Exodus · Chapter 18

Now Jethro, the chief of Midian, the father-in-law of Moses, heard all that Hashem had done for Moses and for Israel His people — that Hashem had brought Israel out of Egypt.

וישמע יתרו AND JETHRO HEARD — What was the particular report which he heard so that he came? — The division of the Red Sea and the war with Amalek (cf. (Mekhilta; Zevachim 116a). יתרו JETHRO — He was called by seven names: Reuel, Jether, Jethro, Hobab, Heber, Keni and Putiel. He was called Jether (from יִתֵּר “to add”) because he added (it was through him that there was added) a section to the Torah; viz., that beginning at (21 ff.) “Moreover thou shalt provide”. Jethro — so was he called because when he became a proselyte and fulfilled the divine precepts one more letter was added to his name (יתר). Hobab — because he loved (חִבֵּב) the Torah (cf. Mekhilta). — Hobab is certainly identical with Jethro, as it is said, (Judges 4:11) “of the sons of Hobab, the father-in-law of Moses” and therefore it is correct to say that Hobab is one of his names. But as to Reuel there are some who say that he is not identical with Jethro, but that he was Hobab’s (Jethro’s) father, as may be seen from Numbers 10:29. Then what, according to this view, would be the meaning of (Exodus 2:18) “And they came to Reuel, their father” (from which it would appear that Reuel and Jethro are the same)? It means their grandfather, for children call their grandfather: father. This is to be found in Sifrei Bamidbar 78 (on Numbers 10:29). חתן משה MOSES’ FATHER-IN-LAW — Here Jethro prided himself on his relationship to Moses: I, the father-in-law of the king. Previously, however, Moses had made whatever greatness he had hinge upon his relationship to his father-in-law, the chieftain of Midian, as it is said, (Exodus 4:18) “And he returned to Jethro, his father-in-law” (Mekhilta). למשה ולישראל TO MOSES AND TO ISRAEL — Moses alone is of equal in importance to all Israel (Mekhilta). את כל אשר עשה ALL THAT [GOD] HAD DONE for them through the falling of the Manna and through the well (cf. Rashi on Numbers 21:17) and by the defeat of Amalek. כי הוציא ה׳ וגו׳ THAT THE LORD HAD BROUGHT FORTH etc. — this was greater than all other things, and is therefore singled out for mention (cf. Mekhilta).

Our Rabbis have already differed concerning this section. 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. 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, this being the meaning of the expression, where he was encamped. Moreover, Moses said to Jethro, and I make them know the statutes of G-d, and His laws, [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. 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: And Moses said unto Hobab, the son of Reuel the Midianite, Moses’ father-in-law: we are journeying 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, this being identical with the departure mentioned here, and he went his way unto his own land. They 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. 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. 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, 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. Yet with all this, I find it difficult to un...

These are the words of Avram, prisoner of hope, who opened the eyes of Jethro until he went — half his heart wandering. This is the explanation of the parashah whose opening is: "Jethro heard." Scripture mentioned above the matter of Amalek, for they came to Rephidim (above, 17:8); and the parashah beginning "In the third month" (19:1) would rightly have been written after the matter of Amalek, since it is written there, "They journeyed from Rephidim and came to the wilderness of Sinai" (v. 2). If so, why does the account of Jethro intervene between these two parashiyot? The Gaon [Saadia] said that Jethro came to the wilderness of Sinai before the Giving of the Torah. In my view, however, he came only in the second year, after the Tabernacle had been erected — for it is written in the parashah, "burnt-offering and sacrifices to God" (v. 12), and it does not mention that he built a new altar. Moreover, it is written, "I will make known to them the statutes of God and His teachings" (v. 16) — which is clearly after the Giving of the Torah. The reliable witness for my words is what is written: "to the wilderness where he was encamped, at the mountain of God" (v. 5). And Moses said to Hovav — who is Jethro, as I explained in the parashah of "These are the names" — for the father-in-law of Moses did not return to Re'uel, who was near him, but to Hovav, as it is written, "of the sons of Hovav, the father-in-law of Moses" (Judges 4:11). And Moses said to him, "For you have known where we have encamped in the wilderness" (Num. 10:31). We know that Israel remained in the wilderness of Sinai for about a year. And the words of Moses prove this, for he said in the parashah of "These are the words": "Hashem our God spoke to us at Horeb saying, 'You have dwelt long enough at this mountain; turn and journey'" (Deut. 1:6–7). This time was close to their departure. And he said, "I said to you at that time: I cannot bear you alone" (ibid., v. 9), for Hashem has multiplied you and today you are as numerous as the stars of heaven (ibid., v. 10). The reason for recounting this to them was that Hashem had said to Jacob: "Behold, I will make you fruitful and multiply you and make you into a congregation of peoples, and I will give this land to your offspring after you" (Gen. 48:4) — meaning: when your offspring have multiplied, I will give them the land. Therefore Moses said: "Hashem your God has multiplied you, and the time has come for you to inherit the land; because you are many, I could not bear you alone, and I needed to appoint commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds." This was the counsel of Jethro that he gave him the day after his arrival in the wilderness of Sinai. Therefore Moses said to Hovav, who is Jethro, as we explained: "We are journeying" (Num. 10:29), and he replied, "I will not go; rather to my own land and to my kindred I will go" (ibid., v. 30). And this is: "Moses sent his father-in-law away, and he went to his own land" (v. 27). Now I will explain why the parashah of Jethro was placed at this point: because Scripture mentioned above the evil that Amalek did to Israel, it sets against it the good that Jethro did for Israel. It is written, "Jethro rejoiced over all the goodness," and he gave wise and sound counsel to Moses and to Israel. Moses said to him, "You will be as eyes for us" (Num. 10:31) — meaning that he illuminated their eyes. And Saul said, "You showed kindness to all the children of Israel" (I Sam. 15:6). Furthermore, because it is written above "War for Hashem against Amalek" (17:16) — that Israel is obligated to fight them whenever Hashem grants them rest — Scripture mentions the matter of Jethro, for they [the Kenites] were with the nation of Amalek, so that Israel might remember the kindness of their father [Jethro] and not harm his offspring. And indeed we see that the Rechabites, who were children of Jethro, were with the children of Israel in Jerusalem in the days of Jeremiah: Jonadab son of Rechab (Jer. 35:19). There is another parashah similar to this one. — "That God had done": Hashem, who had been known in the world before Moses came, in Whom all acknowledge — "for Israel His people": the people of Hashem, or the people of Moses; it is also possible that the lamed is on account of Moses and Israel, and the meaning refers to the plagues and the drowning of Pharaoh. — "For Hashem had brought out": Hashem, who became known to Moses — for it was on account of the signs that they went out.

וישמע יתרו, the word שמיעה for hearing is used when recording or referring to something which did not occur at the time it is being reported. When one hears of something which is just happening, the Torah uses the term ראיה, “seeing,” i.e. first hand knowledge of something. It does not matter whether the sound of the happening comes from a distant location or is nearby within one’s eyesight. Examples of the use of the word ראיה “seeing” being used for matters which were heard second hand, not seen, are found in Genesis 42,1 where Yaakov, resident in the land of Canaan, is reported as “seeing” that there was grain for sale in Egypt. Clearly, the Torah refers to Yaakov having heard about it. Seeing the matter was not near at hand nor had occurred just then, the Torah used the words וירא יעקב, “Jacob saw.” A similar use of the word “seeing,” וירא for something not actually seen is Numbers 22,2 where Bileam is reported as “seeing” all that Israel had done to the Emorite kings. Bileam had not seen any of it, but had heard that the Israelites had defeated the two most powerful Emorite kings Sichon and Og. A third example confirming our theory would be Deuteronomy 28,10 where the people of the globe are reported as expressing their conviction that the Jewish people are G’d’s darlings and that they would therefore be in awe of them. Clearly, the people of the globe could not have “seen” this, but they had heard about the success of the Jewish nation. The events inspiring such feelings among the nations of the globe had occurred over a period of time, not all at once. However, if we understand the words כי הוציא as meaning כאשר הוציא, “when He took out,” we must understand Yitro as saying that he had heard all that G’d had done for Israel at the time when He took them out of Egypt. This would include a reference to all the plagues, the drowning of the Egyptians army, etc. It was this information which had prompted him to journey into the desert himself instead of sending a messenger who would accompany Tzipporah and her children so that they would be reunited with their husband/father. He was primarily motivated by his quest for G’d. This is similar to Chronicles II 32,31 where the king of Babylon wanted to have evidence of the reports he had received about the miraculous recovery from his illness which King Chizkiyah had experienced.

וישמע יחרו כהן מדין, Yitro the priest of Midian heard, etc. Why did the Torah tell us that Yitro was a priest? Being a priest in a pagan society is hardly to someone's credit, why did the Torah then tell us about this? [the author bases himself on the rule that one does not remind a בעל תשובה of his past. Ed.] Perhaps in this case the Torah wanted us to know the greatness of Yitro who converted to Judaism although he occupied an exalted position in his country at the cost of his prominence and probably even his wealth. Actually, the Torah describes Yitro in a contradictory role. Although he was leader in his country and as such could have chosen prominent sons-in-law for his daughters, he chose an unknown (to him), i.e. Moses as his son-in-law. The Torah therefore describes him both as a leader in Midian and as Moses' father-in-law. At the time, the other aspirants for Tzipporah's hand in marriage resented Yitro's choosing an itinerant foreigner over them. Concerning Yitro's position as an ardent idol worshiper, something that is implied in his title "priest," the Torah compliments him in verse 11 when he declared that he had found that the Lord was superior to any other kind of deity. The fact that a Gentile who occupied an exalted position in his own country and who was a religious dignitary to boot made a 180 degree turn becomes remarkable for the Jewish people only after the Torah tells us who this Gentile was prior to his conversion. An additional reason why the Torah may have chosen to tell us something about Yitro's former career is that G'd had revealed all He had done to Yitro. He had not added nor subtracted anything which had occurred. Only people who occupy prominent positions of authority are granted such a comprehensive insight by G'd. We have described how Joshua was singled out by G'd to be privy to information not granted to the rest of the people. את כל אשר עשה אלוקים, all that the Lord had done, etc. This is also a compliment to Yitro. He endeavoured to know all the details of what had taken place. It proves that Yitro was what we term a philo-semite, a genuine friend of the Jewish people. When one hates someone, though one is aware of that person's superiority, one minimises the complimentary remarks one makes about such a person. The reverse is true if one loves someone; one is liable to be very lavish in one's praise of such a person. The Torah's description of Yitro is such that we realise that he was a true friend of the Israelites. Seeing that the Torah told us that Yitro heard "everything G'd had done for Israel," why did the Torah repeat "that G'd had taken the Israelites out of Egypt?" Surely this was part of what Yitro had heard! We may assume that Yitro had been well aware that no slave had ever escaped from Egypt (Mechilta on verse 11). According to Sanhedrin 106 Yitro had been one of Pharaoh's advisers, and as such had been thoroughly familiar with the system by which Egypt made sure its prisoners could not esca...

וישמע יתרו, “Yitro heard;” according to Rashi, Yitro heard about the Israelites having crossed the sea of reeds and the Egyptians having drowned in it during their pursuit of them. Rashi’s explanation is supported by Joshua 2,10 where the spies of Joshua are told by Rachav forty years later that she and her people are still scared of the G-d Who had orchestrated that event. It is also supported by the fact that the Torah mentions Yitro and Amalek in one breath in Samuel I 15,6: ויאמר שאול אל הקיני סורו רדו מתוך עמלקי פן אוסיפך עמו. “Shaul said to the Kenite: “separate yourself from the Amalekite so that you do not become a victim when I wipe out the Amalekite.’” Yitro had seven different names in the Torah, one of which is “Kenite.” How did Yitro hear about all this now? Maybe someone had escaped from the battle with Amalek and he heard it from him. יתרו; “ according to Rashi he had seven names; Reuel, Yeter, Yitro, Chovav, Chever, Keyni, Petuel. If you were to ask why the name Rechev is not included in this list, seeing that in Jeremiah a descendant of his is referred to as from בית הרכבים (Jeremiah 35,2). Presumably, Rashi only referred to the names that are mentioned in the Torah itself. כהן מדין, the priest of Midian. He must have been of high rank as he is compared to Yavin, King of Chatzor, as an equal. (Compare Judges 4,17) There he is called Chever. חותן משה, “father-in-law” of Moses. Rashi comments that here Yitro honoured Moses by referring to himself not by his title, but by his relationship to Moses, his soninlaw, someone who after living as a refugee from Egypt with him had now become the head of a people numbering in the millions. Years earlier, when Moses was in the home of Yitro, Moses described his claim to fame as having Yitro the priest as his father-in-law. (Compare Exodus 4,18). את כל אשר עשה אלוקים למשה, “all that G-d had done for Moses.” 1) That G-d had saved him from Pharaoh; 2) that he had become the leader of a great nation. 3) That he had achieved this stature in a place that previously sought to execute him.

מרפא לשון עץ חיים וסלף בה שבר ברוח, “a healing tongue is a tree of life, but a crooked one causes a broken spirit.” (Proverbs 15,4). In this verse Solomon informed us of the tremendous usefulness of the power of speech. The tongue, i.e. the words spoken by the tongue, are the remedy capable of healing the mentally sick and depressed. Curing a sick mind by means of the right words is a greater medical achievement than curing by means of organic or inorganic medicines. Whenever one employs external agents it is doubtful if they will accomplish their purpose. Even when these medicines remove the disease or sickness they do not add to one’s life span. Using one’s power of speech to effect a cure does not result in a doubtful cure but its effect is usually prompt and beyond question. Such a cure has the potential of increasing the patient’s life span. It is like a tree of life to which life is attached. If one uses the power of speech in a negative way, i.e. one abuses this power, the result is a broken spirit. Just as a cure effected by judicious use of the power of words is the most effective cure, so malicious use of the power of words is apt to inflict deeper psychological harm on a person than any other cause of disease or sickness. This is why our sages said (Baba Metzia 59) that if someone publicly shames another person he forfeits his entitlement to life in the hereafter. This kind of mental anguish and sickness is far more serious than a bodily dysfunction as it is likely to result in a broken spirit. Proverbs 18,14 states: “a man’s spirit can sustain him during sickness, but who can lift up a dejected spirit?” The meaning of this verse is that the spirit, i.e. the soul, is able to relieve the sickness of the body to an extent as it sustains the sick body by itself going without food or drink for many days and offering solace to the body. When the mind is sick however, who can sustain it? Who will offer it solace or comfort? Furthermore, just as there are physical afflictions so there are mental diseases. The latter are more serious and harder to combat than diseases of the body. Most people suffering mental disease are victims of sins committed or are the result of such a person (mind) having believed in the wrong values. This is what Solomon referred to when he said in Proverbs 2,16: “to deliver you from the alien woman, from the strange woman whose talk is smooth.” He continues about this “strange woman” in Proverbs 5,3 “for the lips of an immoral woman drip honey;” Solomon compares beliefs in the wrong values as equivalent to an alien woman who destroys her victim in the end.” This is why Solomon said: “but in the end she is bitter as wormwood, sharp as a two-edged sword” (Proverbs 5,4). Another verse dealing with the same subject is Proverbs 5,5: “her feet go down to death, her steps support she'ol.” By having provided man with the ability to speak and to communicate his thoughts to others, G’d has also given man a decisive advantage over all other creatures. He enabled us to heal people whose minds are sick and to bring them close to the protective wings of G’d’s presence, the Shechinah (compare Ruth 2,12). Being under these protective wings of the Shechinah means to enjoy true and everlasting life. Avraham possessed this attribute of being able to heal spirits and this enabled him to attract so many people to the one and only G’d (compare Sotah 10). All of this he achieved by healing people through judicious use of his tongue. When the sages describe that he had a pearl around his neck which conferred a cure upon people they meant the power of speech (compare Baba Batra 16). We are told that the single pearl which hung around Avraham’s neck had the effect that any sick person who looked at it would be cured instantly. When Avraham died G’d took this pearl and made it part of the planet sun. The Midrash obviously needs elucidation as it is a euphemism expressing a certain idea. The author compared Avraham’s attribute which enabled him to gain converts to monotheism to the sun and its ability to illuminate matters that were previously concealed. The mention of Avraham’s neck in this connection is to be understood as the source of the “pearl” being in his throat, the source of verbalising one’s thoughts. What the author of the Midrash meant was that anyone suffering from spiritual dejection who listened to Avraham’s words would be cured. When Avraham died he did not leave behind him any person or creature capable of teaching the Divinity of G’d and His uniqueness other than the planet sun; this is why G’d removed this “pearl” and hung it around the “sun in its orbit.” This is confirmed by Psalms 19,2: “the heavens proclaim G’d’s glory,” and this is also the meaning of the words מרפא לשון עץ חיים which we quoted from Proverbs as the introduction to this essay. The healing power demonstrated by the judicious use Avraham made of his tongue was the reason that so many of the people with whom he came into contact adopted his belief in monotheism. These were the people referred to in Genesis 12,5 as ואת הנפש אשר עשו בחרן, “and the people whom they had converted to monotheism while in Charan.” The healing power of Moses’ tongue was demonstrated in verse 8 of our chapter when the Torah reports Moses as telling his father-in-law about all the miracles G’d had performed on behalf of the Jewish people. Yitro converted to Judaism after hearing his son-in-law describe what had transpired since he had left him. He abandoned his prestigious position in Midian as the High Priest, wealth, and his many children, and went into the desert in order to place himself under the protective wings of G’d’s Shechinah as soon as he hard Moses tell him what had happened since he had returned to Egypt at the time. 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. It is possible to explain the proximity of these two paragraphs, i.e. the fight against Amalek and the arrival of Yitro followed by the paragraph of the revelation at Mount Sinai, followed in turn by Parshat Mishpatim, in a different way. It is a fact of life that the descendants of Esau are a painful thorn for the Jewish people throughout our history, no less so during the first hostile encounter reported at the end of Parshat Beshalach than at the end of our exile when G’d will bring the final redemption. We have a hint here that just as Israel was successful in its first encounter with Amalek with the help of Moses and Joshua so it will be during the final encounter in the future. During the exile in which we find ourselves nowadays we will be helped by the prophet Elijah, a descendant of the tribe of Levi just like Moses; the second helper will be the Mashiach ben Yoseph, the redeemer from the tribe of Joseph like Joshua who was from the tribe of Ephrayim. (based on a Jewish-Christian theological confrontation involving Nachmanides in his Sefer Hage-ulah page 291 edited by Rabbi Chavell). Just as the first redemption resulted in Yitro converting to Judaism and returning to the fold (his ancestor was Avraham), so, as a result of the final redemption, all the surviving Gentile nations will convert and join Judaism. The reason that the portion of Yitro which contains the account of the giving of the Torah also follows the story of the fight against Amalek and Yitro’s conversion, is that the report of the giving of the Torah is a reminder that eventually the Torah will become the property of all of mankind and G’d’s name and knowledge of Him will be world-wide “like the waters which cover the ocean” (Isaiah 11,9). Following that redemption there will be a יום הדין, a “day of judgment,” a resurrection of the dead. This is why the portion ואלה המשפטים follows the giving of the Torah to signal to us that resurrection and eternal life will be for those who observe the commandments spelled out in that portion. It is worth noting that when Daniel 12,2 refers to that day in the future he mentions the word אלה twice in that verse. The proximity of our portions is to be understood in terms of Isaiah 46,10 מגיד מראשית אחרית “who foretells at the beginning what the end is going to be like.” By commencing פרשת משפטים with the word ואלה, the link between Torah legislation, observance and resurrection as mentioned in Daniel is established. כי הוציא ה' את ישראל, “that G’d had taken out Israel.” After Moses had first spoken of G’d as אלו-הים, when he spoke of עשה אלו-הים, he wanted to introduce Yitro to the tetragrammaton, G’d’s full name. and other attributes. It was important to Moses that Yitro should realize that the Exodus had been orchestrated by this attribute of G‘d. In this Moses merely paraphrased what we have read in 13,16: “for with a strong hand did Hashem take us out of Egypt.” Moses wanted to prevent the misconception that only the חזק יד had been active in orchestrating the Exodus of the Jewish people.

