וּשְׁמַרְתֶּ֗ם אֵ֚ת מִשְׁמֶ֣רֶת הַקֹּ֔דֶשׁ וְאֵ֖ת מִשְׁמֶ֣רֶת הַמִּזְבֵּ֑חַ וְלֹֽא־יִהְיֶ֥ה ע֛וֹד קֶ֖צֶף עַל־בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃
און איר זאָלט היטן די היטונג פֿון הײליקטום, און די היטונג פֿון מזבח, כּדי עס זאָל מער ניט זײַן אַ צאָרן אױף די קינדער פֿון ישׂראל.
Rabbeinu Bahya
וישמע יתרו כהן מדין חותן משה את כל אשר עשה אלו-הים למשה ולישראל עמו כי הוציא ה' את ישראל ממצרים, “Yitro, the priest of Midian, Moses’ father-in-law, heard all that G’d had done for Moses and His people Israel, that the Lord had taken Israel out of Egypt.” Concerning this entire portion there are conflicting opinions amongst our sages (Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua Hamoda'i in Zevachim 116) as to when Yitro arrived in the desert at the encampment of the Israelites. Some say he arrived prior to the giving of the Torah; others say that he arrived after the giving of the Torah. Each group of sages can cite evidence which appears to support its view.
The sages who claim that Yitro arrived only after the giving of the Torah refer to the words in verse 5 which describe the location where Yitro found the Israelites as “where it was encamped at the Mountain of G’d.” The words אשר חונה שם in that verse mean “where it was still encamped.” We know that Moses and the Israelites remained encamped at Mount Sinai for approximately an entire year. This makes it likely that Yitro arrived there after the Torah had been given (6 days after the Israelites’ arrival at that site). Furthermore, Moses’ words in 28,16: “and I make known to them the statutes of G’d and His social laws,” appear to presuppose that Moses had already been given the Torah. A third indication that Yitro arrived after the giving of the Torah is found at the end of our portion where Moses reluctantly sees his father-in-law off when the latter returns home. We read there (19,27) “Moses sent off his father-in-law and he went to his land.” Had the Torah not been given already, it is hardly conceivable that Moses would not have detained his father-in-law at least until after that event! However, if we accept the view that Yitro had arrived only after the giving of the Torah it seems peculiar that Moses should have told him only about what transpired in Egypt and at the Exodus without mentioning the revelation at Mount Sinai with a single syllable! At the very least Moses should have mentioned that the entire nation had been found worthy to hear the words of G’d directly out of the fiery spectacle which occurred at Mount Sinai. Moreover, if Yitro acknowledged the might of G’d based on matters which he had heard second-hand, i.e. the plagues and the crossing of the Sea of Reeds and the drowning of the Egyptians so that he was moved to exclaim: “now I know that the Lord is greater than any god,” would he not have been even more impressed when he heard about the revelation which had occurred much more recently and had demonstrated the existence and involvement of G’d in the affairs of man? Keeping this in mind we can understand the view of the sages that Yitro must have arrived at the encampment of the Jewish people prior to the giving of the Torah. When we accept the latter view the sequence of the Torah’s report of events is in chronological order also. These words reflect the opinion of Nachmanides.
Such a view explains the fact that Moses did not mention the revelation at Mount Sinai; he could not have done so as it had not happened yet. As to the argument that the words אשר הוא חונה שם הר האלו-הים indicate that Yitro found the people there after the revelation, these words do not necessarily mean that Moses was encamped at the Mountain of G’d. Actually, at that time the Israelites were at Refidim which is located between Eylim and Sinai. The “mountain of G’d” was a term with which Yitro was familiar ever since Moses had told him of his appointment as leader of the Jewish people which had taken place at that mountain. The mountain was so named because it was going to be the location where the Israelites would perform service to the Lord, as mentioned already in Exodus 3,12. This service was the justification G’d cited to Moses for liberating an as yet not worthy Jewish people. The Torah tells us about the great stature of Yitro who did not wait for the revelation at Mount Sinai before coming to join the Jewish people and to convert to Judaism. As to Moses telling his father-in-law that he was instructing the people in G’d’s statutes and social laws, these were not the laws of the Torah, but the legislation which G’d had already revealed as we have been told in connection with what transpired at Marah 16,25 “there He taught them decrees and ordinances.”
