Parasha: Yitro · Aliyah: First (Chesed)

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 escape. When he heard about the Israelites having left Egypt he simply could not believe this. The Torah therefore had to repeat this aspect of G'd's achievements as one that Yitro had heard about. Once he found what he had heard to be true, he became convinced of the greatness of his son-in-law Moses. This is why the Torah linked the names of G'd and Moses. It was Yitro's understanding that G'd had gone out of His way to enhance the reputation of His prophet Moses. When the Torah describes what Yitro heard and the order in which it impressed him, it does not link the Exodus to the other miracles and achievements by G'd otherwise it would have described Yitro hearing וכי הוציא, "and that He took out, etc." The Exodus is presented as a separate achievement by G'd in Yitro's understanding, i.e. the one that made all the other miracles he heard about believable.

Hearing about "all that G'd had done" enabled Yitro to believe the rumours he had heard. Our sages in Zevachim 116 disagree as to which of the various miracles Yitro heard about had impressed him the most. Some felt that it was the splitting of the Sea of Reeds; others said it was the defeat of Amalek. This whole argument is parallel to our own perception. According to the rabbis who hold that Yitro was most impressed by the fact that the Israelites defeated Amalek it makes sense that Yitro and his pilgrimage is related in the Torah immediately after the story of how the Israelites defeated Amalek. Yitro had reasoned that though G'd had exacted retribution from Pharaoh who had proved inordinately disobedient to G'd, this did not prove that what G'd had done was for the sake of the Israelites. The Israelites had simply become the beneficiaries of Pharaoh and the Egyptians being punished. Yitro thought that if he had been correct in his assessment the Exodus of the Israelites did not mean that they would be able to maintain themselves as a nation in competition with all the other nations. When G'd saved the Israelites from the attack by Amalek, Yitro realised that they were indeed G'd's chosen people, that what had occurred was the beginning of a new world order.

The Torah mentions the fact that Yitro heard about the Exodus immediately before reporting that he brought Tzipporah and her children to Moses. We can understand this in connection with Shemot Rabbah 4,4 where Moses wanted to take his family to Egypt with him. At the time Yitro wanted to know why Moses wanted to subject his family to the strain of travel and the suffering in Egypt. Moses told him that when the Israelites would leave Egypt and receive the Torah at Mount Sinai he would be keenly aware of the absence of his family at that event. Hearing this Yitro allowed Moses to take his family along. Having heard about the imminence of the Israelites' arrival at Mount Sinai, Yitro felt obliged to bring Tzipporah and her children to Moses without delay.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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 that Moses had not returned from the Mountain. These people described Moses as the most perfect human being they had ever encountered. In the case of Yitro we do not find that the word איש is applied to him by the Torah in conjunction with his name, only in lieu of his name. When he is referred to in that context, the word האיש, (i.e. a pronoun) has neither a complimentary nor a derogatary meaning. The word is simply one used to describe a male.

In our verse it is a toss-up if the word איש is used in lieu of a pronoun or if it is a compliment for someone previously mentioned by name and therefore complimentary. The word is positioned between Yitro (actually חתנו) and Moses so that it is extremely difficult to know its meaning. If we are to assume that it is used as a pronoun for a male, both Moses and Yitro could be the subject referred to. It cannot refer to both Moses and Yitro seeing the Torah described only one of the two persons as prostrating himself. At the same time the Torah does not aim to confuse us but to inform us. I believe there is no choice but to understand that the subject is Moses, that the Torah wishes to point out that in spite of Moses being such a highly placed person he prostrated himself before his father-in-law to show him respect and honour.

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)."

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.

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.

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.