“And Jethro, the priest of Midian, Moses’ father-in-law, heard, etc.” In the Yalkut, it concludes: What news did he hear that made him come? Rabbi Yehoshua says he heard about the war with Amalek and came. Rabbi Elazar HaModai says he heard about the giving of the Torah and came. Rabbi Elazar says he heard about the splitting of the Red Sea and came. At first glance, it appears that Jethro heard everything, because God did not speak with them in secret at Mount Sinai from the beginning, and His voice rumbled and the peoples heard and trembled. If so, what are they disagreeing about? And since it says “and came” in each opinion, we can deduce that they are not arguing about what he heard, because all agree that he heard everything that was done, etc., as is implied throughout this section that Jethro heard everything that had happened. Rather, their main disagreement is about which news prompted him to come with Moses’ wife and children. That’s why the phrase “and came” is mentioned in all opinions. And they all understood that this entire first verse continues to the verse and Jethro came, etc., as if to say that because he heard some news that compelled him to come, therefore he came and took with him Zipporah, Moses’ wife. Their difficulty is: what news did he hear that caused him to come with Moses’ wife and children? Rabbi Joshua says [Jethro] heard of the war with Amalek, for God had said that there would be a war with Amalek from generation to generation, and Jethro was dwelling among the Amalekites, as it is said, And Saul said to the Kenites, “Go, depart, go down from among the Amalekites, lest I destroy you with them. You showed kindness to all the people of Israel when they came up out of Egypt” (First Samuel 15:6). Jethro thought, “If I do not return and match my daughter with Moses, then when there is a war with Amalek, they will fight against me as well.” Therefore, he came with his wife to return and match her with Moses after she had been sent away, because he said that they would show kindness to him because of his son-in-law Moses and his sons, for the children are his [Moses’] children and my [Jethro’s grand] children. Rabbi Eliezer HaModai says: He heard about the Giving of the Torah and came, as it says there, Do not approach a woman (Exodus 19:15), and Jethro thought to apply the same a fortiori argument that Moses expounded. He reasoned: If the Israelites, who only received the Torah temporarily, had to separate from their wives, how much more so Moses, with whom the Divine Presence speaks at all times, should be completely separated from his wife and not send for her again. Therefore, Jethro came and brought Moses his wife so that she could dwell with him, as the glory of man to dwell in a house (Isaiah 44:13), according to the law of Moses and Israel. Rabbi Eliezer says: He heard about the splitting of the Red Sea and came. For he believed that Moses had sent her away with a bill of divorce, as concluded in the Yalkut in this section. And our Sages said (Sanhedrin 22): “It is as difficult to match [a couple] as the splitting of the Red Sea,” and this refers to a second marriage. And it appears that this second marriage refers to one who takes back his divorcee, because this separation and reunion is similar to the separation and reunion of the waters of the sea. For initially, the waters were connected in a natural union, and when the spirit of God’s jealousy passed over them to create space between those joined, from then on it became difficult to reconnect them. Nevertheless, he saw that when God desired their reconnection, their union succeeded beautifully. Thus Jethro thought that as water reflects face to face, so does the heart of man to man (Proverbs 27:19). Jethro saw that after Moses had sent her away with a divorce, their natural union and connection was nullified, for from man was this one taken (Genesis 2:23). And he thought that from then on it would be impossible for them to reunite and dwell together in love and friendship as before. But when he heard about the splitting of the Red Sea, how after their separation the waters returned to their original state as if they had never been separated, then he saw that there was hope for the second marriage to succeed beautifully. Just as the splitting of the Red Sea was possible, so too was it possible to reunite them. Therefore, he took Zipporah his daughter and came, etc. And this is a precious interpretation. “All that God had done for Moses and for Israel His people.” There are several questions regarding this matter. For immediately afterward it states, Moses told his father-in-law all that the Lord had done to Pharaoh and to Egypt. Why did he need to tell him, since Jethro had already heard all that God had done, which includes everything? Additionally, why does it say here for Moses and for Israel, but adjacently to Pharaoh and to Egypt? And here it mentions the name “Elohim” [God], while immediately afterward the special Name [Lord]? Similarly, in the first verse, when mentioning Moses and Israel, it uses the name “Elohim,” and afterward it states for the Lord had brought Israel out, showing that when mentioning Israel alone, it uses the special Name once here, and a second time immediately afterward: Jethro rejoiced over all the goodness that the Lord had done for Israel. It is also difficult to understand why Moses is not mentioned there as well. Perhaps the reason is that Jethro’s flesh became filled with goose bumps over what was done for Israel, but not for Moses because he was his son-in-law. Furthermore, regarding what is written, Moses told his father-in-law, etc., and Now I know that the Lord is greater — how did he know this only now, and why didn’t he know it immediately when he heard all that the Lord had done for Moses and Israel? Additionally, since it says Jethro heard all that God had done for Moses, surely the Exodus from Egypt was included in this, so why was it singled out with the statement for the Lord had brought out, etc.? To resolve these two questions, we will preface with two introductions. The first is that the righteous transform the attribute of judgment into mercy, while the wicked do the opposite. The second is that at that time there were many people in the world who were mistaken with the error of Mani, who claimed that there are two deities — one ruling over good things and one over bad things. According to their ignorant view, both deities are weak because the one who rules over bad things is wise in doing harm but has no ability to do good, and obviously it is not appropriate to come under his wings to accept him as a deity, for who would be foolish enough to turn there? And the one who rules over good things does not have the power to harm even the enemies of those who believe in him, and if so, it is futile to serve him because the same fate awaits both those who serve him and those who do not. Therefore, it is not appropriate to accept him as a deity. And to accept both of them is also difficult because they would contradict each other, as one would curse while the other would bless. And therefore when Jethro initially heard all that God had done for Moses and for Israel, he still had only heard about the benefits, because God had been good to Moses and to Israel in every manner of goodness. Even though he had heard about the splitting of the Red Sea and the war with Amalek, he only heard about how the sea was split for Israel and they walked on dry land, but he had not yet heard about the drowning of Pharaoh and his army. Similarly, regarding the war with Amalek, he heard that Amalek came to harm Israel but they were saved from him. Therefore, it was necessary to explain and say that the Lord had brought [Israel] out [of Egypt], meaning that he had only heard about the benefits, namely the exodus from Egypt. Jethro thought that perhaps this God only ruled over good things, and he was not yet willing to accept Him as God because he thought that perhaps there was a greater god who ruled over both good and bad things alike. So he only came to return his daughter to her husband. However, afterward, when Moses told his father-in-law about all that the Lord had done to Pharaoh and to the Egyptians—that is, all the bad things and plagues that the Lord had inflicted upon Egypt and at the Red Sea—then he saw and declared, saying, “Behold, this God rules over both good and bad things alike, and now I know that the Lord is greater than all gods,” and he was ready to accept Him as God and come under the shelter of His wings. Perhaps you will say, maybe after all there are two deities — the one ruling over good things who benefited Israel, and the one ruling over bad things who harmed Pharaoh and the Egyptians. To address this, [Jethro] said for in the matter which they dealt proudly against them (Exodus 18:11), for we see that they were judged measure for measure in each plague. This certainly shows that the one who struck Pharaoh and the Egyptians desires the good of Israel, and because Pharaoh harmed them and acted against God’s will, he was therefore judged measure for measure. This is conclusive proof that the God who harmed Pharaoh is the same one who desires the good of Israel. If so, certainly these two opposites came from one God, and He is greater than all gods. The proof of this is for in the matter which they dealt proudly against them, because if there were a ruler over evil things only, then anyone who does evil would be considered as doing his will. So why did He bring those evils corresponding to the evils they did to Israel? It must be that this God desires the good of Israel and to do good to the good. Therefore it says And Jethro rejoiced over all the goodness (Exodus 18:9), because even though he had already heard about the good things, nevertheless he was not happy about them, thinking perhaps they came from that deity who has the power to do good but not to harm. If so, he would also have to do good to his enemies by necessity, and what advantage would there be for those who believe in Him? But when he heard also about the bad things and realized in retrospect that the good things came from His will, then he was happy about them. And [the Torah] mentions the name “Elohim” [God] in relation to the good that He did for Moses and Israel, because the merit of Moses combined with the merit of Israel caused the attribute of judgment to be transformed into mercy. Through the power of the name “Elohim,” He performed all the good deeds for them, as it is written: And the angel of God moved… For the messenger of the name “Elohim” went to save Israel. However, when mentioning Israel alone, it mentions the name of the Lord [YHWH]. This is the meaning of for the Lord brought Israel out [of Egypt], because the merit of Israel without the merit of Moses would not have been sufficient to transform judgment into mercy. The exodus from Egypt was for Israel alone, since Moses was not included in the subjugation of Egypt. For this reason, it also says afterward, And Jethro rejoiced over all the goodness which the Lord had done to Israel, whom He had delivered from the hand of Egypt. For this deliverance was needed by Israel, not by Moses, therefore it mentions only the name of the Lord. But the wicked transform the attribute of mercy into judgment, and therefore it says, And Moses told his father-in-law all that the Lord had done to Pharaoh and Egypt. For the special Name that indicates mercy brought upon them all the calamities, as it is said, And the Lord looked down upon the camp of Egypt through the pillar of fire and cloud. And this interpretation is precious [yakar]. And I will once again add, to explain the difference in the holy names in this manner, which is why when referring to good things, the name “Elohim” is mentioned, and for bad things, the name “Lord” is mentioned — this is to counter those who mistakenly say that since these are separate names, one indicating mercy and one indicating judgment, perhaps, God forbid, there are two powers. Therefore, the name “Elohim” is [also] mentioned for good things and the name of mercy [also] for bad things, to teach that all come from one God, and the difference comes from the receivers, similar to what our sages said (Berakhot 12) that we mention the attribute of day at night and the attribute of night during the day, as we explained above in Parashat Bereshit on the verse And there was evening and there was morning, one day (Genesis 1:5), and as we explained in our work “Olelot Ephraim,” discourse 18, regarding what our sages said (Pesachim 50a) on the verse On that day, the Lord will be One and His name will be One (Zechariah 14:9). Is He not One now? Rabbi Yochanan said: The World to Come is not like this world. In this world, for good tidings one says “Blessed is He who is good and does good,” and for bad tidings one says “Blessed is the true Judge.” But in the World to Come, all will say “Blessed is He who is good and does good.” This means that because in this world there appear to be opposing actions — to harm and to benefit — therefore those who err found a place to err and say there are two powers. According to their corrupt belief, the Lord is not One, so to speak, and His name is not One, as they take the variation in names as proof. But in the World to Come, there will only be good things, and then they will not turn to heresy and will recognize and know that the Lord is One and His name is One. They will no longer turn to heresy and will not see contradictory actions. This matter is clear and correct.

וישמע יתרו, “Yitro heard, etc.” Our sages are of two minds as to when Yitro arrived at the camp of the Israelites. Some believe that he arrived before the revelation on Mount Sinai, whereas others hold that he arrived only afterwards. The second view is based on the description of the Mountain as “the Mountain of the Lord.” It had not had that name until after G’d had revealed Himself on that Mountain and had given the Torah. The first view is simply based on the sequence in which the Torah relates these events. The fact that Moses told his father-in-law immediately he met him about the fact that he was communicating G’d’s statutes to the people makes it sound as if he had already received all these statutes from G’d first hand. Ibn Ezra supports the second view by stating that seeing the Torah had just concluded with the call to the Israelites to blot out the memory of our adversary Amalek, it saw fit to contrast Amalek’s behaviour with that of Yitro who gave the Jewish people not only good advice, but who also converted to Judaism and offered sacrifices to Hashem. Moreover, the Kenites, descendants of Yitro, who lived among the Amalekites were advised by King Sha-ul to evacuate the town so as to save their lives when the Amalekites were all killed. (Samuel I 15) Nachmanides questions against all this that if that were really so, why does the Torah mention that Yitro had heard about the Exodus, the splitting of the sea, etc., without adding that he had heard about the revelation at Mount Sinai. Seeing that this had been perhaps the greatest miracle of all, the fact that Yitro did not mention it means that it had not yet occurred. It is possible, of course, that as soon as Yitro had heard about the Israelites leaving Egypt, he had set out to join them, and no other news had reached him on the way. No doubt, upon his arrival, Moses first told him about the most recent events, i.e. the revelation, before filling him in on events which had occurred some time ago. Nachmanides, feels that the most likely sequence of events was that Yitro joined the people before the revelation, having set out on his journey shortly after having heard about the defeat of Amalek near Refidim. This was an area not far removed from either Mount Sinai or the border with Midian, seeing we know that Moses had led his father-in-law’s sheep into the vicinity of Mount Sinai, where he had experienced the burning bush, and a vision of G’d. The area immediately below Mount Sinai was known as the desert of Sinai. Having reached that area, Yitro sent a message to his son-in-law advising him of his imminent arrival. Furthemore, it seems to Nachmanides that when the Torah reports about Moses bidding farewell to Yitro for the first time, this was in the first year of the Israelites’ wanderings, and that Yitro’s purpose at that time was to convert as many members of his family as he could. The second time when we read about Yitro’s having declined to journey to the Holy Land with the Israelites occurred in the second year, shortly before, after a stay around Mount Sinai for almost a full year, when he had declined Moses’ offer to become an integral part of the Jewish nation with full rights. At that time, as the Torah reports, (Numbers 10,29-32) Moses had pleaded with him to remain with the Jewish people not only as a coreligionist but as a fully fledged member of the nation. The fact that the Torah, at that point does not report that Yitro replied to Moses’ entreaty, lends support to the belief that he did indeed join the people, although hundreds of years later his descendants are known to have lived interspersed with the Amalekites in the southern part of the Sinai peninsula. On the other hand, in the days of Yonadav ben Rechev, his descendants, or some of them, appear to have lived in Jerusalem (Jeremiah, 35 compare also Mechilat Shemot 18,28) Possibly, the Kenite who lived among the Amalekites, though related to Yitro’s family, were not direct descendants of his. למשה ולישראל, “for Moses and for Israel,” he had heard about the miracles G’d had performed for Moses, seeing that he had faced Pharaoh repeatedly, threatened him with all kinds of plagues, etc., and no harm had been done to him. The same G’d had performed even greater miracles for the people of Israel who had proven to be immune to all these plagues. Ibn Ezra understands the letter ל before the words משה and ישראל, as “on behalf of.” He refers to the plagues and the drowning of the Egyptians. No doubt. G’d had orchestrated all these miracles for the benefit of Moses and the people of Israel. כי הוציא ה', “that the Lord had taken out, etc.” This is a new subject, not connected to what has been written previously, i.e. what Yitro had heard. There is a dispute among the sages in the last chapter of Massechet Zevachim about what rumours precisely Yitro had heard. According to one opinion (Zevachim 116) Yitro had heard that the Israelites had successfully defended themselves against the Amalekites, whereas according to the second opinion he had heard about G’d revealing Himself to the Israelites at Mount Sinai. There is also an opinion that he had heard about the splitting of the Sea of Reeds, etc. If the words כי הוציא וגו' were to refer to what Yitro had heard specifically, i.e. the Exodus, why would the Torah repeat something which it had already stated explicitly as something that Yitro had heard about? Clearly, the discussion as to what the Torah referred to when it wrote that “Yitro heard all that G’d had done, etc.,” without going into details, cannot refer to the Exodus itself. The Torah only reverts to the point of departure being that G’d had taken the people out of Egypt. Up until that point Yitro’s knowledge of the Jewish G’d had been limited to His name being elohim. After everything Moses now told him, he learned of an additional dimension of this G’d, i.e. His name Hashem. Hence the Torah refers to this attribute when writing כי הוציא השם וגו', not as at the beginning of the verse כל אשר עשה אלוקים.

אשר עשה אלוקים למשה, that Pharaoh never tried to harm him personally, and that G’d provided him with such an imposing image in the eyes of Pharaoh and his servants seeing He let him perform all these miracles.

וישמע יתרו, “Yitro heard;” this man had seven different names. They were: Yitro, Yeter, Chever, Chovev, Keyni, Puti-el, and R’uel. According to some scholars, it was Yitro’s father who was called R’-uel. They base themselves on Exodus 2,18: ותבאנה אל רעואל אביהם, “they came to their father, R’uel.” Children are in the habit of referring to their grandfather as their “father.” Still, this raises the following difficulty for those scholars: if they were correct, how do we understand the line in Numbers 10,29: ויאמר משה לחובב בן רעואל המדיני חותן משה, “Moses said to Chovav, son of R’uel, the Midianite, the father-in-law of Moses;” We may have to answer this by saying that the scholar who says that that the scholar who identifies Yitro with R’uel, may not consider that the name “Chovav” was merely a compliment to this man who looked with great fondness at the Torah, חיבב את התורה, as explained by Rashi, but that he must also hold that R’uel was the father of Yitro. The reason why Yitro was also named יתר, Yeter, “addition,” is that on account of this man a whole portion has been added to the Torah in his honour. At any rate, as pointed out by Rashi, we do not have seven names for him. The “names” given in the Mechilta quoted by Rashi are only the adjectives which were added to his original name on account of historical events or events in his personal life, such as his conversion to Judaism. Judges 4,11 as well as the expression: וחבר הקיני נפרד מקין מבני חובב חותן משה, “Chever the Kenite had separated from the other Kenites, descendants of Chovav father-in-law of Moses,” presents another difficulty.

Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses, took Zipporah, the wife of Moses, after he had sent her away,

אחר שלוחיה AFTER HIS HAVING SENT HER AWAY — When God said to him in Midian, (Exodus 4:19, 20) “Go, return to Egypt … and Moses took his wife and his sons etc…. and Aaron went forth towards him and met him at the Mount of God”, he (Aaron) said to him, “Who are these?” He answered him, “This is my wife whom I married in Midian and these are my children”. He, thereupon, asked him, “Whither are you taking them?” He replied, “To Egypt”. Where-upon he said to him, “We have cause to grieve over the former ones (the Israelites already there), and you propose to add to their number!” Moses therefore said to her, “Return to your father’s house” — she took her two sons and went away (Mekhilta).

AFTER HE HAD SENT HER AWAY. Because Scripture had [previously] mentioned, And Moses took his wife and his sons… and he returned to the land of Egypt, it became necessary to state here that she was in her father’s house, as Moses had sent her there. It is possible that Scripture is stating that Jethro took [Zipporah, Moses’s wife], to return her to him although he had sent her away. Having heard all that G-d had done for Moses, he thought that it was now time for her to follow the king wherever he would go.

"Vayikach" — Scripture says "the wife of Moses" rather than "his daughter," because Moses was more honored than her father's household. — "After he had sent her away": Some say this means after he had given her leave at the lodging-place to return to her father's house when he went alone back to the land of Egypt. Others say it means after she sent him a gift, as in "gifts for his daughter" (I Kings 9:16).

אחר שלוחיה. After she (Tzipporah) had sent a message to him to find out where they were encamped. Moses had informed her that the Israelites would not stop anywhere for any length of time until they would reach the mountain of G’d, Mount Chorev, where they would serve the Lord. She must have known about this as Moses must have told her of G’d’s prediction in Exodus 3,12 that once out of Egypt the Jewish people would serve the Lord there at that mountain. This is the reason why it took Yitro so long before he came as he had to wait until the Jewish people would make camp for longer than one night.

ויקח יתרו חתן משה, Yitro, Moses' father-in-law took, etc. The reason Yitro is again described as Moses' father-in-law is that it was only due to his status as the father-in-law of such a great man that his peers did not prevent him from travelling to Mount Sinai and becoming Jewish. It was customary in those days to put heretics to death, seeing that the religions were all national in character and defection was equivalent to treason. Perhaps the Torah also hints here that though Yitro was known by an entirely different title, i.e. The Priest of Midian, he now spurned that title and wished to be known simply as Moses' father-in-law. אחר שלוחיה, after he had sent her away. The reason that the Torah is careful to describe Tzipporah's remaining in her father's home in Midian as: "after Moses had sent her away," needs to be analysed. Were it not for the Midrash we have quoted I would have to assume that Moses actually divorced his wife when he found that he was a full time messenger of G'd and could not devote time to his family. It was reasonable for Eliezer to remain with his mother seeing he had only just been born. Gershom too was presumably still a minor and as such an encumbrance to Moses in his mission. Moreover, according to the Mechilta on our verse Moses and Yitro had agreed at the time of his marriage to Tzipporah that the first born son would belong to the mother (to be raised as a pagan) whereas the other would belong to the father. At any rate, there was a good reason why both children had remained with their mother. When the Torah reports Yitro as bringing both his wife and his children to Moses personally, this is a tremendous compliment for Yitro. He did not need to expose himself to possible rejection by his erstwhile son-in-law. According to the interpretation in Shemot Rabbah 4,4 that Moses had not divorced Tzipporah but had relied on his father-in-law to see to it that the family would be reunited at the appropriate time, we may understand the words אחר שלוחיה, as referring to messages sent by Tzipporah in order to find out exactly where the Israelites were encamped. Yitro did not undertake the journey until after Moses had made it plain that he would welcome both him and his family.

אשת משה, “Moses’ wife.” She is mentioned here by her name as her husband [by having become a king since the last time she had seen him, Ed.] had elevated her status. אחר שלוחיה, after he had sent her home to her father’s house. If the Torah had not told us this at this point, we would not have known that Tzipporah and her children had never been in Egypt with Moses, i.e. had not participated in the Exodus. The last that we heard of her was that Moses had taken her and his children with him on the way to Egypt and that they had been riding on a donkey (Exodus 4,20). [She had performed the circumcision on her younger son, but nothing had been written about her returning to Egypt.] Now we learn that when Aaron and Moses met, the people of Israel suffered great deprivations while Yitro was living in luxury. She and her boys were therefore sent back to her father’s house.

“And Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, took Zipporah, Moses’ wife.” Certainly it was not without reason that the verse specified his wife’s name and the names of his sons. This is because Jethro said to him [Moses], “Go out for the sake of your wife Zipporah, for like a bird [zippor] wandering from its nest, so is a man who wanders from his place.” He came to remind him of his wife’s pain during all the time she was wandering from her home. And if not for her sake — because perhaps a man does not feel his wife’s pain so deeply — “Come out for the sake of your son Gershom,” named because I was a stranger [ger] in a foreign land. He came to remind him of the pain of children who are not seated at their father’s table, for they are strangers. And he said to him, You know the soul of the stranger, for you were also a stranger. And if not for his sake, “Go out for the sake of your son Eliezer,” who was named because the God [Elohei] of my father was my help [ezri], and his name is like the name of his Master, and it is as if you are receiving the Divine Presence, for His name is within him. Therefore, it mentioned their names, because this is how Jethro sent word to him — that he should act for the sake of his wife who was like a bird wandering from its nest, and because of this pain that she endured, it is proper to honor her and come out to meet her. And likewise for the sake of his son who was a stranger in a foreign land. And likewise for the sake of the name Eliezer, because in this it is as if he went out to meet God. And regarding what is written, and the name of one was Eliezer, our Rabbis of blessed memory said (Yalkut Shimoni, Jethro 268) that the Holy One, Blessed be He, said, “In the future, Eliezer will expound on the red heifer of two years and the heifer of one year.” This will be explained, God willing, in the portion of Chukat (19:2).