As to the third argument that at the end of the Parshah we read that Moses saw off his father-in-law when he returned to his own land, it is well to remember that the Torah does not say that וישב יתרו למקומו, that “Yitro returned to his place,” i.e. as if nothing had happened. On the contrary, Yitro returned to Midian “his land” in order to convert as many Midianites as he was able to monotheism or to Judaism. At the very least he converted his own family. Mechilta Yitro section 2 writes that Yitro told Moses before his departure that he would go back to Midian and convert his people; it is possible that though he went he never returned, having been unsuccessful. At any rate, this would account for the report in Judges 1,16: “the descendants of the Kenite, the father-in-law of Moses went up with the Israelites from the city of Palms to the wilderness of Yehudah.”
The portion of Yitro follows immediately after the paragraph dealing with Amalek because the two stories show the diametrically opposite reaction of different Gentiles to the same event. Whereas Amalek used the defeat of the Egyptians in order to take up the fight against G’d and G’d’s people instead, Yitro learned from history and converted to Judaism. Seeing that Amalek was a descendant of Esau, the son of Yitzchak, one could have expected that the events of the Exodus would have evoked a feeling of penitence in these people, the very opposite was the case. Amalek traveled from afar in order to counteract the psychological impact on the majority of mankind when they heard of the miracles G’d had performed and how for the first time in history slaves had been freed.
On the other hand, Yitro, who was related to the Jewish people only through Avraham and Keturah became a convert. The Torah requites the behaviour of both by instructing us to wipe out Amalek and every vestige of his memory (Deut.25,19), whereas we read in Samuel I 15,6 that when King Saul went to war against Amalek he made sure that the Kenites (descendants of Yitro) would evacuate the city before he attacked it. The reason given for that act of consideration was the fact that their forefathers had acted with kindness vis-a-vis the Jewish people when they departed from Egypt on their way to the land of Israel.
The sages who claim that Yitro arrived only after the giving of the Torah refer to the words in verse 5 which describe the location where Yitro found the Israelites as “where it was encamped at the Mountain of G’d.” The words אשר חונה שם in that verse mean “where it was still encamped.” We know that Moses and the Israelites remained encamped at Mount Sinai for approximately an entire year. This makes it likely that Yitro arrived there after the Torah had been given (6 days after the Israelites’ arrival at that site). Furthermore, Moses’ words in 28,16: “and I make known to them the statutes of G’d and His social laws,” appear to presuppose that Moses had already been given the Torah. A third indication that Yitro arrived after the giving of the Torah is found at the end of our portion where Moses reluctantly sees his father-in-law off when the latter returns home. We read there (19,27) “Moses sent off his father-in-law and he went to his land.” Had the Torah not been given already, it is hardly conceivable that Moses would not have detained his father-in-law at least until after that event! However, if we accept the view that Yitro had arrived only after the giving of the Torah it seems peculiar that Moses should have told him only about what transpired in Egypt and at the Exodus without mentioning the revelation at Mount Sinai with a single syllable! At the very least Moses should have mentioned that the entire nation had been found worthy to hear the words of G’d directly out of the fiery spectacle which occurred at Mount Sinai. Moreover, if Yitro acknowledged the might of G’d based on matters which he had heard second-hand, i.e. the plagues and the crossing of the Sea of Reeds and the drowning of the Egyptians so that he was moved to exclaim: “now I know that the Lord is greater than any god,” would he not have been even more impressed when he heard about the revelation which had occurred much more recently and had demonstrated the existence and involvement of G’d in the affairs of man? Keeping this in mind we can understand the view of the sages that Yitro must have arrived at the encampment of the Jewish people prior to the giving of the Torah. When we accept the latter view the sequence of the Torah’s report of events is in chronological order also. These words reflect the opinion of Nachmanides.
Such a view explains the fact that Moses did not mention the revelation at Mount Sinai; he could not have done so as it had not happened yet. As to the argument that the words אשר הוא חונה שם הר האלו-הים indicate that Yitro found the people there after the revelation, these words do not necessarily mean that Moses was encamped at the Mountain of G’d. Actually, at that time the Israelites were at Refidim which is located between Eylim and Sinai. The “mountain of G’d” was a term with which Yitro was familiar ever since Moses had told him of his appointment as leader of the Jewish people which had taken place at that mountain. The mountain was so named because it was going to be the location where the Israelites would perform service to the Lord, as mentioned already in Exodus 3,12. This service was the justification G’d cited to Moses for liberating an as yet not worthy Jewish people. The Torah tells us about the great stature of Yitro who did not wait for the revelation at Mount Sinai before coming to join the Jewish people and to convert to Judaism. As to Moses telling his father-in-law that he was instructing the people in G’d’s statutes and social laws, these were not the laws of the Torah, but the legislation which G’d had already revealed as we have been told in connection with what transpired at Marah 16,25 “there He taught them decrees and ordinances.”
