been called by that name, as a sign of gratitude for G-d having saved Moses from Pharaoh. Since at the time of Gershon's birth however, Moses was still in danger- a warrant being out for him,- he could not name Eliezer until G-d had told him that all his enemies had died already. Athough both Yitro and Tzipporah had waived any injured pride they might have felt, they were not certain of their welcome. Therefore, in the first instance, Tzipporah and her sons came to "the desert in which Israel was encamped," and only Yitro approached Moses (6) right away to find out how Moses felt about them. The enquiries after each other's welfare could only take place later. Once having ascertained that both he and Tzipporah were welcome, an official reception was arranged. According to our sages, the initial meeting was either by letter or intermediary. (2) The report about what G-d had done for Israel, is added to show that Yitro rejoiced in the new found freedom of the Jewish people. Also, of course, he recognised the "tit for tat" kind of G-d’s justice that had been at work in visiting retribution on Egypt. This added to the awe Yitro felt when he contemplated the might of the G-d of Israel. (7+8) It is extremely unlikely that Yitro's observations made "on the day after" refers to the day after the Day Of Atonement. More likely the reference is to the day after Yitro had arrived. All this was before matan Torah, the revelation at Mount Sinai, a time when Torah laws had not yet been promulgated. (11) Therefore, Moses’s personal judgment was essential in arriving at decisions, and the long line up is understandable. It would have been impossible for Moses to find a multitude of judges whose objectivity etc. could be assumed, and who had not received guidelines other than to consult their consciences. To win acceptance, Moses needed to explain the reasons for his decisions. Had Torah legislation existed already, it would have been so much simpler. All Moses would have had to do would have been to quote the Torah commandment in question. (9) When Yitro observed all this, he told Moses that his scrupulous efforts to win over both litigants to accept his judgment would prove counter productive, would tire him out and create impatience among all those who had to wait in line all this time. They would all become short tempered, the opposite of the objective of settling disputes. (10) Yitro's suggestion was that Moses should ask G-d for guidelines "and the Lord will be with you," so that he would only have to act as a mouthpiece and supervisor over what the other judges who would be taught the guidelines would judge. Yitro expressed his conviction that his advice was so sound that "and the Lord will command you," surely G-d would issue an order in line with what he had suggested. When Moses listened to his father-in-law, he in fact accepted the suggestion to ask G-d for the requisite legislation. Since Yitro's advice could not be carried out till after matan Torah when the (12) legislation would have been received and the people could have been trained, (all while encamped around the mountain, i.e. 11 months) Yitro remained with the Jewish people until all his suggestions had been implemented. The report in Parshat Behalotcha as well as the one in Parshat Devarim are then all in keeping with this interpretation. Although, of course, Torah existed long before Yitro had been born, according to our principle that a meritorious act is rewarded by benefits accruing to others through the merit of the person carrying out that meritorious deed, Yitro became the catalyst for Torah to be revealed at this juncture. We can now well understand that a whole Parshah has been named after him.

But, if he who is morally sick be not aware of his illness, imagining that he is well, or, being aware of it, does not seek a remedy, his end will be similar to that of one, who, suffering from bodily ailment, yet continuing to indulge himself, neglects to be cured, and who in consequence surely meets an untimely death. Those who know that they are in a diseased state, but nevertheless yield to their inordinate passions, are described in the truthful Law which quotes their own words, “Though I walk in the stubborness of my heart, in order that the indulgence of the passions may appease the thirst for them.”⁵Dt. XXIX, 18. This means that, intending to quench the thirst, it is, on the contrary, intensifed. He who is ignorant of his illness is spoken of in many places by Solomon, who says, “The way of the fool is straight in his own eyes, but he who hearkeneth unto counsel is wise”.⁶Prov. XII, 15. This means that he who listens to the counsel of the sage is wise, for the sage teaches him the way that is actually right, and not the one that he (the morally ill) erroneously considers to be such. Solomon also says, “There is many a way which seemeth even before a man; but its ends are ways unto death”.⁷Ibid., XIV, 12. Again, in regard to these who are morally ill, in that they do not know what is injurious from that which is beneficial, he says, “The way of the wicked is like darkness; they do not know against what they stumble.”⁸Ibid., IV, 19. Cf. H. Deot, II, 1, “What is the remedy for those whose souls are diseased? Let them consult the sages who are the physicians of the soul, who will cure their disease by teaching them those characteristics by which they may return to the moral path, and recognize their evil traits. Concerning those who do not seek the sages in order to be cured, Solomon says, ‘wisdom and instruction fools despise’ (Prov. I, 7)”. The conception of a spiritual healing originated neither with Aristotle nor with M. There are many biblical passages based on such a comparison with the healing art, as Jer. III, 22: ארפה משובותיכם; Hos. XIV, 5: ארפא משובתם Ps. XLI, 5: ארפאה נפשי כי חטאתי לך, etc. Rosin, Ethik, p. 78, n. 4, refers to similar passages in Hebrew, Greek, and Arabic literature. The art of healing the diseases of the soul will, however, form the subject-matter of the fourth chapter.