אחר שילוחיה, “after she had been sent away.” Seeing that the Torah had told us earlier that Moses took his wife and his children, and started out on the way to Egypt, (Exodus 4,20) the Torah had to inform us that at some point Moses had sent his family back to Midian, to the home of Yitro, his father-in-law. Yitro clearly did not consider Moses having sent his wife and children “home” as proof of a divorce, but considered this as an act of prudence by Moses, something no longer necessary seeing the Israelites were no longer in danger. Other commentators understand the words אחר שילוחיה, as a reference to gifts which Tzipporah had sent to her husband ahead of her, to advise him of her impending arrival. Yet other commentators understand the words as referring to secret code messages that Yitro had sent ahead to inform Moses that he was on the way to him with Tzipporah and her children. Yet another interpretation sees in the plural mode of the word שילוחיה, a reference to two occasions on which Tzipporah had been sent away, once when Moses had left her behind at the inn on the way to Egypt, when he continued on to Egypt without her and the children, and the second time when he had instructed her to return to her father’s home from that inn. (presumably after he had become aware that the liberation of the Israelites would require more time than he had thought at first)

אחר שלוחיה, seeing that the Torah had never told us that Moses had sent his wife and children back to Midian after they had arrived in Egypt, the Torah had to fill us in on this if we are to understand what is written here. Some commentators believe that what is meant is that now that Moses was in a position to do this he had sent her the gifts a husband normally gives his bride. We find something similar reported of Pharaoh giving his daughter, Solomon’s wife, Gezer Chazor and Megiddo as a dowry. in Kings I 9,15. The former interpretation in the plain meaning of our verse. There would be no point is Yitro bringing Tzipporah back to her husband, when we had never heard that Moses had sent her back to her father in the first place. The last that we had heard was that Tzipporah had accompanied Moses and even circumcised his son (their son) during Moses’ temporary absence. If she had been sent to her father at that time, why did the Torah not report something important like this? The Torah has reported far less important matters more than once, such as Genesis 9,18 וחם הוא אבי כנען, “and Cham, the one who was the father of Canaan.” This information was provided by the Torah in Genesis 10,6 where it belonged. It is therefore not unusual for the Torah to provide some information at a juncture we would not have suspected it. אחר שלוחיה. The word אחר describes something happening later, as it did in Genesis 22,13 where Avraham only found the ram which had been caught in the thicket by its horns after the binding of Yitzchok was over. Similarly, in Leviticus 15,28 the word אחר תטהר, means that after the procedure described by the Torah previously the woman in question would become ritually clean again. [the point of our author is that in all the examples quoted by him the Bible had informed the reader of the background to the present happening. Why would it not have done so here also? Ed.]

and her two sons — of whom one was named Gershom, for he had said, "I have been a sojourner in a foreign land,"

AND HER TWO SONS; OF WHOM THE NAME OF THE ONE WAS GERSHOM. Even though this is not the place where [the narrative of] their birth is told, Scripture here explains the names of the two sons [of Moses — Gershom and Eliezer —] because there was no opportunity to mention the name of Eliezer at his birth, as I have explained in Seder V’eileh Shemoth. Here, Scripture wanted to mention the kindness that the Holy One, blessed be He, had shown to Moses, who was a stranger in a strange land. [When he named his second son], he gave thanks there to G-d for having delivered him from the sword of Pharaoh when he fled from before him, [and for making him] now king over Israel, and [because] He drowned Pharaoh and his people in the sea. The sense of the expression for he said, I have been a stranger, etc. is connected with Moses, who is mentioned in the first verse, [and not with Jethro, who is mentioned in the second verse]. Similarly, the following verse, And the name of the other was Eliezer: for the G-d of my father was my help, is connected with the expression for he said, [found in the verse before us. It thus reads: “And the name of the other was Eliezer; for he said: for the G-d, etc.”] There are many cases like that.

"And": Know that speakers of the holy tongue are careful to maintain the proper form of verbs in all their conjugations, but they do not take care to preserve the exact form of personal names. Therefore do not be surprised that he said "Gershom" because "he sojourned there" ("ger sham") — just as "Cain" (Gen. 4:1) is on account of "I have acquired" ("kaniti"), which is not precise grammatically. Even harder than this is "Noah" (Gen. 5:29) from the root of "he will comfort us" ("yenahamenu"). At times they invert the name, as "Hushim" (Gen. 46:23) is the same as "Shuham" (Num. 26:42). And "Jabez" (I Chron. 4:9) was called that because "his mother bore him in pain" ("be-otzev"). Sometimes a letter is omitted, as "Ma'achah" is the same as "Michah." The opposite also occurs: "Yov" (Gen. 46:13) is the same as "Yashuv" (Num. 26:24). Many have said that "Samuel" (I Sam. 1:20) is from the root "I asked him" ("she'iltiv"). In my view, the correct explanation is that shuruk replaces holam, as in "Tohu" (I Sam. 1:1) / "Toah" (I Chron. 6:19), and "Zuph" (I Sam. 1:1) / "Zuphai" (I Chron. 6:11), and "Nun" (below, 33:11) / "Nun" (I Chron. 7:27). Thus "Samuel" is from the root "shem-El" — "his name is El" — for [Hannah] called him by the name of God, because He gave her what she had asked. Do not be surprised that a person's name would contain the name of God, for there are many like it: "Zurishaddai" (Num. 7:36), and many others. In my view, the name of the altar that Moses built — "Hashem is my banner" (above, 17:15) — is the same kind, as is the name of the Messiah: "Hashem is our righteousness" (Jer. 23:6). The Gaon said that the divine name is connected to the word "they shall call" and the Messiah's name itself is "our righteousness." This matter depends on the cantillation, for the Ba'al ha-Te'amim placed a tarha on "they shall call," since there is a great difference between "He called in the name of Hashem" (Gen. 12:8) — written of Abraham, where the tarha is on "he called" — and "He called in the name of Hashem" (below, 34:5) — written in the book of Moses — as I will explain in its place.

שם האחד גרשם, the name of the one was Gershom, etc. Although the reason Moses named this son Gershom has already been mentioned in Exodus 2,22, it had to be repeated here in order to inform us that we are talking about the same son already mentioned in chapter 2 (though this may have been 60 years earlier) and not another son (by the same name but born of a different mother). Furthermore, the Torah may have had to mention that the reason was not that Yitro had expelled Moses from his home. While it is true that Moses said: "I used to be a stranger in a strange country" (obviously not referring to his being expelled by Yitro), he may have phrased it thus so that Yitro should not hear that he had referred to expulsion by him. The Torah repeats here once more that the reason for Gershom's name was Moses' grateful acknowledgement of having prospered as a fugitive in a strange land.

גר הייתי, “I had been a stranger, etc.” the word הייתי is not to be understood as being in the past tense, just as Genesis 23,13: נתתי or 14,22 הרימותי or 32,11 הייתי לשני מחנות are not to be understood as being in the past tense. There are many more such examples.

כי אמר גר הייתי, “for he had said (at that time) ‘I have been a stranger, etc.” Even though this is hardly the place where we would expect to hear about the genealogy of Moses’ children, the Torah introduces the subject now as there had not been an opportunity to inform us that Moses had called his second son Eliezer, seeing that he had not circumcised him prior to his departure from Midian. First he had been too preoccupied with journeying to Egypt, second, because he had that unfortunate encounter with the angel who had threatened to kill him. He had also not been able to give him the name Eliezer as long as he was under the impression that there was still a price on his head, and he was still a fugitive from Egyptian justice, being wanted for murder. The Torah informs us now that when Moses had become aware that there no longer was a price on his head, he named his son in a manner which expressed his thanks to G’d for having saved him from that worry as well as for the other promotions G’d had bestowed upon him.

and the other was named Eliezer, for the God of my father was my support and delivered me from the sword of Pharaoh.

ויצלני מחרב פרעה AND HE DELIVERED ME FROM THE SWORD OF PHARAOH — When Dathan and Abiram made the disclosure regarding the matter of the Egyptian whom Moses had killed and Pharaoh wished to slay Moses, his neck became as a column of marble so that the sword was powerless against him (Shemot Rabbah 1:31; cf. Rashi on Exodus 2:15).

"And the name of the one": It is the usage of the holy tongue sometimes to say thus — "the second" and sometimes "the one" — as in "the name of the one was Botzetz and the name of the one was Seneh" (I Sam. 14:4). — The word "he said" is missing; it should be understood that after "the God of my father was my help," it is not written "he said 'the God of my father,'" for the word refers back to what was said above: "he said, 'I was a sojourner,'" like "for God has made me fruitful" (Gen. 41:52). I have already explained why he named the younger one Eliezer.

ויצילני מחרב פרעה. At the time Eliezer was born the old king who had wanted to execute Moses had already been dead for a while. This is one of the reasons why the Torah mentioned this death in Exodus 2,23. At that time Moses felt secure from further attempts on his life. Pharaoh’s international police had an exceedingly long reach, just as that of Achav, King of Israel, who had been hunting for the prophet Elijah all over the neighbouring countries of Israel as documented in Kings I 18,10 “is there any kingdom to which the king (Achav) has not sent emissaries to arrange to have to you captured?”

ושם האחד אליעזר, and the name of the one was Eliezer, etc. The reason that Eliezer, Moses' second son is referred to as האחד, "the one," instead of the "second one," is that the reason for Eliezer being named as he was refers to an event which occurred even before Gershom was born. G'd had first saved Moses' life from the sword of Pharaoh before he had enabled him to settle down in Midian. The reason the Torah does not mention Eliezer's name first is that it first wanted to stress that Moses was in a strange land at the time the children were born. The Torah retraces events only after the main point that Moses was in a strange land has been established. An alternative explanation, one which I have mentioned on Exodus 2,22, is that when Moses spoke about a "strange land," he referred to our globe, this present life. He did not feel at home in this life, ever. This feeling of being a stranger in a strange land preceded even the time when G'd saved him from the sword of Pharaoh. Moses' whole attitude to life on earth has to be evaluated in that light. This throws a different light on the fact that his life on earth was saved by G'd after he had killed the Egyptian. The Torah had to spell out what precisely G'd saved Moses from or I would have thought that G'd saved Moses from some danger after he had settled in Midian. At any rate, there was something unique about the time when G'd saved Moses' life miraculously.

ושם האחד אליעזר, “and the name of the one was Eliezer.” Even though he was Moses’ second son, the Torah describes him as “the one;” the reason is that his name was due to an event involving him personally, seeing that it recalled that he had had to flee from Egypt. It therefore appeared to Moses as if this really was his first son. ויצילני מחרב פרעה, “He has saved me from the sword of Pharaoh.” The Pharaoh who sought to kill Moses had died some time earlier. G-d had told him this in Exodus 4,19. An alternate explanation: He did not call Eliezer his second son, as his birth had nothing to do with that of Gershom, as we explained on Exodus 4,26. The reason was that he had not been able to circumcise his first son due to the agreement with his father-in-law at the time he had married Tzipporah. [Compare what the author wrote on page 376. Ed.] From G-d’s point of view, Eliezer was Moses’ first son, as after having been circumcised he was Jewish. As such he belonged to G-d, seeing that we all are G-d’s firstborn.

ושם האחד אליעזר, “and the other one’s name was Eliezer.” The Torah should have written either: “the name of the second one, i.e. השני, or האחר.” According to the plain meaning of the text, the justification for the Torah describing both sons with the adjective “the one,” is that one son was special, exclusive for his father, whereas the other was special, exclusive for his mother. Gershom being the firstborn was special to his mother. Seeing Tzipporah had taken a knife and circumcised her son thus saving (him) or (his father) from death at the hands of the angel (Exodus 4,25) he was special to his mother. Eliezer, on the other hand whose name commemorated the fact that G’d saved Moses’ life when he fled from Pharaoh, was special to his father. Another way of understanding the words האחד as applicable to both these sons is that the potential to increase, to multiply, is rooted in the first one. Unless there is one son to start with, other children do not represent an increase. We know from Chronicles I 23,17 that whereas Eliezer himself had only one son, רחביה, his grandsons were very numerous as proved by the words in that verse ובני רחביה רבו למעלה, “the sons of Rechaviah were very numerous.” Berachot 7 interprets that line to mean that eventually more than 600,000 descendants came out of Rechaviah. The Torah mentioned the word האחד to indicate that he was the origin of all those descendants. A Midrashic approach (Tanchuma Chukat 8): On the words "“and the name of the one was Eliezer,” Rabbi Yossi son of Rabbi Chanina said that that at the time Moses ascended to heaven he found G’d studying the laws of the red heifer saying that in a certain dispute between two Rabbis, the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer was the correct one.” He (Rabbi Eliezer) had ruled that whereas the calf used in the procedure of עגלה ערופה, “atonement for an unresolved case of murder” (compare Deut. chapter 21) the animal to be killed had to be up to one year old, the heifer to be used in the ceremony of the red heifer had to be up to two years old. When Moses became aware of G’d “debating the issue before coming to a decision,” he exclaimed “Lord! The entire universe is Yours and you waited until mortals had debated the issue and ruled on it before ruling on the issue Yourself!” G’d answered him by saying that in the future there would arise a certain righteous person by the name of Rabbi Eliezer and he would be the first one to render a ruling on this subject. When Moses heard how highly G’d rated the scholarship of that rabbi he exclaimed that he hoped the Rabbi in question would be one of his descendants. G’d assured him that this would indeed be the case. Hence the description האחד here in our verse.

And Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses, came with his sons and his wife to Moses, to the wilderness where he was encamped, at the mountain upon which the Glory of Hashem had been revealed.

אל המדבר INTO THE DESERT — Indeed we know that they were in the wilderness, and it appears unnecessary to state that Jethro came to Moses there. But by stressing this Scripture is speaking in praise of Jethro: that he was living amidst all the splendour that the world could provide, and nevertheless his heart prompted him to go forth into the desert, a waste place (Mekhilta), to hearken to the words of the Torah.

"Vayavo": Scripture mentions the proper manner in Jethro's coming to Moses: Jethro walks first, then the sons of Moses behind him, and then the wife behind them — as is appropriate. — "Where he was encamped there": for he had encamped there many days.

אל המדבר, to the desert, etc. The reason the Torah adds: "to the place where Israel was encamped" is in order to explain how it was they knew where to locate the Israelites in the great desert. Moses had previously informed his family of the location of his encounter with the burning bush and that G'd had told him in 3,12: "you shall serve the Lord upon this mountain." This explains why the Torah was able to describe the mountain as "the mountain of G'd where they were encamped" already at this juncture.

And Jethro the father-in-law of Mosheh, and the sons of Mosheh, and his wife came to Mosheh at the desert in which be was sojourning hard by the mountain upon which the glory of the Lord was revealed to Mosheh at the beginning.

And he said to Moses, "I, your father-in-law Jethro, am coming to you, with your wife and her two sons with her."

ויאמר אל משה AND HE SAID UNTO MOSES through a messenger (Mekhilta). אני חתנך יתרו וגו I, THY FATHER-IN-LAW, JETHRO etc. — If you will not come out for my own sake, come out for the sake of your wife; and if you will not come out for your wife’s sake, come out for the sake of your two sons (Mekhilta).

AND HE SAID UNTO MOSES: ‘I THY FATHER-IN-LAW JETHRO AM COMING UNTO THEE.’ He sent him the message in a letter in which [the above words] were written. A messenger, [as Rashi would have it], could not say, I thy father-in-law. Instead, he would say, “Behold, Jethro your father-in-law is coming to you.” It is also not possible that Jethro told him so mouth to mouth, for in that case he would have said, “Behold, I have come to you.” Besides, it is not customary in such instances for the speaker to mention his name: “I, such and such a person,” for upon seeing him, he would recognize him. A similar case is the verse: Then Huram the King of Tyre said in writing, which he sent to Solomon.

"Vayomer": He [Jethro] had already sent word to Moses before their arrival — by messenger or in a written letter — "I, your father-in-law Jethro, am coming, and your wife" — who is the main subject — "and her two sons who are with her."

אני חותנך יתרו, Yitro sent this message as a matter of courtesy so that Moses would not be taken unawares by his sudden arrival. He complied with the sages’ warning “do not enter your own house without advance notice, how much more so the house of your friend.” (Pessachim 112).

אני חתנך…ואשתך ושני בניה, "I, your father-in-law as well as your wife and her two sons, etc." Why did the Torah change the order in which Moses' wife and children are mentioned from the order in which they were mentioned in verse five? In verse five the sons are described as belonging to Moses and are mentioned first, whereas here Tzipporah is mentioned first and the sons are described as being hers! Mechilta on our verse explains that Yitro sent word to Moses that if he would not come out to meet him because he was his father-in-law, at least he should come out to meet and to welcome his wife and children. We may therefore assume that the Torah used the same approach in once mentioning Tzipporah before the children and once after the children. If Moses would not come out to welcome Tzipporah as his wife, at least he should welcome her as the mother of his children. When the arrival of these persons in the desert is mentioned, however, they are mentioned in order of their respective importance. This is why the sons are mentioned ahead of Tzipporah. Even though in this instance Yitro mentioned the fact that he was Moses' father-in-law before mentioning his own name, whereas in verse five his name is mentioned before his status as Moses' father-in-law, in verse five the Torah speaks objectively, whereas in our verse the Torah quotes Yitro. Seeing that Yitro was a modest individual he would not mention his name first. Moses would go out to honour Yitro because he was his father-in-law even if he had no other claim to honour. You will find something similar in Samuel I 24,11 where David honoured Saul even though the latter tried to kill him. ושני בניה עמה, and her two sons with her. The reason the Torah wrote the word עמה, with her, is to continue the trend of thought mentioned earlier. Yitro said: "if you do not come out on account of her or your children, at least come out to meet her and the children together."

ויאמר, “he said:” the subject is Yitro’s messenger announcing his impending arrival in the camp of the Israelites. אני חותנך יתרו בא אליך וגו, “I, your father-in-law, Yitro have come to you;” seeing that we have heard from this man that he was extremely modest, when he criticized Moses for sitting down while the people waiting in line to have their problems solved by him had to stand, (verse 14), it appears totally out of character that he commenced a sentence by saying: “I, your father-in-law, etc.” We must realize that the clouds of G-d’s glory surrounded the camp of the Israelites making it impossible for outsiders to find them. This prevented Yitro’s messenger to get to his destination. He therefore attached a note to an arrow which he shot into the cloud explaining who he was and why he wanted to be admitted through the cloud. (Tanchuma)

ואשתך ושני בניה עמה, “and your wife and her two sons with her.” The Torah should have quoted Yitro as saying to Moses: “and your two sons,” instead of “and her two sons,” just as he said “your wife,” “your father-in-law.” However, we must remember that it is customary for the Torah to describe sons as belonging to their mother such as in Genesis 46,15: “these are the sons of Leah,” whereas daughters are described as “belonging” to their father such as in the same verse “and Dinah his daughter” (compare Nidah 31).

ויאמר אל משה, “Yitro said to Moses:” According to Ibn Ezra, by means of a messenger. According to Ibn Ezra, the Torah quotes a letter Yitro had sent ahead of his arrival at the encampment of the Israelites in which he announced his forthcoming arrival together with Tzipporah and her children. If the Torah were reporting the words of Yitro at arrival, it should have said הנני בא אליך, “here I have come to you.” In the Midrash the view is expressed that Yitro shot an arrow with the above message attached, and that although normally, the surrounding heavenly clouds would make the camp of the Israelites secure against any intrusion, in this instance, due the nature of the message, G’d allowed the arrow to travel through the cloud cover.

ויאמר, Yitro’s messenger said to him: “I your father-in-law, etc.” [unless Yitro had sent a messenger ahead, why would he have to introduce himself? Ed.]

Moses went out to meet his father-in-law, bowed down, and kissed him; and they asked one another of their welfare, and then they entered the tabernacle.

ויצא משה AND MOSES WENT OUT — Great honour, indeed, did Jethro receive at that moment, for as soon as Moses went out to Jethro, Aaron, Nadab and Abihu went out, and who was it that saw these go out and would not himself go out? (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayigash 7) וישתחו וישק לו AND HE PROSTRATED HIMSELF AND KISSED HIM — From the wording of this statement I do not know who prostrated himself to whom! But when it states in the next words: איש לרעהו, “a man to his fellow”, it becomes quite evident; for which of the two is called by the appellation איש, “man”? — This was Moses, as it is said, (Numbers 12:3) “And the man, Moses”. (Thus it was the man (איש) Moses, who bowed down to his fellow (Mekhilta).

"Vayetze, to meet his father-in-law": out of honor for Jethro and his wisdom — but not for his wife and sons, for it is not the practice of an honored man to go out to meet his wife or his sons. — "Vayishtahu": The grammar of "vayishtahu" is difficult. We know that its root belongs to words with a final heh, and here the vav stands in place of the heh — like the vav in "I was at ease" (Job 16:12), derived from "I had no ease" (ibid. 3:26). Now when they said the singular form "vayishtahu," it should rightly have been "vayishtahaveh," for the tav is from the hitpa'el construction, as in "the man gazed at her" (Gen. 24:21). For the rule of the dental letters is that if one of them is the first root-letter and the letter before it is the tav of the hitpa'el, then because they exchanged the heh for a vav in "vayishtahu," they left the first vav — which is not a sign of the plural — in place of the root-heh, and they suppressed the [second] vav and said "vayishtahu." Because the vav at the end of a word is a sign of the plural, when it is suppressed — as in "why do you look" (Gen. 42:1) — the word "vayishtahu" with its suppressed vav would appear to be a plural form; therefore the word needed to be accented on the penultimate syllable to distinguish it from the plural usage. — According to the plain sense, the one who goes out is the one who bows down, each to the other. — Scripture calls him "his companion" on account of his great standing in wisdom. — "Vayavo ha-ohelah": the tent that is well known — the tent of Moses.

ויצא משה, Moses did not stand on ceremony, using his position to await the arrival of his father-in-law at home, but he went some distance to meet the man in whose house he had received so many favours. We find that Queen Esther, similarly, did not use her elevation to Royalty as an excuse to no longer defer to Mordechai who had raised her. (Esther 2,20 “Esther continued to carry out Mordechai’s instructions as she had done when she lived under his roof.”) Joseph also did not use his exalted position to look down on his brothers. The Chief of the butlers, who had reason to be grateful to Joseph, is an example of ingratitude, as we know from Genesis 40,23, “he did not remember Joseph, in fact he erased him from his memory.”