As to the third argument that at the end of the Parshah we read that Moses saw off his father-in-law when he returned to his own land, it is well to remember that the Torah does not say that וישב יתרו למקומו, that “Yitro returned to his place,” i.e. as if nothing had happened. On the contrary, Yitro returned to Midian “his land” in order to convert as many Midianites as he was able to monotheism or to Judaism. At the very least he converted his own family. Mechilta Yitro section 2 writes that Yitro told Moses before his departure that he would go back to Midian and convert his people; it is possible that though he went he never returned, having been unsuccessful. At any rate, this would account for the report in Judges 1,16: “the descendants of the Kenite, the father-in-law of Moses went up with the Israelites from the city of Palms to the wilderness of Yehudah.”
The portion of Yitro follows immediately after the paragraph dealing with Amalek because the two stories show the diametrically opposite reaction of different Gentiles to the same event. Whereas Amalek used the defeat of the Egyptians in order to take up the fight against G’d and G’d’s people instead, Yitro learned from history and converted to Judaism. Seeing that Amalek was a descendant of Esau, the son of Yitzchak, one could have expected that the events of the Exodus would have evoked a feeling of penitence in these people, the very opposite was the case. Amalek traveled from afar in order to counteract the psychological impact on the majority of mankind when they heard of the miracles G’d had performed and how for the first time in history slaves had been freed.
On the other hand, Yitro, who was related to the Jewish people only through Avraham and Keturah became a convert. The Torah requites the behaviour of both by instructing us to wipe out Amalek and every vestige of his memory (Deut.25,19), whereas we read in Samuel I 15,6 that when King Saul went to war against Amalek he made sure that the Kenites (descendants of Yitro) would evacuate the city before he attacked it. The reason given for that act of consideration was the fact that their forefathers had acted with kindness vis-a-vis the Jewish people when they departed from Egypt on their way to the land of Israel.
Rabbeinu Bahya
באהל מועד, “in the Tent of Meeting, etc.;” this is the Tabernacle. Once G’d called Moses from the Tabernacle, i.e. from Leviticus 1,1 on where the words “He called to Moses from the Tent of Meeting” occurred for the first time, G’d always spoke to Moses out of the Tent of Meeting seeing that the attribute כבוד which had addressed Moses at the Mountain had moved to the Tabernacle as soon as it had been inaugurated. This is why at this time the instructions had to be issued to the Levites whose camp was around the Tabernacle not to trespass and enter the Sanctuary as any non-priest who entered the Sanctuary was bound to die (verse 51). The warning not to enter the Sanctuary was of the same type as the warning before the revelation not to step beyond the fenced off section of Mount Sinai (Exodus 19,13). The warning is spelled out in detail in Numbers 18,5 after the rebellion of Korach and parts of the senior members of the tribe of Levite. At that time even the priests were included in the warning (Exodus 19,24), and in Numbers 4,20 the Torah warns the Kehatites, the senior group of Levites, not to “look” when the “holy” is inserted or they would die. Even though they carried these “holy” items such as the Ark, they were not to look at it until the Ark had been covered.
Furthermore, the Torah does command that the 22,000 Levites encamp around the Tabernacle (compare Numbers 3,43) seeing that their numbers corresponded to that of the angels who had accompanied G’d when He took up residence in the Tabernacle. We have this information from Psalms 68,18 where the psalmist speaks about רכב אלוהים רבותים, “G’d’s entourage amounting to 22.000.” The Israelites’ camp was composed of four flags, corresponding to their having observed at Mount Sinai that the angels grouped themselves into four camps with a flag each. [Some say each angel had a flag of his own, compare Rabbi Avdimi in Pesikta Rabbati on Asseret Hadibrot. Ed.]
Furthermore, the Torah does command that the 22,000 Levites encamp around the Tabernacle (compare Numbers 3,43) seeing that their numbers corresponded to that of the angels who had accompanied G’d when He took up residence in the Tabernacle. We have this information from Psalms 68,18 where the psalmist speaks about רכב אלוהים רבותים, “G’d’s entourage amounting to 22.000.” The Israelites’ camp was composed of four flags, corresponding to their having observed at Mount Sinai that the angels grouped themselves into four camps with a flag each. [Some say each angel had a flag of his own, compare Rabbi Avdimi in Pesikta Rabbati on Asseret Hadibrot. Ed.]
Chizkuni
ולא יקרבו עוד בני ישראל, “and the Children of Israel shall no longer come close, etc.” the word עוד here cannot mean “still,” but must mean “again,” as they had already come near as we know from verse 5, else why was G-d described as angry there? (Sifri)