ויצא משה לקראת חתנו, Moses went out to meet his father-in-law, etc. Seeing that Yitro had pleaded that Moses welcome either his wife or his sons or both, the Torah is at pains to tell us that Moses considered Yitro as deserving to be welcomed by him in his own right, hence the emphasis on לקראת חתנו. Perhaps Moses even went so far as to demonstrate this point by going only to Yitro's tent at this point, ignoring his wife and children till somewhat later. Mechilta makes the additional point that seeing that Moses prostrated himself in front of Yitro this is proof that he went out in order to honour Yitro. Our sages say that Moses honoured Yitro greatly. If the Torah had not stressed that Moses went to meet his father-in-law, how would I have known that he did not go out in order to welcome his wife and sons specifically? וישתחו וישק לו, He prostrated himself and kissed him, etc. Our rabbis in the Mechilta say that it was not clear who prostrated himself before whom and who kissed whom. When the Torah wrote איש in "they asked each other how they were," it became clear that Moses prostrated himself as he qualified for the description איש. The fact that the Torah does not mention that two people prostrated themselves makes it plain that only one of the two prostrated himself before the other. Should you argue that Yitro too has been referred to as איש in Exodus 2,21 where Moses is reported as agreeing to stay with Yitro, there is a subtle difference when Moses is called איש and when Yitro is called איש. Let me first explain the precise nature of the title איש, seeing that every male adult is called איש, if only to distinguish him from his female mate. We even find the term איש applied to animals such as in Genesis 7,2 where the Torah speaks of the pure animals which Noach is to take into the ark with him. The meaning of the word איש undergoes a change when it is used together with the name of the person concerned. In such instances it describes that person as someone of breeding and nobility. We find an example of the word איש or אנשים being used as a complimentary description in Numbers 13,3 where the people whom Moses had selected as spies were described as all being אנשים after we had already been told their names. On the other hand, when the word איש is used in lieu of a name it does not denote exceptional qualities such as Genesis 37,15 the man who found Joseph unable to locate his brothers in Shechem. The same applies in Genesis 24,21 where Eliezer is referred to as האיש. We are told in Bamidbar Rabbah 16, that the use of the word אנשים is complimentary only when the actual names of these people are recorded also. When G'd asked Bileam who the אנשים were who had come to him that night, (Numbers 22,9), clearly no compliment was intended. On the other hand, in Exodus 11,3, when Moses is described as האיש משה גדול מאד the word האיש is clearly highly complimentary. The same is true even of Exodus 32,23 when the mixed multitude refer to the fact ...

וישתחו וישק לו, “he prostrated himself and kissed him;” according to Rashi it is not clear who prostrated himself before whom; if we are to assume that the Torah also referred to Yitro by the honorary title of איש, seeing that we have read in Exodus 2,21: ויאל משה לשבת את האיש, Moses agreed to make his home with the man,” we would have to counter that the Torah refers to Moses as being extremely modest when writing: והאיש משה עניו מאד, “the man known as ‘Moses,’ was very modest and humble, more so than any other איש;” (Numbers 12,3) so that we are faced here with a dilemma; we must therefore assume that the reason that the Torah compliments Moses in Numbers 12,3 by adding these additional words, is to show that he, the king, prostrated himself before his father-in-law, and that he was even more modest than Yitro. האהלה, “into the tent;” the prefix letter ה before this word shows that this tent was a tent well known as Moses’ tent.

ויצא משה לקראת חותנו, “Moses went out to meet his father-in-law.” Our sages in Mechilta ask the rhetorical question: “was there anyone who observed that Moses left the camp in order to welcome Yitro and he himself stayed behind? Was there anyone who observed that Aaron left the camp to welcome Yitro and he himself stayed behind?” The wording of the text makes it clear that the entire menfolk went out to welcome Yitro.

ויצא משה לקראת חותנו, “Moses went forth to welcome his father-in-law, etc.” He meant to honour his father-in-law, as this is not the way one honours one’s wife. וישתחו, וישק לו, וישאלו איש לרעהו לשלום, “he bowed low, kissed him, and they enquired after each other’s well being.” Rashi wonders who bowed to whom, and concludes that most likely Moses bowed to Yitro, seeing he is the one who is called איש in our verse. While it is true that in another context Yitro is also called איש by the Torah, (Exodus 2,21) (although the איש in that verse applied to someone called רעואל), that was just another name for Yitro. Some commentators point out that seeing we find the description of Moses as והאיש משה on occasion, this means that the word ה)איש) was applied to Moses as an alternate name, this proves that whereas Moses on occasion was simply called איש, Yitro was never called האיש without further identification, i.e. the prefix ו. Personally, I do not think that we need to look for proof as to who bowed to him, as usually the one who comes out to welcome someone is the one who bows to the visitor. ויבואו האוהלה ויספר, “they entered the tent, and Moses told, etc.” This teaches that one does not carry on these kinds of conversations while en route to a destination.

וישתחו, “he prostrated himself;” our author is in two minds about who is the subject in this verse, i.e. who prostrated himself to whom.? It is reasonable to assume that word איש in the verse refers to Moses. After all, Moses had been referred to in Deuteronomy 32,1 as איש האלוהים, “the man of G–d.” On the other hand, the Torah describes Yitro also as איש, already in Exodus 2,21 when it tells us that Moses agreed to take up residence in his father-in-law’s house. Some scholars hold that we must draw comparisons only when the word in question is exactly the same, not when there is a prefix or suffix appended. The word: האיש in Exodus 2,21, therefore does not refer to the same man as the one in Deuteronomy we have quoted. In addition we find that the attribute איש is used for Moses, as directly next to his name either after or in front, (as in Numbers 12,3,) whereas this is not so with Yitro. It is clear that this interpretation is based on the school that holds that R’uel was the father of Yitro. According to that school of thought, Exodus 2,21 stating: “he gave his daughter Tzipporah to Moses as a wife,” is another example of grandfathers being considered as fathers.

Moses told his father-in-law all that Hashem had done to Pharaoh and to the Egyptians on account of Israel — all the hardship that had befallen them on the way — and how Hashem had delivered them.

ויספר משה לחתנו AND MOSES RELATED TO HIS FATHER-IN-LAW [ALL THAT THE LORD HAD DONE] — in order to allure his heart that he might attach him to the Torah (Mekhilta). את כל התלאה ALL THE TRAVAIL that they had experienced at the Red Sea, and that caused by Amalek (Mekhilta). התלאה — The ל and א are part of the primary form of the word and the ת is a formative letter and a part of the primary form of the noun which sometimes is omitted from it. Similar examples are תרומה and תנופה and תקומה and תנואה.

"Vayesaper": This verse indicates the explanation of "for Moses and for Israel" — meaning for their sake. — "Ha-tela'ah": from the root of "the Egyptians wearied" (above, 7:18); the tav is an addition. The meaning is: a trouble so great that one grows weary either of bearing it or of recounting it. The verse refers to the pursuit by Egypt at the sea, the coming of Amalek, and the thirst — and from all of them Hashem saved them.

את אשר עשה ה' לפרעה ולמצרים על אודות ישראל. A reference to G’d performing vengeance as the avenger of His people. Compare Deuteronomy 32,41 for similar syntax used by Moses. when he quotes G’d as saying אשיב נקם לצרי, “vengeance will I wreak on My foes.” This referred to the Egyptians experiencing G’d’s retribution on their own bodies when they drowned in the sea. In Psalms 78,49 the psalmist describes 4, resp. 5 stages of G’d’s anger which the Egyptians had to experience before they died. Tthat verse is the subject of detailed analysis in the Haggadah shel Pessach. These events proved that G’d had chosen the Jewish people as His most treasured possession among the nations. את כל התלאה אשר מצאתם בדרך, hunger, thirst, and the unprovoked attack by Amalek. 'ויצילם ה, this demonstrated G’d’s personal concern and involvement in the fate of the Jewish nation. The reason for this could only be that the religious principles as well as their deeds found favour in G’d’s eyes, preparing the way for all of them to serve Him in unison.

ויספר משה לחתנו, Moses told his father-in-law, etc. Although the Torah told us that Yitro had heard all that G'd had done, there may have been some details which he had not heard about. Alternatively, Yitro had assumed that what he had heard previously was grossly exaggerated; Moses now explained to him that what he heard was true to the last detail. It is also possible that until Moses told him otherwise Yitro had been under the impression that the Israelites were still vassals of the Egyptians, not totally free. Moses told him of the slaying of the guardian angel of the Egyptians, something that Yitro could not have heard about from any other source as only the Israelites had seen the "dead" guardian angel (Zohar second volume page 52). Once Yitro heard about this he knew that the Egyptians did no longer have any hold over the Israelites. Perhaps the Torah itself alludes to this with the words את כל התלאה אשר מצאתם בדרך ויצילם השם, "all the travail that had come upon them on the way from which G'd had saved them." Seeing Yitro had been a religious leader he would be familiar with the fact that different nations had guardian angels in the celestial regions; Moses told Yitro about the personal pursuit by that guardian angel and how the Israelites had been very frightened of that guardian angel. When Yitro heard about all this he exclaimed: "blessed be the Lord who has delivered this nation from the hand of Mitzrayim (the guardian angel)."

את כל התלאה, “all the hardship, etc.” this was a reference to the waters having turned bitter at Marah, to the Israelites having run out of dough which they had taken with them from Egypt to make into bread; he told him about their having been attacked by Amalek. He added that in spite of all these hardships which they encountered on the way the Lord had saved them in a critical situation each time.

את כל התלאה, “and about all the travail, etc.” Ibn Ezra says that the word תלאה is closely related to the word ונלאו in Exodus 7,18 where the futile search for water by the Egyptians is described as ונלאו מצרים. The letter ת is an additional letter. The whole word describes the frustration experienced when after many efforts one does not succeed in attaining one’s objective.

התלאה אשר מצאתם בדרך, Pharaoh’s pursuit, problems of lack of water and food in the desert, all of which had been solved for them by G’d.

Jethro rejoiced over all the good that Hashem had done for Israel, in that He had delivered them from the hand of the Egyptians.

ויחד יתרו AND JETHRO REJOICED — This is its literal meaning. A Midrashic comment is: his flesh became full of prickles (חדודין — his flesh crept with horror) — he felt grieved at the destruction of Egypt. That is what people say (what the common proverb says): A proselyte even though his heathen descent dates from as far back as the tenth generation, do not speak slightingly of an Aramean (any non-Jew) in his presence (Sanhedrin 94a). על כל הטובה FOR ALL THE GOODNESS — the goodness in giving the Manna and the well and the Torah — and he rejoiced above all these (more especially), אשר הצילו מיד מצרים THAT HE HAD DELIVERED THEM OUT OF THE HAND OF EGYPT — Until now no slave had ever been able to escape from Egypt because that land was closely shut in on all sides, but these had gone forth six hundred thousand in number (cf. Mekhilta).

"Vayikhad": from the root of "gladness" (hedvah). By rights it should be on the pattern of "my liver was secretly gladdened" (Job 31:27) and "he captured captives from it" (Num. 21:1) — but the het is voweled with a patah because it is one of the guttural letters, and the dalet remains with a dagesh as it was. I know of no letter with a dagesh at the end of a word in all of Scripture except the beged-kefet letters when two sheva-s combine at the end — as in "he captured captives from it" (ibid.) and "he drank of the wine" (Gen. 9:21). Only with one of those letters do we not find a dagesh, but rather a patah — and they are two: "Jethro rejoiced" ("vayikhad") and "let that night not rejoice" (Job 3:6).

ויחד יתרו, he did not rejoice over the destruction of Egypt as a major power. This is what he should have done if he had been truly concerned with the honour and glory due to his Creator. We know this from Psalms 58,11. However, he did rejoice over the well being of the Israelites. He behaved like someone whose heart is moved by the tears of the oppressed.

ויחד יתרו על כל הטובה, Yitro rejoiced over all the goodness, etc." Onkelos translates the word ויחד as וחדי, the aramaic word for "he was glad." Why did the Torah have to use an aramaic word in this instance instead of using a Hebrew word familiar to all of us? Although we learned in Sotah 32 that certain sections of the Torah may be read publicly in any language, we still need to know why the Torah chose an aramaic expression here in the original. It appears that Yitro was so overjoyed when he heard about the total liberation of the Jewish people that his skin broke out in goose-pimples. It is a well known fact that when a person experiences an unexpected overpowering feeling of joy he develops a physical reaction; sometimes he may pass out or even die from shock. Read what I have written on Genesis 45,26 about Jacob's reaction when told that Joseph was still alive. Although Yitro had previously heard part of the good news, the story Moses told him about the death of the guardian angel of Egypt made his skin crawl.

ויחד יתרו, “Yitro rejoiced;” we find this root meaning the same in Psalms 21,7: תחדהו בשמחה, “You gladdened him with the joy (of Your presence)” [A reference to the Messiah having been gladdened. Ed.] [I have not understood what follows concerning the comparison with Numbers 21,1 and Job 31,27. Ed.] Rashi on this verse brought the talmudic saying: “That is what people say (what the common proverb says): A proselyte even though his heathen descent dates from as far back as the tenth generation, do not speak slightingly of an Aramean (any non-Jew) in his presence (Sanhedrin 94a).” There are some (Hadar Zekenim) who say that this is because Ishmael son of Netanya that was a tenth generation descendant to an Egyptian convert, and he had made the Egyptians revenge on Israel. אשר הצילו מיד מצרים that he had delivered them from of the hand of Egypt; they could have kept them enslaved for a longer period according to one interpretation of the Covenant of the Pieces (Gen.15,13).

ויחד יתרו, “Yitro rejoiced over the goodness, etc.” The word ויחד is the same as the word חדוה in עז וחדוה במקומו, “strength and joy are in His place” (Chronicles I 16,27). We may also see the word אחדות as intimately related to the word ויחד, “he united.” This meaning would reflect that Yitro had converted and accepted the אחדות, the “Unity” of G’d. He blessed the name of the Lord as we hear in verse 10: “blessed be the Lord who has saved you .” The Midrash (Sanhedrin 94) views Yitro’s reaction as expressed by the word ויחד somewhat differently, understanding the root of the word as חדד. Accordingly, Yitro had mixed feelings which expressed themselves in goose-flesh at the news of what had overtaken the Egyptians at the Sea of Reeds. The Talmud says that his reaction reflects the truth of the popular saying that a convert displays some sensitivity concerning what befalls his former co-religionists until the tenth generation. Yitro was a tenth generation descendant of Mizrayim the son of Cham, Noach’s youngest son. The Egyptians of his time were his allies. At the same time he himself as a Midianite was also a descendant of Avraham and Keturah (Genesis 25,2) as already mentioned. There had been ten generations between Noach and Avraham. Similarly, there had been ten generations from Cham son of Noach, to Midian son of Avraham. This is the background to the popular saying quoted in the Talmud that the affinity to former associations by a convert is noticeable for ten generations.

ויחד יתרו, “Yitro rejoiced;” Our sages explain the word as describing that when hearing all that Moses told him, Yitro’s flesh broke out in goose pimples, [from the word חד, sharp, prickly, Ed.] It refers to a popular proverb according to which a proselyte, even a tenth generation proselyte, still experiences some kind of pain when hearing about tragedies that befall his former people. Some commentators reject this, saying that not only are we daily witnesses to proselytes and their offspring who are pious Jews in every respect, but Yitro was a first generation proselyte, so where is the comparison to that proverb? The sages who made that comment did not mean to refer to generations, literally, but merely to past associations, the impossibility to rid oneself completely of one’s past, so much so that one no longer feels a shred of sympathy for what has befallen the friends of one’s youth.

ויחד, a word derived from the category חדה, similar to the word חדוה in Chronicles I 16,27 עוז וחדוה, “strength and joy.” The construction follows the rule applicable to all roots of the ב,ג,ד,כ,פ,ת group of consonants (letters which sometimes take a dagesh chazak). They also lose their last root letter as a result of this. (in our verse the letter ה) More examples are the root בכה and the construction ויבך, vayevk, “he cried.” Another well known example is the root שבה, and the construction וישב, vayashav, “he returned.”

ויחד יתרו, according to Rashi, the word ויחד means that Yitro’s flesh broke out in goose-pimples when reflecting on what had happened to Pharaoh and his army. Rashi’s grandson, Rabbeinu Tam, pointed out that Rashi had scriptural proof to support this interpretation. We find the following verse in Chronicles I, 2,35: ויתן ששן את בתו לירחע עבדו לאשה, “Sheshan gave his daughter to his (Egyptian slave) as a wife.” [This Egyptian slave had of course converted before being given a Jewish wife. Ed.] If you count from the word ירחע until the word אלישמע in the verses following the above until verse 41 you will get to Yishmael ben Netanya ben Elishama that there were 13 generations. Deduct 3 generations when Egyptians are not allowed to convert to Judaism and you will find confirmation for the opinion quoted by Rashi, that a convert’s genes do not completely disappear for 10 generations until there is not a trace of his original character that surfaces on occasion. Rashi, quoting a Mechilta, had warned that in the presence of a convert we must not speak in derogatory terms about a gentile unless being certain that the Jew to whom we speak who had had pagan ancestry, was already at least the descendant of nine previous Jewish generations. Yitro, a first generation convert, clearly would feel discomfort when reflecting on the fate that had befallen Pharaoh.

Jethro said, "Blessed is Hashem, who has delivered you from the hand of the Egyptians and from the hand of Pharaoh — who has delivered the people from under the dominion of the Egyptians."

אשר הציל אתכם מיד מצרים WHO HATH DELIVERED YOU OUT OF THE HAND OF EGYPT, a hard people, ומיד פרעה AND OUT OF THE HAND OF PHARAOH, a hard monarch. מתחת יד מצרים — Translate this as the Targum does: from beneath the authority of Egypt, taking יד as an expression of domination and authority; “the hand” spoken of here is the hand which they imposed heavily upon them — referring to the hard bondage.

BLESSED BE THE ETERNAL, WHO HATH DELIVERED YOU OUT OF THE HAND OF THE EGYPTIANS, AND OUT OF THE HAND OF PHARAOH; WHO HATH DELIVERED THE PEOPLE FROM UNDER THE HAND OF THE EGYPTIANS. “He has done a great miracle for you in that Pharaoh and his people did not kill you, for it was on account of you that great plagues came upon them in their land.” This miracle was particularly great as far as Moses was concerned [because he frequently came to Pharaoh, as explained above at the end of Verse 1]. Therefore Jethro mentioned him [specifically] in the second person, together with everybody, saying, Who hath delivered you, meaning “you [Moses], and the people.” And He did another miracle: Who hath delivered the people from under the hand of the Egyptians, since they were in Egypt and they went out of there to everlasting freedom. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said that Jethro first blessed G-d, Who hath delivered you, meaning Moses and Aaron, through whom the plagues came upon Pharaoh and the Egyptians. Afterwards, he blessed Him for how He hath delivered the people from under the hand of the Egyptians in Egypt and at the sea.

"Vayomer Yitro: blessed be Hashem": Pay close attention to the grammar of this word. Know that a passive participle (pa'ul) can come only from transitive verbs. If you find a form on the pattern of pa'ul, examine whether it has a transitive active verb — if so, it is truly a passive participle; if not, it is an adjective. Similarly, if it is on the pattern of po'el and has no passive form from that same conjugation and root, it too is an adjective and not a verbal form at all — as when the active verb is "shamar" (to guard), the po'el is "shomer" and the passive is "shamur" ("kept for its owner," Eccl. 5:12). Now we find "holech" (walking), "omed" (standing), "yotze" (going out), and all of these appear to be active forms, for they follow the pattern of "shomer." But since their root verbs are intransitive — for one does not say from them "haloch," "amod," "yatzo" [transitive forms] — they have no passive form; therefore it is said that "holech" (Num. 22:22) is an adjective, not an active participle. We find "atzum" (mighty, ibid. v. 6) which appears to be a passive form on the pattern of "shamur," but when we search this root we find "they multiplied and became mighty" (above, 1:7) — intransitive verbs — for the transitive form would be from the extended conjugation: "He made his enemies mighty" (Ps. 105:24). We therefore cannot say "otzem" on the pattern of "shomer" in the sense of "strength" (Isa. 40:29), only in another sense: "he who closes his eyes from seeing evil" (ibid. 33:15). Now we find the word "baruch" on the pattern of "shamur." We searched all of Scripture and found no [transitive verb] from this root in the simple conjugation (qal) — only in another sense: "he knelt on his knees" (II Chron. 6:13), which is also an intransitive verb from which no passive can come. Thus "baruch" is an adjective, like "atzum" in the qal. R. Marinus said that "baruch" is an adjective from the intensive conjugation (pi'el), and the resh should rightly have a dagesh like all forms of that conjugation, as in "Naboth was blessed" (I Kings 21:13), which follows the pattern of "a bereaved bear" (Hos. 13:8). But he did not speak correctly, for every adjective like "shakul" (bereaved), "gibbor" (mighty), and "shikkur" (drunk) does not lose its dagesh when forming a construct singular or a plural — as in "Zichri slew the gibbor of Ephraim" (II Chron. 28:7) and "Woe to the gibborim" (Isa. 5:22). Standing opposite this [in support of adjective usage without dagesh] is "come, O blessed of Hashem" (Gen. 24:31) and "you are blessed of Hashem" (Ps. 115:15). — "Who has delivered you": He said this to Moses and Aaron, who were the messengers sent for this purpose and through whose agency the plagues came upon Pharaoh and Egypt. Therefore he said "from the hand of Egypt and from the hand of Pharaoh," and afterward he blessed Hashem who delivered the people from under the hand of Egypt — in Egypt and at the splitting of the Sea of Reeds.

אשר הציל אתכם, you, Moses, and Aaron, מיד מצרים, by smiting the Egyptians. ומיד פרעה, every time you came to warn him, i.e. to threaten him. אשר הציל את העם, the oppressed and enslaved ones.

אשר הציל אתכם, “Who has saved you;” the subjects are Moses and Aaron.

אשר הציל אתכם, “who has saved you.” The Torah mentions two separate acts of “saving.” The first was the Israelites having been saved from being enslaved to the Egyptians. The second was the cessation of their slave labour already during the period of the ten plagues. Alternatively, the words: “who has saved you” may refer to the fact that Moses and Aaron individually had escaped the danger inherent in having confronted Pharaoh for a full year.

אשר הציל אתכם מיד מצרים, “Who has saved you from the power of Egypt.” Yitro first praised the Lord Who performed the miracles for Moses personally, who was not brought before Pharaoh’s tribunal for murder or manslaughter, nor for having orchestrated the plagues; secondly, he praised G’d for having saved the entire Jewish nation from such a despotic regime as that of Pharaoh. He considered the latter as perhaps the greatest of the miracles. Ibn Ezra is of the opinion that Yitro first blessed the Lord for having rescued the people as a whole, before directing his attention to personal miracles which G’d performed on behalf of Moses.

אשר הציל אתכם, a reference to Moses and his brother Aaron; מיד מצרים ומיד פרעה, Moses and Aaron had been saved directly from possible harm by Pharaoh, whereas the people had been saved from the servitude to the Egyptians.

"Now I know that Hashem is great, and there is no god besides Him — for by the very matter by which the Egyptians plotted to judge Israel, by that were they judged."

עתה ידעתי NOW I KNOW — I indeed knew Him formerly, but now I know Him even more (cf. Mekhilta). מכל האלהים [GREATER] THAN ALL THE GODS — This tells us that he had a full knowledge of every idol in the world — that he left no idol unworshipped by him (Mekhilta). כי בדבר אשר זדו עליהם — Understand this as the Targum does for by that very thing with which the Egyptians thought to judge Israel were they themselves judged — they had thought to destroy them by water and they were themselves destroyed by water (cf. Mekhilta). אשר זדו means in which they had shown themselves wicked. Our Rabbis, however, explained it in the same sense as the root which we find in (Genesis 25:29) “And Jacob was boiling (ויזד) pottage (נזיד) (lit., something boiled)” — in the pot wherein they had boiled, therein were they themselves boiled (Sotah 11a).

FOR IT IS IN THE THING THAT ‘ZADU’ UPON THEM. The meaning of this is that in the matter wherein the Egyptians premeditated [their wickedness] against Israel, I [Jethro] now know that the Eternal is greater than all gods. And the purport thereof is as follows: Due to the fact that G-d had decreed upon Israel, and they shall enslave them, and they should afflict them, there would have been no great punishment meted out to the Egyptians. But they acted presumptuously against them, and intended to eradicate them from the world, just as they said, Come, let us deal wisely with them, lest they multiply. Pharaoh commanded the midwives to kill the male children, and he decreed upon [all his people, saying], Every son that is born [unto the Israelites] ye shall cast into the river. It was due to this that there came upon the Egyptians the kind of punishment which utterly destroyed them. It is this principle which is expressed in His words, And also that nation that made slaves of them will I judge, as I have explained. Now G-d saw their intentions, and He took vengeance upon them for the wickedness of their hearts. And thus does Scripture say again, And Thou didst show signs and wonders upon Pharaoh… for Thou knowest that they dealt insolently against them, for the punishment was because of the wicked plans they devised to carry out against the Israelites. Thus the Eternal looketh on the heart, and executeth justice for the oppressed, avengeth and is full of wrath, and no one can deter Him. Now Onkelos translated [the above Scriptural expression] thus: “for by that very thing with which the Egyptians thought to judge Israel, they themselves were judged.” By this rendition, Onkelos meant to say that their punishment came because of the drowning of the [Hebrew] children in the river, which was not part of the Divine decree, and they shall enslave them, and they shall afflict them. Therefore, He destroyed them by water.

"The meaning of 'now I know'": I have explained it in the parashah of Shemot on the verse "and they will say to me, 'What is His name?'" — "The meaning of 'for in the matter'": because of the very thing in which the Egyptians acted presumptuously against the people of Israel. Similarly he said above, "I know that Hashem is greater than all the gods" — Hashem, who executes judgment on those who enslaved them with crushing labor. So too is it written: "for You knew that they acted presumptuously against them" (Neh. 9:10) — like a man who acts presumptuously according to his own will. And it is already written, "For I have seen their suffering and I have come down to deliver them from the hand of Egypt" (above, 3:7–8).

כי בדבר אשר זדו עליהם. G’d saved the people by using the very means the Egyptians had used to harm them to harm their oppressors. The word זדו, past tense, occurs as future tense, יזיד in Exodus 21,14 describing the deliberate commission of a crime, a sin. The sin Yitro had in mind was that G’d had killed the Egyptian firstborn as a retribution for the male babies of the Jewish people having been thrown into the river to drown. (Exodus 1,22). The Egyptians died by drowning just as their victims the Jewish babies had died by drowning. Yitro recognised that the ability to make the punishment fit the crime is what put our G’d in a class all by Himself, unparalleled in any other religion. None of G’d’s agents in the celestial spheres, even, would be able to do this.

עתה ידעתי כי גדול ה׳ מכל האלוקים, "Now I know that the Lord is greater than all gods;" Yitro acknowledged that although all other nations have spiritual representatives in the celestial regions, some of whom are very powerful and both protect their protegees and assist them in their wars, they do not exact retribution from the adversaries of their protegees as does G'd. Only G'd operates on the principle of the punishment fitting the crime. Only the G'd of Israel would drown people who themselves had drowned others, etc. When the celestial representatives of other nations act in defense of their protegees one cannot recognise this as what happens to their adversaries seems totally unrelated to what these people had perpetrated. In the case of the G'd of Israel, every one of the plagues He brought upon Egypt was retribution for a specific wrong committed by that people and their king.

כי בדבר אשר זדו עליהם; Yitro explains what had prompted him to say that he now realises that the G-d of the Israelites is greater than any other deity. The reason is that when analysing the method by which G-d imposes penalties on the sinners, it becomes evident that the punishment matches the sin committed. The Egyptians’ crime had been that they drowned the Jewish babies; they had been punished by being drowned themselves. In Nechemya, chapter 9, where when a celebration of the Sukkot festival, after a Day of Atonement on which the people confessed their collective sin in Jerusalem is described in detail, the author also describes the greatness of G-d as being reflected in the manner in which punishment matches the sins committed. (verse 10)

עתה ידעתי כי גדול ה' מכל האלו-הים כי בדבר אשר זדו עליהם, “now I know that Hashem is greater than any deity for with the matter wherein they sinned He came upon them.” Yitro meant the factor which convinced him of the superiority of Hashem to any other deity was the matching of the punishment to the crime committed. Had the Egyptians not committed sins they would not have been punished for fulfilling G’d’s decree that the Jews be strangers or even bondsmen in Egypt. This had been decreed already in Genesis 15,13. They sinned by adding זדו. They decreed that every male Jewish baby be drowned; hence G’d paid them back by drowning them. G’d had never decreed for any of Avraham’s descendants to be murdered. The word כי is prelude to recognition that the Egyptians must have sinned. Their punishment by water gave Yitro the clue to the nature of their sin. We find a similar construction in Nechemyah 9,10 כי ידעת כי הזידו עליהם, “for You were aware that they had deliberately sinned against them.”

כי בדבר אשר זדו עליהם, “for He retaliated in the manner which corresponded to their deliberate sins.” Yitro explains that what had convinced him of the superiority of the G’d of Israel, was not that He punished the Egyptians for their unspeakable crimes, but for the manner in which G’d made the punishment fit the crime. Nachmanides writes that G’d only punished the Egyptians for the excess cruelty with which they drowned innocent infants, and that they made the work imposed on the adults intolerably and unnecessarily onerous. The fact that the Egyptians enslaved the Israelites and demanded that they perform hard labour was not a culpable offense.

מכל האלוהים. None of these other deities has the power to avenge their worshipers from unjust sufferings they have endured. כי בדבר, meaning that G’d requited for every sin committed by the Egyptians in an appropriate and fitting manner. This is the basic meaning of the insight Yitro had now gained.

Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses, brought burnt offerings and holy sacrifices before Hashem; and Aaron and all the elders of Israel came to eat bread with the father-in-law of Moses before Hashem.

עלה — Translate this according to its usual meaning: a burnt-offering, which was burnt entire and completely. וזבחים AND SACRIFICES — i. e. peace-offerings. ויבא אהרן וגו׳ AND AARON CAME, etc. — But where had Moses gone? Was it not he who had gone out to meet him and had been the cause of all the honour shown to him? But the explanation why he is not mentioned as having come to eat bread with Jethro is that he was standing by and waiting upon them (Mekhilta). לפני האלהים BEFORE GOD — From this statement that they were “before God” we may learn that one who takes part in (more lit., who has enjoyment from) a meal at which scholars sit may be regarded as though he has enjoyment from the splendour of the Shechina (Berakhot 64a; cf. Mekhilta).

AND JETHRO, MOSES’ FATHER-IN-LAW, TOOK A BURNT-OFFERING AND SACRIFICES FOR G-D. All this took place before they came to Mount Sinai. It is also possible to explain that Scripture arranged the entire narrative of Jethro [in one section] even though this particular event occurred after he had stayed with the Israelites a long time and, in the meantime, became converted through circumcision, immersion, and the sprinkling of the blood of a sacrifice, according to the law. AND AARON CAME, AND ALL THE ELDERS OF ISRAEL, TO EAT BREAD. That is, with Jethro in the day of his espousals, [i.e., in the day of his entrance into the covenant with G-d], for he was then as a newly-circumcised child.

"He took a burnt-offering and sacrifices": These are the peace-offerings (shelamim). — "The meaning of 'to God'": for now He, the glorious Name, would begin to be God to him. — "Aaron came and all the elders of Israel": There is no need to mention Moses, for they were in his tent. — "To eat bread": from the peace-offerings. — "The meaning of 'before God'": for the tent of Moses was on the eastern side of the Tent of Meeting.

עולה וזבחים לאלוקים. This was intended as a symbol of Yitro’s acceptance of the yoke of Heaven. A similar symbolic acceptance is found in Kings II 5,17 when the general Naaman undertakes never again to offer such sacrifices as עולה וזבחים to any deities other than the G’d in heaven. לאכול לחם עם חותן משה, to rejoice with him on his entry into the select circle of those who serve the only true G’d, the Creator of the universe. He joined the ranks of those who are described by David in Psalms 149 as ישמח ישראל בעושיו, “Israel rejoices in Him Who has proved to be its Creator.” לפני האלוקים. in front of the altar on which they offered these sacrifices. It is not clear if this was the altar Moses had built after the victory over Amalek (in the event Yitro had arrived before the revelation at Mount Sinai) or if it had been another altar whose erection had not been especially mentioned by the Torah. At any rate, the consuming of the offerings known as זבחים, “meat-offerings,” took place within view of the altar.

ויקח יתרו… עולה וזבחים, Yitro took total offerings and meat offerings, etc. Yitro was clever in offering numerous peace offerings. He did this in order to be able to play host to many Jewish dignitaries. This is the reason it does not say: "he invited Aaron and the elders," but "Aaron and the elders came to eat with Moses' father-in-law before the Lord." They did not need to await an invitation because the quantity of Yitro's offerings spoke for itself. He certainly would not have allowed all this meat to go to waste as it would have been forbidden to do so. The elders honoured Yitro by joining him without a personal invitation being extended to them.

עולה וזבחים, ”burnt offerings and meat offerings” (the latter to be consumed by the owners of those animals and their guests). Both types of offerings were in the nature of thanksgiving offerings. ויבא אהרן וכל זקני ישראל, “Aaron and all the elders of Israel came (to partake in the meal) Moses did not need to “come,” seeing the offerings were consumed in his tent. The other dignitaries came in honour of Yitro, Moses’ fatherinlaw. לפני האלוקים, according to the plain meaning the word לפני means the same as מלפני, ‘to take part in what had been offered in the presence of the Lord,” i.e. the meat offerings. [The burnt offering was always completely burned up on the altar. Ed.]

ויקח יתרו חותן משה עולה וזבחים לאלו-הים, “Yitro, Moses’ father-in-law took burnt offering and meat offering for G’d.” This is the only time when we find the Torah mentioning the attribute אלו-הים in connection with sacrifices. Everyhwere else we have the attribute Hashem in connection with sacrificial offerings to G’d. Yitro had not yet become aware of that dimension of G’d; hence he had to address the attribute he was aware of. Moses tried to educate him in this respect when he told him in verse 8 about what Hashem had done to Pharaoh on account of the Jewish people. Yitro’s motivation in coming, significantly, referred to what אלו-הים had done for Moses (verse 1). עם חותן משה לפני האלו-הים, “with Moses’ father-in-law in the presence of G’d.” The words: “in the presence of G’d,” mean “in front of the משכן, residence, of G’d.” Seeing that there was not yet a Tabernacle, the meaning is “in front of the pillar of cloud or pillar of fire which symbolised G’d’s residence on earth.” The meal described here was prepared in honour of Yitro’s conversion, circumcision, and ritual immersion. There can be no question that this festive meal, just like the meal Yitzchak had eaten prior to bestowing blessings, was designed to enhance the joy of the souls of the participants so that they would be granted Holy Spirit. We have explained on other occasions already that true spiritual joy is dependent on one’s body feeling well. When one’s physical powers are at their best such feelings transfer themselves also to the soul and enhance its ability to feel at its best. This has been documented in Kings II 3,15 by the prophet Elisha who demanded to be entertained by a musician in order to raise his spirit to the level of prophetic insights.

“And Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, took a burnt offering and sacrifices to God.” All commentators were puzzled that in all sacrifices, neither “El” nor “Elohim” is mentioned, only the special Name [the Tetragrammaton], yet here it mentions to Elohim. I say to resolve this according to what we wrote above, that all the good things that God did for Moses and Israel were in the name of Elohim, because the righteous transform judgment into mercy. And all the evils that God did to Pharaoh and the Egyptians were in the special Name, because the wicked transform mercy into judgment. Therefore, Jethro sacrificed to Elohim for all the goodness, and he was happy and glad of heart, and gave thanks to His blessed Name for all the good He had bestowed upon them. But he did not rejoice over the downfall of the Egyptians, which was done with the special Name. Therefore, he did not sacrifice to the special Name, because in this he showed his thought that he was distressed about the destruction of the Egyptians. And that is why the text specifically uses the term vayichad [rejoiced], which has in its meaning both joy and “becoming pointed/sharp” [in pain], because he rejoiced over the good of Israel, but over the destruction of the Egyptians, his flesh became sharp/pained.

ויקח יתרו חותן משה עולה וזבחים, “Yitro, Moses’ father-in-law purchased burnt offerings and meat offerings.” According to Nachmanides all this occurred before the people had come to Mount Sinai. It is also possible that what is reported here occurred long after the revelation, i.e. after Yitro had undergone a formal conversion and Moses had been on the Mountain several times. ויבוא אהרן וכל זקני ישראל לאכול לחם, “Aaron and all the elders of Israel came to have a meal, etc.” This was a meal in honour of Yitro’s conversion and circumcision. We know from Tzipporah (Exodus 4,26), that she considered the circumcision as an allegorical marriage between the newly circumcised Jew and his Creator. לפני האלוקים, “before G’d.” Nachmanides explains the word לפני in terms of location, i.e. that Moses’ personal tent was situated to the east of the Tabernacle.

ויבא אהרן וכל זקני ישראל לאכול לחם עם חתם משה, in honour of the arrival of Yitro they all came to the meal. There was no need to mention that Moses also participated as the meal was served in his tent, he being the host.

It came to pass on the next day that Moses sat to judge the people, and the people stood before Moses from morning until evening.

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). 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”. 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) מן הבקר עד הערב FROM MORNING UNTO EVENING — Is it really possible to say so — that Moses sat the whole d...

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: “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. 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. 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. 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. Scripture says, a burnt-offering and sacrifices to G-d, 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, 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. Similarly, Because the people come unto me to inquire of G-d… and I make them know the statutes of G-d, 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, just as our Rabbis always mention: “Elokim (G-d): this is the attribute of justice.”.

"Vayehi mimakharat": on the day after Jethro's arrival. — "Moses sat": as was his custom. — "From morning until evening": Know that the true "morning" is from the rising of the sun, though "morning" is also called the time when the column of dawn begins and light starts to appear in the clouds, as I have already noted. This is the incidental usage of "morning." The true "evening" is at the setting of the sun, though "evening" is also called incidentally the time when the light dims. So too David says: "The sun rises, they gather in" (Ps. 104:22), and afterward: "Man goes out to his work and to his labor until evening" (ibid., v. 23). Therefore, "from evening to evening shall you rest your Sabbath" (Lev. 23:32) rightly means from the true evening to the true evening. But our Sages, may their memory be blessed, added from the profane onto the holy and said that the conclusion of the Sabbath is until the emergence of the stars. Thus by Torah law one should bring in the Sabbath from sunset. All scholars of nature and all astronomers agree that the boundary of the day is from the moment when the circle of the sun is level with the surface of the earth at any given place — that is, from its rising until its setting.

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.

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 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. 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) 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: מן 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.)

“And the people stood before Moses from the morning until the evening.” From here we learn that court cases are not judged at night. Our Sages of blessed memory (Shabbat 10a) said that any judge who judges a case with true justice, even for one hour, Scripture considers him as if he became a partner with the Holy One, blessed be He, in the work of creation, as it says, And there was evening and there was morning. This matter requires explanation, because it appears that the mention of evening and morning in these two places are not similar to each other. Here it begins from the morning and ends in the evening, while in the work of creation it begins from the evening and ends in the morning. You should understand and know that this world, in general, only exists when there is judgment below [on earth] or above [in heaven]. For the Holy One, blessed be He, wanted to create the world with the attribute of justice, and even though He also incorporated the attribute of mercy, nevertheless the attribute of justice remains in its place, as a king establishes the land through justice. In the Midrash (Devarim Rabbah 5:4), Rabbi Elazar said: “In a place where there is judgment, there is no judgment, and in a place where there is no judgment, there is judgment. How so? If there is judgment below, there is no judgment above; if there is no judgment below, there is judgment above.” According to this order, the world is properly established, as there is no hour devoid of judgment. It is known that the attribute of justice above reigns specifically at night. Although the Holy One, blessed be He, issues judgment during the day, this is when there is no judgment below during the day. Then the Holy One, blessed be He, judges even during the day among the lower beings regarding the injustice between them. But if there is judgment below during the day, nevertheless there is also judgment above among the heavenly ministers. Therefore, the time of judgment above is from evening until morning, and the time of judgment below is from morning until evening. For this reason, the judge is a partner with the Holy One, blessed be He, in the work of creation, and they share equally in establishing the foundations of all worlds that stand on justice. For the King of the universe establishes earth and heaven through justice from evening until morning, and the rabbinical kings establish the earth through justice from morning until evening. These words are ancient and correct, and it is a precious matter. From the morning until the evening. Rashi explained: Is it possible to say so? Rather, it comes to tell you, etc., even one hour, Scripture considers it as if he engaged in Torah the entire day. If so, what is the meaning of what Jethro said: And all the people stand before you from morning until evening? In reality, he did not judge from morning until evening, but Scripture considers it as if he had judged, etc., and as if he became a partner in the work of the morning and evening, which are known through the definite article [the letter heh], alluding to the work of Creation. And furthermore, it is difficult because the verse says, And the people stood before Moses. Yet Jethro said, And all the people positioned [nitzav] themselves before you. Why did he mention nitzav instead of “standing” [amidah]? And here, the term “standing” [amidah] precedes the people, whereas Jethro put the people before the term nitzav. And it seems to me that the language of “standing” [amidah] is appropriate for those standing before the judges before the verdict, as it is written And the two men who have the dispute shall stand (Deuteronomy 19:17). And the language of “positioning” [nitzav] is appropriate after the verdict when people tend to quarrel with the judge, as it is written Your burden, your load, and your quarrels (Deuteronomy 1:12). For the language of “quarreling” [nitzim] and “positioning” [nitzavim] indicates disputatious words, and Dathan and Abiram prove this, and as it is written The Lord stands [nitzav] to contend and stands to judge the peoples (Isaiah 3:13). And in every place where Israel is referred to as “the people” [ha’am], it is a name that connotes wicked people, as Rashi explains on the verse And the people were as complainers — “’the people’ always refers to the wicked, etc.” (Numbers 11:1). And so here, the Sages said that when litigants stand before you, they should be in your eyes as wicked people (Avot 1:8). Therefore it says here at the beginning of the trial and the people stood because it is possible they are not wicked, but the standing for judgment caused them to be similar to wicked people, therefore the language of “standing” [amidah] precedes the people [ha’am]. But Jethro speaks about those quarrelsome matters they had with Moses after the verdict, for if they had accepted the judgment upon themselves they would be like righteous people, but because they challenged the judge, therefore he called them wicked even after the verdict. Therefore it says and all the people positioned themselves around you because due to their being wicked, they stood to quarrel, for any good person accepts the judgment upon himself and does not quarrel with the judge. Therefore the people [ha’am] precedes positioned [nitzav]. According to this assumption, Jethro did not question Moses about the lengthy duration of judging the entire day, since in truth he did not judge the entire day but only for the time allocated for judges, which is six hours. Rather, he questioned him about what he saw: that after the judgment was completed, people positioned themselves to argue with him from morning until evening. All day they complained against him, and Jethro thought that perhaps Moses had done something to them which caused them to argue with him. As it says, And Moses’ father-in-law saw all that he was doing for the people — he observed and examined everything else to see if he could find something that Moses was doing improperly to the people. He searched but found nothing. Therefore, he asked him, What is this thing that you are doing to the people? because he wanted to know if Moses was doing something to the people besides judging. When Moses did not answer him, Jethro understood from this that Moses was certainly not doing anything wrong to them. Then Jethro thought that they must be arguing with him because of the judgments, and everyone who lost his case positioned himself to argue with him. Therefore he asked, Why do you sit alone? Because if there were many judges with you, then the person found guilty would not know who ruled against him and whom to complain to. But since you sit alone, for this reason all the people, meaning the less important ones, positioned themselves before you to argue from morning until evening.

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.

לשפוט את העם. Even if we accept the opinion that Jethro 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. מן הבקר עד הערב, seeing he was the only judge and he had no assistants.

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.

When the father-in-law of Moses saw all that he was doing for the people, he said, "What is this matter that you are doing for the people? Why do you sit alone, while all the people stand before you from morning until evening?"

"Vayar, all that he was doing for the people": that he kept them standing from evening until morning. — Rabbenu Shlomo [Rashi] said: because Moses was sitting alone and Israel was standing, and this is not proper conduct. There is no doubt that Moses's stature was such that this could be said of him — for look: Aaron, who was great before all Israel and elder than Moses, says to him, "Please, my lord" (Num. 12:11). And Moses followed the correct procedure, for a judge sits and the litigants stand, as it is written: "The two men who have the dispute shall stand" (Deut. 19:17). [Jethro] did not say "why" on account of Moses sitting to judge alone, but because he was sitting in judgment by himself with no other judges to assist him. — R. Marinus said that the word "maddua'" is like "malkhem" (Isa. 3:15) and "mazzeh be-yadecha" (above, 4:2), for each is two words. So too "maddua'" means: "mah da'atcha" — what is your thinking in doing so?

מדוע אתה יושב לבדך?, why are only you dealing with public affairs? וכל העם, and all the people who for whatever reason need your private services have to wait in line from morning to night?

אשר הוא עושה לעם, “what he was doing to the people.” They were making one another impatient. On the one hand, the common people were forced to stand in line most of the day waiting for their turn. On the other hand, Moses was becoming more and more weary having to deal with so many disputes. ?מדוע אתה יושב לבדך, “why are only you seated?” Yitro did not criticize Moses for sitting and the people having to stand; he meant that if Moses would delegate some of his tasks there would not be such long queues. The Torah itself expects the litigants to be standing, as we know form Deuteronomy 19,17: 'ועמדו שני האנשים אשר להם הריב לפני ה, “and the two men who have a dispute are to stand in the presence of the judges;”Besides, it would not have been appropriate for Yitro to chastise a great man like Moses, someone who was even addressed as “my master” by his own brother Aaron who was three years his senior. (Compare Numbers 12,11) The verse in front of us has to be understood as follows: “what made you decide to shoulder the entire burden of judging all the people’s problems all by yourself, without assistance from anyone? You would do well to appoint junior judges that can share the burden with you, so that you would only have to deal with the litigations that these juniors could not find a proper solution for. All this will result in your burden being decreased so that you do not break down under it prematurely. Moses had first misunderstood his father-in-law as being critical that he alone remained seated throughout these proceedings. This is why he had replied that the people had come to him; (verse 15) מן בקר עד ערב, from morning till evening. Yitro meant that “even if you were to sit here from morning till evening you could still not cope with such a load.”

מדוע אתה יושב לבדך?, and as a result of your being the sole judge the entire people have to stand in line before you from morning to evening.

Moses said to his father-in-law, "Because the people come to me to seek instruction from before Hashem."

כי יבא — This is the same as כי בא because the people comes”, the imperfect tense expressing continuous action. לדרש אלהים TO ENQUIRE OF GOD — Understand this as the Targum does: למתבע אלפן, to seek instruction from the mouth of the Almighty.

FOR THE PEOPLE COME UNTO ME TO INQUIRE OF G-D. Moses answered his father-in-law: “They must stand about me a great part of the day, for they come before me for many things. Because the people come unto me to inquire of G-d, that is, to pray for their sick, and to inform them of the whereabouts of what they have lost,” this being “the inquiring of G-d.”And thus the people did with the [later] prophets, just as it is said, In former times in Israel, when a man went to inquire of G-d, thus he said: Come and let us go to the seer. Similarly, Go meet the man of G-d, and inquire of the Eternal by him, saying: Shall I recover from this sickness? meaning that the prophet should pray for his recovery and that he should inform him if his prayer was accepted. This is also the meaning of the verse, and she [Rebekah] went to inquire of the Eternal, as I have explained there.“Moreover,” [Moses continued], “I adjudicate matters between them, when they have a matter, it cometh unto me, and I judge. And I also teach them Torah, and I make them know the statutes of G-d and His laws.”.

"Vayomer": Moses replied that he does two things. The first: the people come to him to inquire of God — meaning to inquire of His Torah. The second: when they have a matter, they come to him. He answered the latter point first: "I judge between one man and his neighbor," and I make known the statutes of God to the one who inquires.

לדרוש אלוקים, the princes and leaders of the community who come to me to consult me on matters of public concern, come to seek out the word of G’d because only after getting such a ruling will the people be able to come to rest.

כי יבא אלי העם לדרוש אלוקים "for the people come to me to seek out G'd." What did Moses want to accomplish with this reply? Did Yitro not see for himself that the people came to Moses to seek out G'd (judgment approved by G'd)? Yitro's question had been why Moses followed a particular procedure, one which was inconvenient for the people. He did not ask what Moses was doing. I believe that Moses referred to the emphasis Yitro had placed on the words אשר אתה עשה לעם, "which you are doing to the people." Moses understood that Yitro implied that Moses forced the people to appear before him, that he was not willing to let other people function as judges, and that as a result the people suffered inconvenience. If only Moses were willing to delegate he could save the people all this inconvenience. Moses replied to this accusation by saying that the matter was not of his choosing but that the people insisted on bringing their problems to him personally. He also explained to Yitro who could not understand why the people were willing to put up with this inconvenience that "anyone who has some matter comes to me." The Zohar second volume page 78 explains the words דבר בא אלי to mean that "a Divine ruling comes to me," i.e. Moses' decision would be divinely inspired. Since no other judge had been so favoured by G'd, the people are willing to put up with the inconvenience. As a result of these considerations there was no point in appointing other judges for the people to go to. Moses concluded by saying: "I make them know the statutes of G'd;" this too was something no one else was able to do. Yitro was not sure that he had understood Moses' words correctly seeing that they were capable of two interpretations. 1) Moses could have meant that inasmuch as the people came to him voluntarily he felt he had to fulfil the מצוה to settle arguments between two people personally. 2) The people did not want anyone else but Moses to preside over their litigation as I have already explained. Yitro worded his proposal in such a way that it would fit either of the reasons Moses had mentioned why he alone had to preside over litigation. Concerning Moses' argument that he wanted to fulfil the מצוה of judging personally, Yitro said: לא טוב הדבר, "this is not a good method." He then proceeded to explain why it was not a good system. Concerning Moses' argument that the people insisted that only he should be their judge, Yitro said: "I will give you some advice, etc." He presented his scheme in such a way that both litigants in a quarrel would return home satisfied. Should one of them not be satisfied he would still have the option of Moses personally hearing his case. The total number of cases submitted to Moses would be greatly reduced. As a result there would be a great reduction in personal tensions. If, per chance, the lower court would declare itself incompetent to settle an issue, והיה (verse 22), the judges of that court could in turn come to Moses and submit the probl...

כי יבא אלי העם לדרוש אלו-הים, “for the people come to me to seek G’d.” Moses did not say that the people came to him to seek Hashem.” The reason was that Moses was engaged in dealing with litigation. The attribute of אלו-הים is appropriate in that connection as we know from Deut. 1,17 כי המשפט לאלו-הים הוא, “for matters of judgment are reserved for the attribute אלו-הים is why Moses used this attribute when he explained to Yitro what he was doing (and why he remained seated). He said והודעתיו את חוקי האלו-הים ואת תורותיו “I acquaint them with the statutes of אלו-הים and with His teachings.” The meaning of the whole verse is: “they need to stand in line before me for a long time because they inquire concerning so many things.” Some of them ask me to pray on behalf of their sick family members; some want me to locate lost property for them; we find that the expression דרישת אלו-הים is used in Scripture in connection with both of these requests; in Kings II 8,8, when Chazael wants to know from the prophet Elisha if he would recover from his sickness, he does so saying ודרשת את ה' מאותו לאמור האחיה מחלי זה? “and through him inquire from the Lord: ‘will I recover from this sickness?’” Chazael meant for Elisha to pray on his behalf and to inform him afterwards if his prayer had been answered. Rivkah did the same when the twins were quarreling in her womb and the Torah says ותלך לדרוש את ה', “she went to inquire from G’d” (Genesis 25,22). With regard to the restoration of lost objects we read in Samuel I 9,9: “Formerly, in Israel, when a man went to inquire of G’d he said: “come, let us go to the Seer.” The subject under discussion in that chapter was the lost donkeys of Kish, Saul’s father. Clearly, the prophet was expected to be able to tell the petitioner where to find things he had lost. In addition, Moses explained to Yitro that he functioned as a judge and in that capacity he taught the people the laws of the Lord.

And Moses said to his father-in-law, “Because the people come to me to inquire of God.” This means that one who wants to know the reason why they judged me, even if there are 100 judges sitting with me in judgment, they will nevertheless only come to me to inquire of God, meaning [to learn] the judgments of God, and I have no way to dismiss myself from their complaints. And if you say, “If so, you should have completely withdrawn from judging and appointed others so their complaints would cease from you,” to this he [Moses] says, When they have a matter, it comes to me — it does not say “they came to me,” but rather it refers to that matter, for the matter comes to me through prophecy, and everything is in the hand of God that was instructed to me. And every hidden matter where there are no witnesses comes to me, to the extent that I have the power to judge between a man and his fellow, meaning in matters between them where there are no witnesses. Therefore, it is not proper for me to evade judgments. And perhaps this is why he [Moses] said, And the matter that is too difficult for you, you shall bring to me, and I will hear it (Deuteronomy 1:17), meaning in a place where there are no witnesses in the matter, you shall bring it to me, and I will hear it from the Almighty. And Jethro said to him, “Nevertheless, the thing that you do is not good, and he did not say here ”to the people“ as he said above, because he said to him that what you are doing is not good both for you and for the people, for you will surely wear out, both you and these people who are with you because the matter is too heavy for you and you need to lighten their complaints from upon you. Another explanation, “for when they have a matter, it comes to me.” One of them, meaning the plaintiff, comes to me alone in order to organize his claims before me, and I do not listen to his words, but rather I judge between a man and his fellow only when both of them are specifically before me.

כי יבוא אלי העם לדרוש אלוקים, “for the people are in the habit of coming to me to seek out G’d’s judgment.” Moses answered Yitro that the people, by the nature of things, need to stand in line before me for a considerable period of time as many of them need to have many different problems to be resolved. This included appeals to Moses to pray on behalf of sick family members, to see if Moses could help them, something also known as דרישת אלוקים, a service frequently performed for the people by prophets, as we know from prophets being asked if sick members of one would recover from one’s sickness. (Kings I 8,8, 8,9)

כי יבא אלי העם לדרוש אלוהים, only I am able to call directly upon G’d, as they are not in the habit of speaking to G’d. Hence I remain by myself.

"When they have a legal dispute, they come to me, and I judge between a man and his fellow, and I make known to them the statutes of Hashem and His Torah."

כי יהיה להם דבר בא WHEN THEY HAVE A MATTER THEY COME (lit., “he comes”) — “He”, viz., who has the matter comes to me.

כי יהיה להם דבר, when someone among these people who hold positions of public trust has a disagreement with one of his colleagues he brings it to me, בא אלי ושפטתי בין איש ובין רעהו, between these leaders of the community who come to me about matters of public concern. והודעתי את חקי האלוקים ואת תורותיו, to these highly placed individuals who approach me with the concerns of the public. We encounter similar occurrences described in slightly different words, such as in Exodus 34,31-32 “Moses called to them and Aaron and all the chieftains in the assembly returned to him, and Moses spoke to them.” Our sages in Eyruvin 54 describe the hierarchy of transmitting G’d’s word to the people. Moses learned the Torah directly from G’d; when Aaron entered his tent he told him what he had learned. Aaron would move over and take his seat on Moses’ left. After that Aaron’s sons would enter and Moses would instruct them in what G’d had taught him. This continued until Moses had taught the same lesson no fewer than 4 times. We can see that all this took time, and as a result the ordinary people had to stand in line for a long time.

את חוקי האלוקים ואת תורותיו, “G-d’s statutes and His teachings.” Moses refers to the statutes and teachings that G-d had already taught him prior to the revelation at Mount Sinai, and his ascending that Mountain to receive the whole Torah. Those teachings had been referred to when the people had been encamped around Marah when the bitter waters had been turned into sweet waters (Exodus 15,25)

The father-in-law of Moses said to him, "The matter that you are doing is not proper."

ויאמר חתן משה AND MOSES’ FATHER-IN-LAW SAID — By way of honour Scripture describes him as the father-in-law of the king.

"Vayomer: the thing that you are doing is not good": in my opinion. And he gave a reason for his words — namely, "naval tivbol," from the root of "whose leaf does not wither" (Ps. 1:3) and "like a terebinth whose leaves wither" (Isa. 1:30) — for the meaning is that it will fall of itself, like a withering leaf, figuratively speaking. And the word "gam" carries the same meaning: "and also this matter is too heavy for you."

לא טוב הדבר, “the matter is not right;” in my eyes what you are doing now is not good;

"You will surely wear yourself out — both you and this people that is with you — for this matter is too heavy for you; you cannot do it alone."

נבל תבל — Explain this as the Targum does: thou will certainly become weary. Its meaning expresses the idea of withering, old French flestre, just as. (Jeremiah 8:13) “and the leaf is withered (נבל)”; (Isaiah 34:4) “as withereth (כנבל) the leaf from off the vine” — the meaning being that it becomes shrivelled through the heat and through the frost, and so its strength diminishes and it becomes, as it were, weary, and falls from off the vine (מגפן). גם אתה THOU ALSO — The word גם “also” was added in order to include Aaron and Hur and the seventy elders (cf. Mekhilta). כי כבד ממך FOR [THIS THING] IS TOO HEAVY FOR THEE — its weight is far more than thy strength can bear.

"Asehu": This is a grammatically unusual form, arrived at on the pattern of "le-shomro" (to guard it) — for we do not find the heh appearing in the conjugation of "asah."

גם העם הזה אשר עמך, the member of your court. לא תוכל עשוהו לבדך, you cannot all by yourself listen to the problems of all the leaders and subsequently to all the problems of the individuals who feel they need your personal attention, believing that no one but you can deal with their specific problems.

נבול תבול, "you will surely become weary, etc." Yitro repeated the word נבול because it has two meanings. We apply this term to describe anything which has lost some of its original strength, and as a result has become weary, fatigued, relative to its original state. Nonetheless the subject under discussion is still able to perform its basic task though with greater exertion. The second meaning of נבול is a feeling of weariness which is felt so keenly that the subject is unable to carry out his regular routine at all. Yitro warned Moses that though, intially, he would feel only slightly weary, eventually he would become so weary, נבול תבול, that he would be unable to function at all. Yitro underlined this by saying: "you will not be able to carry on by yourself." Alternatively, the reason he repeated the word was simply because he wanted to illustrate how both Moses and the litigants would become weary. גם אתה גם העם הזה, "both you and this people, etc." Yitro used the word גם twice to indicate that not only Moses whose powers were very great and close to inexhaustible would tire (seeing he had to preside over litigation daily for many hours), but also the people who would have to stand in line would find this too tiresome. The Mechilta understands the word גם as referring to Aaron, whereas the word העם would refer to the seventy elders. We need to understand the reason for this interpretation. If they considered only the word גם they would have had to explain these two words in the same way as we have done. However, the sages realised that if Moses would follow Yitro's advice he would have had to appoint close to 80,000 judges. He therefore indicated that even seventy elders were far too few. The sages therefore understood the word גם to refer to the additional judges Moses would have to appoint. They interpreted the second גם to refer to judges in addition to Moses. In each instance the word גם added a new element. According to the sages, the first גם meant that although Moses was such a superior judge, others, less competent would also have to be appointed, whereas the second גם meant that although the elders were numerous, even their number did not suffice to ensure that the litigation procedure would run smoothly and promptly. It is also possible that the words גם אתה included the people who would feel weary because of standing in line, waiting. Yitro added a second גם to tell Moses that even if he co-opted the seventy elders this would still be far short of what was needed.

נבול תבול, “you will definitely become worn out;” the word is similar to ערבוב, “being confused.” Compare Genesis 11,7 Where G-d confused man’s languages. Yitro felt that both Moses and the litigants would become confused. One would shout that he wanted to be heard next and another litigant would also shout. As a result, Moses himself would become confused since he would be unable to hear each person correctly. And they would also be unable to hear what you say. גם אתה, “you also.” Rashi understands the word גם as including Aaron and Chur, and the seventy elders. If you were to point out that in Exodus 32,5, on the words: ויבן מזבח לפניו, “he built an altar in front of it (the golden calf),” Rashi comments that Aaron, having seen that Chur (his nephew) had been killed by the mob when he tried to interfere with their worshipping the golden calf, decided to instead build an altar and declare the following day a holiday in honour of G-d. The events related there occurred on the 17th of Tammuz in the first year of the people’s wanderings. Yitro meant that even if Aaron, Chur and the seventy elders were to assist Moses, this would not nearly be enough for governing such a large nation. We find an example of such thinking in Jeremiah 15,1, where G-d tells the prophet that even if Moses personally as well as the prophet Samuel were to intercede on behalf the people of the Kingdom of Yehudah at that time, their merits would not suffice to make Him change His mind concerning the impending doom of that kingdom. G-d mentioned Moses and Samuel who had already long ago passed on, The events recorded in the paragraph that we are dealing with here occurred the day after the Day of Atonement on the eleventh day of Tishrey, over 80 days after Chur had been killed. Nonetheless, Rashi saw fit to mention him as an example of a worthy assistant of Moses. However, in verse 23 in our chapter, Chur is not mentioned by Rashi. When Rashi understands the words: וכל העם הזה (and all this people) as applicable to Aaron, his two older sons, and the seventy elders, no mention is made of Chur. וכל העם הזה, they will also not be able to endure the long wait all day long to have their litigation dealt with.

נבול תבול גם אתה גם העם הזה, “surely you will become weary, both you and this people.” The meaning of the words נבול תבול corresponds to Onkelos’ translation of מלאה תלאה, “you will become worn out, tired.” Yitro meant that it was irresponsible, forbidden even, for Moses to undergo such a strain and to make the people undergo such a strain. Many would stand in line and wait and never get around to have their problems aired before Moses. A Midrashic approach (Pessikta Zutrata): The word נבול is a euphemism for the leaf of a fig which wilts. The application of the word נבול to leaves is found in Isaiah 34,4: “like a leaf withering on the vine, like shriveled fruit on a fig tree.” The repeated word גם is meant to include both Aaron and the seventy elders.

נבל תבל, the word is similar to the word נבלה in Genesis 11,7 when G’d announced the confounding of man’s languages, using the words ונבלה שם שפתם, “and confound their speech.” Yitro is telling Moses that his words will create confusion as he has to deal with so many people simultaneously so that his listeners would also become confused by what they heard. As a result, one would shout at the other. Yitro tells Moses that he cannot accomplish what he sets out to do by the method he has chosen.

גם אתה, the word גם is meant to include Aaron and Chur. This seems odd, as Chur was killed during the incident with the golden calf as explained by Rashi on Exodus 32,5 on the words ויבן מזבח לפניו, where Rashi says the word מזבח is to be read as if the vowels had been mi-zavoach; we would have to answer that that interpretation was based on the scholars who claim that Yitro arrived before the revelation at Mount Sinai, at which time Chur had still been alive.

"Now listen to me and I will advise you, and may the Word of Hashem be your support. You be for the people the one to seek instruction from before Hashem, and you shall bring the matters before Hashem."

איעצך ויהי אלהים עמך I WILL GIVE THEE COUNSEL BUT LET GOD BE WITH THEE in considering this counsel. This is really what he said to him: Go and consult with the Almighty as regards the counsel I give you (Mekhilta). היה אתה לעם מול האלהים BE THOU FOR THE PEOPLE TO GOD-WARD — be thou the agent and intermediary between them and the Omnipresent, and be thou the one who enquires of Him regarding the judgments. את הדברים [AND THOU SHALT BRING] THE MATTERS — i. e. the matters of their strife.

AND G-D BE WITH THEE. “I.e., in this counsel. Jethro said to Moses, ‘Go and consult with the Almighty.’” Thus Rashi’s language. And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote: “‘Listen to me, and G-d will help you to succeed as I have counselled you.’ Further, however, Jethro said, ‘If thou shalt do this thing, and G-d command thee so, which means ‘if you will do this thing — i.e., that you will consult with the Almighty — and He will command you to do it, then you will be able to endure.’ And there is no doubt that Moses did so” [i.e., he first consulted with G-d and received His sanction and then proceeded to make this arrangement]. BE THOU FOR THE PEOPLE ‘MUL’ G-D. That is, “‘before’ G-d.” Jethro told Moses, “Be thou their intercessor before G-d, to pray to Him.” This is like the verse, I call by day; I cry in the night before Thee. AND BRING THOU THE CAUSES — namely, which they will ask — UNTO G-D. Jethro conceded the first matter that Moses had said, i.e., Because the people come unto me to inquire of G-d. It is possible that in this too there was counselling on his part. Jethro would thus be saying: “Be thou for the people before G-d, to sit in the Tent of Meeting before Him, ready to inquire of Him [on the matters they bring to you]. And this should not be at the place where you sit in judgment [to adjudicate their disputes].”

"Now listen to my voice, I will counsel you": I will give you advice. — Know that the word "Elohim" is an adjectival noun, as I have explained; but because it is so frequently used, people treat this adjectival noun as though it were a proper noun: "Let God see me among my enemies" (Ps. 59:11), "In the beginning God created" (Gen. 1:1), and many like these. Therefore our Sages, may their memory be blessed, reckoned it among the divine names that may not be erased. — "The meaning of 'may God be with you'": that Hashem will help you if you do so. And at the end of his words he told him to take permission from Hashem for this counsel — that is what he says: "and God will command you." There is no doubt that Moses did so. — "The meaning of 'you shall be for the people'": on behalf of the people. — "Facing God": toward Hashem. — "And you shall bring the matters": the difficult ones. These are the matters of which Moses spoke at first — "when they have a matter, they come to me" (v. 16) — and the meaning is explained afterward: "the hard matter they shall bring to you."

היה אתה לעם מול האלוקים, be their intermediary to advise the people of the various commandments G’d wants them to perform. והבאת אתה את הדברים אל האלוקים, An example of such a case is presented in Numbers 9,8 as well as in Numbers 27,5 where Moses submitted a problem to which he did know the answer to G’d before communicating the answer he received to the people afterwards.

היה אתה לעם מול האלוקים, “be you for the nation an intermediary between them and G-d;” Yitro meant that Moses appoint himself as intermediary due his constantly being prepared through ritual purity and readiness to warn them against trespassing any of G-d’s laws.

היה אתה לעם מול האלו-הים, “be you a representative of the people before G’d.” Yitro meant: “you are to present the people’s prayer to G’d on their behalf,” as we find in Psalms 88,2 “when I cry out in the night before You.” The psalmist uses the word נגדך. והבאת אתה את הדברים אל האלו-הים, “and you will bring the matters to G’d.” Yitro acknowledged the first of Moses’ explanations, i.e. that the people ask him to intercede on their behalf.

ויהי ה' עמך, “and may the Lord be with you.” According to Rashi this was an advice to govern the people with fortitude, with confidence in his ability to judge them fairly. Ibn Ezra feels that the meaning of Yitro’s words שמע בקולי ויהי אלוקים עמך, were a prayer that Moses would succeed in carrying out his advice. At the tail end of his remarks Yitro suggested that Moses obtain G’d’s consent for adopting his suggestions. This is what he meant when he said וצוך אלוקים ויכלת לעמוד, “when G’d will give you the requisite instructions you will be able to be equal to the task.” He entertained no doubt that Moses would carry out the suggestions and govern the people with determination. היה אתה לעם מול האלוקים, “you be a representative of the people vis-à-vis G’d.” Nachmanides explains concerning Yitro’s initial reaction to Moses telling him that the people come to him in their search for G’d, that Yitro completely agreed that this was Moses’ function, i.e. to be the intermediary between the people and G’d. He realized that no one else could take Moses’ place in this respect. He also agreed that not only was it Moses’ duty to submit the people’s requests to G’d, but also to communicate G’d’s answer to them. He further agreed that it was Moses’ task to instruct the people initially in all these matters. He did not agree however, that it was necessary for Moses, personally, to get involved in every little judicial dispute between individuals, i.e. in what Moses had referred to as ושפטתי בין איש לרעהו, “I have to render judgment between man and his fellow.” These matters, Yitro told him he must learn to delegate, else he would undo more than he had set out to accomplish. It is also possible that even in matters which did need clarification by G’d directly, Yitro told Moses that this did not need to take place in full view of the people, etc, but that Moses should sit inside the Tabernacle, able to give his full attention to G’d’s answer, etc., instead of being surrounded by a mob of people all the time. He did urge him to exercise extreme caution when handing down decisions so that it would never appear as if he arrived at such decisions arbitrarily. All of this is part of the meaning of והזהרתה, והודעת, etc. You will note that in this connection Yitro did not mention the need to employ judges and law enforcers. He was fully aware that Moses had many officials at his service who would see to it that judgment once pronounced, would be carried out. He allowed that matters beyond the competence of the judges should be submitted to Moses personally for adjudication.

ויהי אלוקים עמך, meaning you will be able to stand the pressure. (compare verse 23) היה אתה לעם מול האלוקים, for those rulings which require Divine revelation you will act as the people’s mediator by listening to what G’d has decided, and you will warn them accordingly. This is the meaning of the words הדבר הקשה יביאו אליך in verse 22. Any other matters the helpers, i.e. the chiefs of ten, fifty, etc. will decide by themselves. The result will be that you will be greatly relieved.

"And you shall instruct them in the statutes and the Torah, and make known to them the way in which they are to walk and the deeds that they are to do."

AND THOU SHALT TEACH THEM THE STATUTES AND THE LAWS, AND SHALT SHOW THEM THE WAY WHEREIN THEY MUST WALK. That is, “according to the law and the commandment with which you will strongly admonish them, and you will teach the law and the commandment.” Thus Jethro also conceded to Moses on this matter, of which he had said, and I make them know the statutes of G-d, and His laws. In this too there was counsel [on the part of Jethro], i.e., that Moses should strongly admonish them and warn them of the commandments and [Divine] punishments [in case of transgression], since he himself would not be involved in the execution of the law. “But in matters of judgment whereof you said, and I judge between a man and his neighbor, designate judges to act with you, for the thing is too heavy for thee. That is, the judging of disputes between them is heavier than all, and it would be good for you and for them to make it easier for you and they shall bear the burden with thee.” Now it is known that Moses had officers in charge of the people. [It was the duty of these officers] to bring before him the persons against whom claims had been made and to force them to comply with the verdict of the judges. He assigned many of these officers as these judges. This is why Moses said in Deuteronomy, and I made them heads over you, captains of thousands… and officers, tribe by tribe. There was no need to mention them here since their appointment was not part of Jethro’s counsel.

"Ve-hizharta": the second function you mentioned — you are obligated to teach them and instruct them in points of uncertainty, for it is a great burden to make known every act that they are to perform. The meaning of "ve-hizharta" is from "he had not been warned" (Ezek. 33:5), meaning: he should have been on guard. — "Otam": two words. — This refers to warning them regarding positive commandments and negative commandments that are bound up in the heart — which is the essential matter — such as loving Hashem and cleaving to Him, fearing Him, walking in His ways, circumcising the foreskin of the heart, not hating one's brother, not taking vengeance, not bearing a grudge. So too Moses says: "in your mouth and in your heart to do it" (Deut. 30:14), and many like these. — "They shall walk in it": like "in which they shall walk." — "And the deed that they shall do": these are positive commandments to be enacted in practice. Most of them are not standing positive commandments in themselves but are for remembrance — such as the Sabbath, the festivals, the redemption of the firstborn, love of the stranger, tzitzit, tefillin, prayer, mezuzah, sha'atnez, and many others — and I will explain them each in their place.

והזהרת אתהם את החקים ואת התורה, “and you will caution them regarding the decrees and the teachings.” Yitro also acknowledged the need for Moses to deal with the second matter he had mentioned personally, i.e. to inform the people of the decrees and the teachings mentioned in verse 16. However, concerning the third matter, i.e. Moses being the adjudicator of every dispute, Yitro did not agree that Moses personally had to deal with such matters. This is why he said to him (verse 18) “this matter is too hard for you (personally)”. He therefore suggested that Moses deputise people to carry out litigations in his place. He stipulated that the people appointed for such a task be אנשי חיל, (an attribute we will discuss in verse 21).

"And you shall discern from among all the people capable men who fear Hashem — men of truth who hate the acceptance of bribes — and appoint over them leaders of thousands, leaders of hundreds, leaders of fifties, and leaders of tens."

ואתה תחזה MOREOVER THOU SHALT PROVIDE through the Holy Spirit that is upon thee (Mekhilta), אנשי חיל MEN OF ABILITY (but חיל may mean “wealth” and in this sense the words would mean) — rich men who will not need to flatter or to show favour (cf. Mekhilta). אנשי אמת MEN OF TRUTH — These are people commanding confidence (Mekhilta); who are deserving that one should rely upon their words — appoint these as judges because on account of this their words will be listened to. שנאי בצע HATING LUCRE — men who hate (pay no regard to) their property when it is to be made the matter of a law-suit (Mekhilta), in accordance with what we say: Any judge from whom one has to wring the money he owes only by means of a law-suit is no fitting judge (Bava Batra 58b). שרי אלפים OFFICERS OF THOUSANDS — there were six hundred such officers for the six hundred thousand men of Israel. שרי מאות OFFICERS OF HUNDREDS — there were six thousand of them. שרי חמשים OFFICERS OF FIFTIES — twelve thousand. שרי עשרת OFFICERS OF TENS — sixty thousand (Mekhilta, Sanhedrin 18a).

MEN OF ‘CHAYIL.’ This means men who are capable of leading a great multitude of people. Every assembly and gathering is called chayil, and it does not apply only to soldiers going forth to war. Thus it is said [of the dry bones that Ezekiel resurrected], a great ‘chayil’ (host). Of the locusts it is said, My great ‘chayil’ (army). Of wealth it is stated, My power and the might of my hand hath gotten this ‘chayil’ (wealth); they carry upon the shoulders of young asses ‘chayaleihem’ (their riches). Of fruits it is said, the fig-tree and the vine do yield ‘cheilam’ (their strength). Thus an ish chayil in the administration of justice is one who is wise, alert, and fair; in war, an ish chayil is one who is strong, alert, and who knows the art of arraying forces in battle. A woman also is an eisheth chayil (a woman of valor) when she is alert and knows how to conduct the management of a home. Jethro thus spoke in general and in particular. [In general], he told Moses to select people with powers of leadership in the administration of justice for this great people. In particular, they should be such as fear G-d, men of truth, hating unjust gain, for it is impossible for them to be “men of chayil” in judgment, without these qualities. It was not necessary for him to mention that they must be wise and understanding, for it is clear that these qualities are included in the term “men of chayil.” Further on, when it says, And Moses chose men of ‘chayil,’ everything is already included — i.e., that they were G-d-fearing, men who hated unjust gain, wise and understanding. Moreover, Scripture says [that Moses chose them] out of all Israel, which means [that they were] the preferred of all Israel, being the ones who have all of these qualities. Since Scripture states that he chose them out of all Israel, it is already stating that they were chosen in preference to all, for it is known that the better ones in Israel possess all good qualities. Jethro, however, not being familiar with them, found it necessary to explain in detail [that they be G-d-fearing, men of truth, etc.]Some scholars explain anshei chayil as men of physical strength and zeal, such as have ability to stand in the king’s palace. Similarly, eisheth chayil is a woman of strength and industry in the work of the home, as Scripture explains there in that section. Likewise, Make them wander to and fro ‘b’cheilcha,’ which means “by Thy power.” Also, Neither doth it, [i.e., the horse], afford escape by its great ‘cheilo,’ [which means “by its great strength”]. The word [chayil] is associated with the Aramaic, as is evidenced by the [Hebrew] expression, ‘yesh l’eil yadi’ (It is in the power of my hand), which is rendered in the Targum: “there is cheila in my hand.” And further on it says, And Moses chose men of ‘chayil’ out of all Israel, which means the preferred ones of the entire nation and all qualities are included, as I have explained. HATING UNJUST GAIN. “Men who disdain their own money in a ...

"Ve-atah techezeh": I have already informed you that speakers of the holy tongue do not scrutinize individual letters but only meanings; therefore we should not search for defective and plene spellings, as I will yet explain. — Now Jethro mentioned "men of valor" who have the strength to bear burdens and who will not be intimidated. Corresponding to "men of valor," Moses said when he recounted the matter: "Choose for yourselves men" (Deut. 1:13), as in "choose for us men" (above, 17:9) — "all of them men" (Num. 13:3). — He said: "God-fearing men" — who fear no human being, only Hashem alone. Corresponding to them Moses said: "wise and discerning men" (Deut. 1:13), for one cannot truly fear Heaven except one who is wise. — Jethro said: "men of truth" — who are not liars. — "Who hate unjust gain" (betza'): money. These are recognizable as such to the eyes of others. Corresponding to them Moses said: "known men" (Deut. 1:13). — "Commanders of thousands": One must wonder — if these commanders are to be understood literally, their number would be more than seventy-nine thousand, and this seems very far-fetched, that there should be so many commanders. Scripture says: "When a land transgresses, it has many rulers" (Prov. 28:2). Furthermore, how could an eighth of the camp be tribal leaders? — for so Moses said: "I took the heads of your tribes" (Deut. 1:15) — and among them one would find all the good qualities mentioned. And these were people who came out of Egypt and had learned its ways, as is written: "Like the deeds of the land of Egypt" (Lev. 18:3). And the generation of the wilderness Moses taught for forty years, and they had no need to practice a trade, for their bread was given to them and their waters were reliable. The manna was enlightening — unlike the mixed multitude who craved things they had not been accustomed to eat in Egypt. And Moses said to them in the fortieth year: "Hashem did not give you a heart to know" (Deut. 29:3). One must wonder, then, how the number mentioned could be found [among them], with all of them being wise and discerning. In my view, the correct interpretation is that "commanders of thousands" are those who have a thousand men — servants, lads, or hired men — under their authority; perhaps these are the tribal heads, numbering twelve. The commanders of hundreds are many in number, and the commanders of fifties — in the manner of "fifty men running before him" (II Sam. 15:1).

ואתה תחזה מכל העם, select, and then appoint. The only area in which you alone are competent is the choosing of suitably qualified helpers, in accordance with the guidelines Yitro outlined. When it came to handing down judicial decisions, however, there would be 78600 appointees of four different levels of competence who would deal with all but the most perplexing problems without having to come to Moses for approval of their rulings. Initially a problem would be submitted to one of the 60000 men appointed as “chief” of ten. If such a man did not know the answer he would refer it to one of the 12000 chiefs of 50, and so on in an ascending order. The different levels of judges would in effect act as appellate judges, reviewing if judgments made by the lower ranking judges and appealed should be changed.

ואתה תחזה מכל העם אנשי חיל "and you shall seek out from amongst all the people able men, etc." This does not mean that the people should appoint the judges, but that Moses should look for suitable candidates. The Torah also hints that inasmuch as Moses would do the appointing, he could view himself as the judge seeing his appointees were his delegates. מכל העם, "from amongst all the people, etc." This means that although Moses might find candidates acceptable to him he should not appoint them until they also proved acceptable to all the people and the people asked for these men to be appointed as judges. אנשי חיל, יראי אלוקים, וגו׳ "able and G'd-fearing men, etc." Yitro spoke of four different qualifications corresponding to the four levels of judges he had suggested, i.e. chiefs of tens, chiefs of fifties, chiefs of hundreds and chiefs of thousands. The expression אנשי חיל is an all encompassing term, i.e. people who possess all the necessary qualifications mentioned to the fullest extent. Such people would be appointed as chiefs of thousands. In order to qualify as a chief of hundreds, Yitro demanded that the judges possess fear of the Lord; the reason that he mentioned יראי אלוקים (instead of יראי השם, for instance) was that their fear of the Lord need comprise only fear of punishment if they trespassed the Lord's commandments. This qualification was adequate to qualify a person to be a chief of hundreds. Although fear of the Lord in His capacity as the tetragram might be perceived as a higher qualification, in this instance it was not. Fear of the Lord as awe of the majesty represented by G'd includes awareness of all of G'd's attributes including the fact that He may be forgiving, display patience, etc. These latter considerations would make a judge think that if he committed an error G'd would be indulgent with him. It was important to Yitro that the judge would be constantly aware of the penalty he would face if he perverted justice. Yitro's point is best illustrated in Chagigah 4 where the prophet Samuel who had been raised from the dead by the witch employed by King Saul was visibly frightened (Samuel 28,15). If Samuel had reason to be concerned, how much more must ordinary individuals be afraid of G'd's justice. The Talmud reports that Samuel did not make an appearance until Moses himself accompanied him as a protector. The chiefs of thousands also possessed this quality of fear of punishment; in their case they possessed an additional qualification which the chiefs of hundreds did not need to possess. Concerning the qualifications needed in order to be appointed as one of the chiefs of fifties, Yitro demanded that these judges be known as truthful. Although these people did not possess the level of fear of punishment which characterised their colleagues the chiefs of hundreds, their reputation as truthful men sufficed to make them eligible as chiefs of fifties. Finally, in order to qualify as a chief of tens it was only necessary to...

אנשי חיל, “men who are mentally able to through the strength of their personalities to endure the people demand and not be cowed by their threats." יראי אלוקים, men who only fear G-d, and not their fellow human beings. שונאי בצע, men who despise to make money only through being successful in litigation. Rashi bases himself on the saying in the Talmud in Baba Batra folio 58; “any judge from whom one extracts money only by means of legal proceedings, is not fit to be a judge.”What is the correct interpretation of the expression: “they hate money gained through litigation?” Example: one of the litigants threatens the judge that if he is not found justified in his claim against his fellow man, that litigant will burn the judge’s house down, or threats of a similar nature. If such a judge is undeterred by such threats, he truly fits the definition of people whom Yitro called שונאי בצע. If, however he indicts the innocent and convicts the guilty, out of fear of the threats that had been made against him, the opposite party of the one who had won in the litigation is considered as having won judgment only by dint of legal proceedings but not by dint of having been found righteous in his claim. שרי אלפים, “chiefs in charge of thousands; according to Rashi, there would be 600 such “chiefs.” There would be six thousand chiefs” of hundreds and 60000 chiefs of ten Israelites each, so that there would be a total of 78600 “judges.” If so we have to assume that these were in addition to the 600000 ordinary Israelites, and who had not been included in the census. [There are numerous problems with this count. See Tossaphot Baba Batra 121, Ed.] Some commentators suggest that there is no problem at all as all these “judges” were over the age of 60, and thus would not have been included in the census at any rate. The Talmud stated explicitly that males under 20 years of age and over 60 years of age were never included in any census. A third opinion holds that each group of “chiefs” was included in the census of his particular category, i.e. the chiefs of thousands in the count of each one thousand Israelites, etc.

ואתה תחזה, “as for you, you are to discern, etc.” We would have expected Yitro to say: “you shall select,” instead of “you will discern.” In fact, when it came to carrying out Yitro’s advice the Torah reports that Moses ויבחר אנשי חיל, “selected men who were accomplished.” The reason two different words were used for the selection of the appointees is that whereas man sees with his eyes, the exterior, i.e. תחזה, Yitro who was aware of man’s limitations in the matter advised Moses to do the most he could, i.e. judge by appearances. He hoped that Moses would have the prophetic insight, i.e. חזיון, visionary quality, to select the right people. When it came to carrying out the advice the Torah reports that Moses had Divine assistance so that the people he “selected,” were confirmed to possess the attributes Moses had judged that they had. Another approach to the words: ואתה תחזה. We have stated on another occasion that the truly righteous person reflects this quality in his face so that even ferocious beasts do not attack him. Similarly, great men such as Yaakov can read facial expressions accurately so that they know what quality of person they face. Here too, Yitro told Moses that he was the kind of individual who could make such judgments based on merely looking at people from the outside. By emphasizing the word ואתה, Yitro meant that he was confident that Moses was able to select the right people without special Divine assistance. מכל העם אנשי חיל, “from amongst all the people men of accomplishment.” The term אנשי חיל is a collective term and presupposes that these people possessed all the individual qualities Yitro had enumerated such as being “G’d-fearing, men of truth, people despising money.” The title אנשי חיל is applied to people who can lead the nation by judging fairly. It is impossible for fair judgment to be dispensed unless those dispensing it possess reverence for G’d and His Torah, despise ill gotten gain such as bribes, and are truthful. Our sages (Sanhedrin 7) have stated that a true judge is someone who in his mind’s eye constantly sees a sword at his neck above, and gehinom opening before him below, he being in the middle. If he merits it he will be saved from both, if not he will be afflicted by both. Judges must also be “men of truth,” meaning they must love truth as a value by itself choosing to side only with truth, refusing to accept arguments based on lies. They must personify the principle expressed in Exodus 23,7 applying to judges (according to Ibn Ezra) “keep your distance from anything deceitful.” They must also be שונאי בצע, i.e. display a disdain for money. This applies to a disdain for their own money, money acquired honestly (Sifri on Deut. 1,17). It goes without saying that they must hate money that was taken from others illegally. (compare Genesis 37,26). The author quotes Scripture to show that the word בצע may mean simply ”money.” An alternative meaning of the word בצע may be “robbery.” The requirement of the psychological makeup of the personality of a judge would have to be a hatred against anything acquired by means of violence direct or indirect, i.e. the threat of violence. In order to appreciate how highly these virtues were esteemed by the Torah we need only look at instances of the Torah complimenting outstanding individuals. Noach (Genesis 6,9) was praised for being righteous and perfect (תמים), a contrast to the violence which permeated mankind at the time and resulted in the decree of the deluge. Avraham was praised and instructed to be תמים, (Genesis 17,1). Yaakov was described as תם, (Genesis 25,27) Moses was described as extremely ענו, humble, the opposite of arrogant, demanding. All of this goes to show that the principal quality of a judge is not his intellect but his personal virtue. Just as the trunk of a tree is not its most important component but the fruit it yields, our sages taught us that the meaning of Psalm 111,10 שכל טוב לכל עושיהם, is that not the לומדיהם, the intelligence itself, is the principal value of a clever brain but the use to which he puts such intelligence., i.e. עושיהם (Berachot 17).

And you shall see from among all the people men of valor, etc. Because our Sages of blessed memory said (Nedarim 38a) that the Holy One, blessed be He, only rests His Divine Presence upon one who is strong, wise, wealthy, and humble, and Moses possessed all these qualities. Therefore, Jethro mentioned all these four attributes here, since a judge needs all of them. Thus it is said, And you shall see with the divine spirit that is upon you, for from it will be taken to emanate upon the elders who sit in judgment. And they need to resemble you in all the attributes that you possess, for the one who emanates and the one who receives the emanation must have a similarity and relationship between them, and all the virtues that are in you must also be in the judges. Men of valor — these are the mighty in strength, who have the power to break the arrogant arms of those who say our hand is high, for any judge who is weak in strength is presumed to transgress the prohibition do not fear him. God-fearing — these are the humble ones, for humility leads to fear [of God], as it is said The result of humility is the fear of the Lord (Proverbs 22:4). Therefore it is said, He leads the humble in justice. For through humility one comes to fear [of God], and anyone who is arrogant in rendering legal decisions is a fool, a wicked person, and haughty. Men of truth — these are the wise ones who know how to discern between truth and falsehood in order to judge a true judgment according to its truth, for who is the fool who turns from discerning between truth and falsehood? Without doubt, he does not know nor understand, in darkness he walks. Haters of gain — these are the wealthy who have everything and do not take ill-gotten gain. And for any poor judge, there is concern that he might take a bribe to pervert justice. And regarding these four groups, the psalmist said (Psalms 82:1), A psalm of Asaph: God stands in the divine assembly; among the powers He pronounces judgment. For the Holy One, blessed be He, stands to judge the judges of Israel for the injustice done among them. This is what is meant by among the powers — namely, the judges — He pronounces judgment, to speak justice to them. And it says, How long will you judge perversely, showing favor to the wicked? Selah. This refers to the absence of fear [of God], for when a judge does not fear God and is arrogant, then he shows excessive favor to the wicked so that they will honor and elevate him as well, due to the judge’s haughtiness as he seeks self-aggrandizement. Judge the wretched and the orphan, vindicate the lowly and the poor. This teaches that they were not wealthy and would take bribes; therefore, no poor person or orphan would ever be found righteous in his case because he had nothing to give the judge as a bribe. Afterwards it says, Rescue the wretched and the needy, save them from the hand of the wicked. For they would appoint weak judges who did not have the power to rescue and save the poor from those stronger than them. Then it says, They neither know nor understand; they walk about in darkness. For they would appoint judges who neither learned nor reasoned, lacking wisdom. Therefore, they did not know right from left, nor could they distinguish truth from falsehood. Consequently, all the foundations of the earth totter. For the world stands on justice, and when the foundation is corrupted, the structure built upon it also falls.I had taken you for divine beings. For one who judges truthfully becomes like a partner with the Holy One, blessed be He, to be like God. But indeed, you shall die as mortals, for he too caused corruption in the world like you. Arise, O God, judge the earth. For when there is no justice below, there is justice above, because judgment belongs to God. And whatever the judge takes from one person unjustly, the Holy One, blessed be He, returns it and gives him from His own. This is what is meant by for You shall have possession of all the nations. It is upon You to give them possession; therefore, judgment belongs to God.

אנשי חיל, “competent people,” people capable of dealing with the masses, i.e. people who have been endowed with numerous qualities, otherwise they would not be equal to the task. Having summed up the nature of such people, Yitro proceeds to list the specific qualities such people must possess in order to carry out their duties satisfactorily. Before referring to such people’s common sense, he mentions that their motivations must be above board, such as their being G’d-fearing, not greedy for money, truthful, etc., but all this is not enough unless they have been endowed with common sense, such as being נבונים. The latter quality need not be spelled out, as it is self-evident. [both Isaiah 5,21, and Jeremiah 4,22, refer to the basic requirement of this “common sense.” It is also the first attribute mentioned by Joseph in his advice to Pharaoh to appoint people who would administer the surplus during the seven bountiful years to come. Genesis Ed.] When reviewing these events in Deuteronomy 1,12, Moses does mention that he had asked the people to furnish him men endowed with common sense in addition to the other attributes as his assistants. [certain details which Moses saw fit to spell out to the common people, Yitro did not have to spell out to his brilliant son-in-law. Ed.] It is also possible that when we read in verse 25 that Moses selected men מכל ישראל, this term already includes that he had narrowed down the selection to the elite of the people, so that he did not need to repeat more than the term אנשי חיל to show that he had taken Yitro’s advice to heart. שונאי בצע, “men who despise money acquired by unfair means.” According to the plain meaning of the text, what Yitro had in mind were people who could not be bribed. Some commentators see in this term a reference to people who despise amassing financial wealth as an investment in the future, people who demonstrate their lack of faith in G’d the provider, by building a “nest-egg.” [after all the idea of G’d providing manna for only a day at time was meant to instill in the people this very trust in G’d as their Provider. Ed.] Rashi [according to some views. Ed.] understood the term literally, people who hated the very idea that money would be obtained though legally, only through the intervention of a tribunal which had to assess one’s legal claim to it. A שונא בצע would be a person who pays up rather than allows the claim against him to be decided in court, even when he thinks he does not owe the money demanded. [we may each have our own views about the unworldly nature of such people and their use in judging the people. This editor cannot imagine that Yitro was so naive as to think that such men could be found in large numbers. Ed.] Still other commentators understand the term שונאי בצע as referring to judges who resist being intimidated by litigants who threaten them if they do not rule in their favour. [this would be equivalent to Moses warning the judges (Deut. 1,17) לא תגורו מפני איש, “do not tremble before any man.”] שרי אלפים ושרי מאות, “leaders of thousands, and leaders of hundreds.” This verse answers the problem raised by Ibn Ezra, who could not understand why fully one eighth of the people (78600) were “chiefs” of one kind or another. (compare Deut. 1,15) Here there was no need to spell out how many of these people were appointed as judges, how many law enforcers, seeing that the appointment of judges without law enforcers is something quite futile. Clearly, the people described as ראשי שופטיכם, “your chief justices,” must have been drawn from the group described here as שרי אלפים “leaders of thousands.”

אנשי חיל, wealthy and influential people who had no reason to be afraid of any of their peers. שנאי בצע, people who hated ill gotten gains. Bribery and robbery are often referred to as בצע. (compare Chabakuk 2,9). Compare also Genesis 37,26 where Yehudah when saying מה בצע כי נהרוג את אחינו, means: “any gain that we would derive from killing our brother would be illegitimate, illegal.” In Job 27,8 we find a similar use of the word בצע.

שרי אלפים, “chiefs over a thousand each.” In the chapter of the Talmud tractate Sanhedrin dealing with this chapter it is pointed out that there were 600 chiefs over a thousand each, 6000 chiefs over 100 each and 60000 over each group of 10 Israelites plus 12000 over each group of 50 Israelites. If that had been so, there were no 600000 privates left in that army. We would have to assume therefore that Moses started with appointing 60000 potential chiefs. Having done so, he proceeded step by step to appoint the most capable of them to become either chiefs over 50, or over 1o00, or over 1000 each. As to the statement in the Talmud there that there were a total of 78600 chiefs of different ranks, this number applied to the people appointed as judges. Alternately, whereas the active soldiers were all of the ages between 20 and years of age, the officers over 50, 100, and 1000, respectively, could have been over 60 years of age.

"Let them judge the people at all times; and every great matter they shall bring to you, but every minor matter they shall judge themselves — and they will lighten the burden from you and bear it together with you."

ושפטו — Onkelos translates this by וידונון AND LET THEM JUDGE (not “and they judged”, as in v. 26) — the word expresses a command. והקל מעליך lit., AND TO LIGHTEN the burden FROM OFF YOU — this thing will serve to lighten it from off you. והקל — the grammatical form is similar to (Exodus 8:11) ”and to harden (והכבד) his heart”; (2 Kings 3:24) “and to smite (והכות) Moab” — both of which words are infinitives expressing present time.

AND LET THEM JUDGE THE PEOPLE AT ALL TIMES. The meaning thereof is that “when there will be many judges available, the oppressed one will go to the judge at any time he desires and he will find him ready [to listen to his grievance]. He cannot come near you [i.e., Moses] at any time because of the great multitude of people before you and on account of your many preoccupations. The result of this is that many of them will rather tolerate the violence committed against them because they have no opportunity to tell it to you. They do not want to abandon their work and affairs to wait for a free moment when they will be able to approach you.” This is the sense of the expression, each one shall go to his place in peace. At present, because they cannot come near for judgment at all times, they will not rest in peace, since this opens a door for unjust people to commit violence and for oppressors to cause contention. And the meaning of the expression to his place is that to whatever place they will come, [they will live in peace] as long as they are in the camp in the wilderness. From the language, And let them judge the people ‘at all times,’ our Rabbis have derived the principle that in civil cases, the verdict may be reached even during the night, since it does not say here, “[and let them judge the people] the whole day.”

"Ve-shaftu": They shall judge the matter; and whatever they do not know how to judge, you shall judge. And if you do not know, you shall bring the matters to God.

והקל מעליך, the many minor disputes which do not need to be adjudged by you, personally. ונשאו אתך, they will give you the chance to give your full attention to those problems that are complicated by sharing the burden of leadership with you. They will also dispense knowledge to the people.

בכל עת, "at all times." The Torah hints that even at times when Moses was busy receiving instructions from G'd these judges would continue to dispense justice, something that Moses had not been able to do. והקל מעליך ונשאו אתך, "so they shall make it easier for you and bear the burden with you." Yitro meant that his suggestion was intended to lighten Moses' burden, not that he would not be allowed to judge any other than the most difficult cases. The idea was that the other judges should share the burden together with Moses.

ושפטו את העם בכל עת, “they would be ready to sit in judgment of the people at any time.” The reason they would always be available, said Yitro, was that they did not have to take time out to speak with G-d as Moses often was in the habit of doing. והקל מעליך, “thus you can make it easier for yourself;” according to some commentators this phrase can be understood not only as advice or prediction, but as tantamount to a command.

ושפטו את העם בכל עת, “they shall judge the people at all times.” The meaning of the words בכל עת is “at all times convenient to the people.” As long as Moses was the only judge it was obviously impossible for a litigant to get justice when he wanted to. Moses was constantly swamped with petitioners. If Yitro’s advice were accepted this would change.

כל הדבר הגדול, needs to be addressed to G’d.

"If you do this thing, and Hashem commands you, then you will be able to stand firm, and also all this people will go to their place in peace."

וצוך אלהים ויכלת עמד This implies: Consult the Almighty; if He commands thee to do this, thou wilt be able to stand, and if He prevents thee thou wilt be unable to stand (Mekhilta). וגם כל העם הזה AND ALL THIS PEOPLE ALSO — Aaron, Nadab and Abihu and the seventy elders who are now associated with you (Mekhilta).

"The vav of ve-yacholta": is like a soft peh in Arabic — meaning: if you do this thing, and Hashem gives you permission to do it, then you will be able to stand. The word "amod" (to stand) is an infinitive, as in "stand at the entrance of the tent" (Judg. 4:20), and likewise "to spread out and strip bare and gird upon the loins" (Isa. 32:11). — "The meaning of 'and also all this people'": the litigants who were standing before him — some of them cannot get to speak to you to have their case judged, and when they return to their tents the quarrel between them intensifies. But now each one will go to his own place — meaning his tent — in peace.

על מקומו יבא בשלום, seeing that the knowledge of the law will be widespread in so many lower courts, every litigant will know that the judgment he received was true and impartial. They will therefore not continue to constantly appeal such judgments.

אם את הדבר הזה תעשה וצוך השם, "if you will do this thing and the Lord will command you, etc." Why did Yitro add the rider about G'd commanding Moses to accept his suggestion? If Yitro wanted for Moses to consult with G'd about the matter, he had already done so in verse 19 when he said: "I will give you an advice and G'd will be with you." Why did he have to repeat himself? Perhaps Yitro was afraid of Moses arguing that after all was said and done he would forfeit the opportunity to perform the commandments of teaching the people G'd's commandments and that it was not the way of the righteous to look for ways to ease their burdens even if they would tire from shouldering them. After all, man was born in order to carry burdens (Job 5,7). In order to forestall such an argument, Yitro said: "and if the Lord will command you." Yitro was not unaware of the physical strength required to be a prophet. We have a description of how Daniel found himself physically weak in the presence of an angel (Daniel 10,8). Imagine how much weaker he would have been had he faced G'd as Moses did on an almost daily basis. Our sages in Nedarim 38 state that the spirit of prophecy rests only on people who are physically superior, of heroic dimensions. Moses had refined his body so that he did not experience weakness even when he had a gruelling day of sitting in judgment. Nonetheless he was only a human being with all that this implies. Yitro told him therefore that he should forego this particular commandment which was capable of fulfilment by others in order to be able to fulfil his task as a prophet in the best manner possible. When Yitro said: "if you do this thing and G'd commands you, you will be able to endure," he meant that if Moses accepted his advice he would be able to endure as a prophet, i.e. when G'd would communicate with him and teach him other commandments because you have husbanded your strength. When Yitro said ויכלת עמוד, you will be able to stand, he meant that Moses would retain sufficient strength to receive G'd's communications while remaining standing on his feet. We have proof that this is what occurred in Exodus 34,2 where G'd tells Moses: "stand with Me there on top of the Mountain," and in Deut. 5,28 where G'd invited Moses: "stand here with Me." Yitro was afraid that unless Moses reduced his present workload this would undermine his physical ability to carry out his prophetic duties to the full.

על מקומו, “to his tent.” יבוא בשלום, they will immediately be able to go home, as they did not have to line up at a single point [in a camp the size of which was over 12 by 12 kilometers. Ed.]

“If you do this thing and God commands you.” Certainly Moses would not do this thing until after God commands him, and he needs to consult with the Divine Power first. If so, he [Jethro] should have reversed the order and said “God commands you” before “if you do this thing.” It appears that this refers to what was written [earlier]: And you shall warn them about the statutes and the laws, etc., and afterward And you shall select from all the people, etc. For you need to teach them God’s judgments first, as it is not appropriate to appoint a judge who has not learned and does not understand. Regarding this he said, If you do this thing — to teach them first the statutes of God and His laws, then God will command you — it is possible that the Holy One, blessed be He, will agree with your action, but before this He certainly will not agree. And regarding what is written, “and all this people shall come to their place in peace.” It seems that the word “ish” [man] is missing here, for it should have said, “each man to his place, etc.” And its interpretation would be that each individual person would sit in peace under their vine and their fig tree, when there is justice below and peace upon Israel. And since it does not say “ish” [man], we can learn that it is speaking about a general place designated for all the people together as one, and this can only be the Land of Israel, as it is written Justice, justice shall you pursue, that you may live and inherit the land (Deuteronomy 16:20). Rashi explained: “The appointment of proper judges is worthy to give life to Israel and to settle them on their land.” Therefore, it does not say here “shall dwell in peace,” but rather shall come in peace, to say that in the merit of appointing proper judges, all this people will come to their designated place, which is the land of Israel. There, all the people will come in peace, for they had not yet arrived there. This teaches that injustice corrupts the land, as proven by the generation of the flood, and they were exiled because of the absence of justice, as it is said They do not judge the orphan, etc. (Isaiah 1:23). And in the future, Zion shall be redeemed through justice (Isaiah 1:27). And he said about Moses, You will be able to endure, and also, all the people shall come to their place in peace. He excluded Moses from the general rule, because it had already been decreed upon him in the verse, Now you shall see what I will do to Pharaoh, etc. (Exodus 6:1), that Moses would certainly not come there [to the Land of Israel].

וצוך אלוקים, when G’d will command the answer you are to give to the judges. ויכלת לעמוד, with the help of your assistants. וגם כל העם הזה, the ones standing in line before you from morning to evening, יבא בשלום, will each be able to go home in short order.

Moses heeded the word of his father-in-law and did all that he had said.

"The meaning of vayishma' (and he hearkened)": Scripture mentions the counsel of Jethro, but does not mention the addition that Moses himself made to Jethro's counsel — namely, that he appointed officers (shotrim) over the tribes to carry out what the judges commanded. So it is written: "and officers for your tribes" (Deut. 1:15), and it is written: "Judges and officers you shall appoint for yourself in all your gates" (ibid. 16:18).

Moses chose capable men from all Israel and appointed them as heads over the people — leaders of thousands, leaders of hundreds, leaders of fifties, and leaders of tens.

"Moses chose men of valor": for this was a clear and evident quality. He did not mention God-fearing men, for only he alone knows the heart of a person; and Moses said that he chose wise men — for this too he could know. But there can be a wise man who does not fear Heaven. He mentioned "known men" — those recognizable to the eye — but did not mention them now, since he took the brief path [in his summary].

ויבחר משה אנשי חיל, after he had looked in vain to find men with all the qualifications Yitro had suggested. These men were experienced in ferreting out the truth so that they could bring litigation to a speedy conclusion. Men of this caliber were more important in such positions than men who could truthfully be described as G’d-fearing, but naïve and inexperienced in the ways of the world. Our sages in Shabbat 63 have said: “if a scholar is in the habit of taking revenge and holding grudges, gird him around your loins, whereas if an ignoramus is very pious do not live in his proximity.”

ויבחר משה אנשי חיל, “Moses selected capable men;” the meaning of the words אנשי חיל, is that he selected men whose qualities corresponded to the criteria stipulated by his father-in-law, Yitro in verse 21. Moses at least knew beyond doubt who were the wealthy men among the Israelites, and who could therefore be more or less immune to the temptation of bribes. As far as the invisible virtues were concerned that his father-in-law had stipulated as criteria for making someone suitable to be a judge, he had to rely on his intuition and G-d’s help. This is why they were not mentioned here[, as Moses’ judgment was not based on evidence acceptable in a court of law]. Even forty years later when Moses recalls the episode, he speaks only about characteristics which are visible, i.e. possessing insight, displaying wisdom and possessing knowledge, i.e חכמים נבונים, ידועים because these are characteristics that humans can recognize in their neighbors (Compare Deuteronomy 1,13). No one, on the other hand, can be sure if his fellow man truly is a G-d fearing person.

They judged the people at all times; the difficult matters they brought to Moses, and every minor matter they judged themselves.

ושפטו — Onkelos translates by ודינין ית עמא “and they were judging the people” (cf. Rashi on v. 22). יביאון — Onkelos translates this by מיתין (participle) “they were bringing” (or “they always brought”). יִשְׁפּוּטוּ הֵם — This is the same as יִשְׁפְּטוּ; similar is (Ruth 2:8) לֹא תַעֲבוּרִי which is the same as לֹא תַעַבְרִי. Its translation in the Targum is דינין אינון “they were judging”. The above verses (i. e. the verbs in v. 22) express the command and consequently they are translated by וידונון and ייתון and ידונון, “and let them judge”, and “let them bring”, and “let them judge”; but these verses express the doing of what was commanded (they state that the command was actually carried out).

"Yishpotu hem": This is like "yishpotu" with a shuruk in place of a holam, as in "do not pass over from here" (Ruth 2:8) for "do not cross." And R. Shlomo [Rashi] sought to distinguish between them but did not succeed. We can say on grammatical grounds that we have seen: "The open settlements in Israel ceased, they ceased" (Judg. 5:7) with the lamed doubled with a dagesh because it is under an etnah; "the mountains flowed down" (Isa. 63:19) — at the end of a verse; and "shall you mock him" (Job 13:9) — treated as though it were a verse-end, since the word "bo" is bound to "tithatelu" with only one vowel between them. And likewise "yishpetu hem" — as though it were "yishputu." However, one might object that the force of the etnah is not equal to the force of the verse-end: "under you let peoples fall" (Ps. 45:6), "Hashem is at your right hand" (ibid. 110:5), "You have dealt well with Your servant" (ibid. 119:65), and many like these — and this [form] is not found at a verse-end.

ישפוטו הם, they will judge in a number of locations. The construction pu in this word is in lieu of the normal construction פו with the vowel cholem.

Moses sent off his father-in-law, and he went his way to his own land.

וילך לו אל ארצו AND HE WENT HIS WAY INTO HIS OWN LAND, for the purpose of making proselytes of the members of his family (Mekhilta).

"Vayeshalach": in a dignified manner, as in "Abraham walked with them to see them off" (Gen. 18:16).

וישלח משה את חותנו, for he did not want to join the fate of the Jewish people by going with them to the land of Canaan. He had said clearly: לא אלך, “I am not going, for I am going back to my own country to my birthplace.” (Numbers 10,30) Perhaps this was due to his being of advanced age; we encounter such reticence to move to a better place when David offered Barzilai a home in Jerusalem and he declined, citing that at his age he would not enjoy what Jerusalem had to offer anyway. (Samuel II 19,38) He preferred to be buried with his father and mother. Yitro’s sons (and daughters?) however definitely joined the Jewish people in their journey to the Holy Land, as we know from Judges 1,16 where they are described as the children of the Keyni, the father-in-law of Moses. Bileam also prophesied concerning their future in Numbers 24,21.

וישלח, “he accompanied him, (when Yitro left for home;)” This is what he had learned from Avraham, who after royally hosting the angels saw them off by accompanying them some distance as reported in Genesis.ואברהם הולך עמם לשלחם :18,16Some commentators believe that the entire episode reported from the beginning of chapter 18, took place after the revelation of G-d at Mount Sinai when the people received the second set of the Tablets, Moses having smashed the first set. Moses had descended from the Mountain with that set on the tenth day of Tishrey, and the verse beginning with the words: ויהי ממחרת, “it was on the following day, etc.” would have been the 11th day of that month. (18,13) What had been reported prior to this, i.e. Yitro’ arrival, being welcomed, and offering sacrifices all took place still on the tenth, after Moses had arrived and placed the Tablets in the ark which had been prepared for it. This corresponds to the way Rashi explains all this at the end of Parshat ki tissa, (Exodus 33,11 and 34,29. Compare Rashi on Deuteronomy 1,9 on the whole subject and the apparent contradictions there.) Whether Yitro had arrived at the camp of the Israelites prior to the revelation or subsequently, there is unanimity amongst the sages that he did not return to his homeland before the second year in the month of lyar when the people made ready to proceed to the Holy Land, having been encamped around Mount Sinai for almost an entire year. If the line reporting Moses accompanying Yitro on his departure occurred in the chronological sequence reported by the Torah, then both he, Tzipporah, Moses’ wife, and his two sons would have belonged to the only generation that ever experienced such a revelation. If the Torah did not report events in their chronological sequence, we have to make peace with the fact that Tzipporah and her sons did not experience this event. [Yitro’s experiencing it or not is of secondary significance in the opinion of this editor. Ed.] The fact that neither of Moses’ sons are ever mentioned again by name in the Torah lends some support to the opinion that they had not stood at Mount Sinai.