Yitro as a Paradigm of our Interactions with the Non‐Jewish World

R. Yaakov Bieler Parashat Yitro, 5771

An issue that is debated by bible commentators is what exactly caused Yitro to travel, along with Moshe’s family, to the encampment of the Jews at the beginning of Shemot 18. The fundamental principle that is at issue is “Mukdam U’MeUchar BaTora”, i.e., whether or not we should approach the sequence of stories in the Tora as though they are presented in chronological order. Applies to the specific issue at hand, should we assume that what Yitro “heard” (Shemot 18:1)1 that caused him to undertake this long and arduous journey was only that which immediately precedes the beginning of Parashat Yitro—a) the plagues that led to the Exodus from Egypt (Ibid. Chapters 7‐12),b) the miracle at the Sea of Reeds (Ibid. 14), and c) the war with Amalek (Ibid. 17:8‐16), or might there have been additional catalysts for the Midianite priest’s seeking out his son‐in‐law and the Jewish people? According to those who advocate “Ein Mukdam U’MeUchar BaTora” (the Tora is not in chronological order), d) the receiving of the Tora (Ibid. Chapt. 19 ff.) becomes a possible attraction. Ibn Ezra, in light of the absence of any mention of construction of an altar for the sacrifices that are offered up upon Yitro’s arrival (Ibid. 18:12), goes so far as to suggest that in addition to the Revelation of the Tora, e) the Tabernacle had also already been Commanded and constructed prior to Yitro’s arrival.

While the view that assumes that the account in the Tora is chronological does not have to provide any sort of additional rationale for the sequence of events other than this is a historical record, the position that posits that the Tora is arranged thematically rather than historically will per force require an explanation for why things were arranged as they were. Ibn Ezra suggests the following hypothesis:

Because it had been mentioned earlier (at the end of the preceding Parashat BeShalach) the evil that Amalek perpetrated against Israel, there is mentioned as a contrast the good that Yitro did on behalf of Israel.2

At least two assumptions appear to underlie Ibn Ezra’s interpretation: First, Yitro never “converted” to Judaism either before or after his visit to Sinai.3 In order for Yitro to provide the maximum foil for

שמ 1 ות פרק יח )א) וישמע יתרו כהן מדין חתן משה את כל אשר עשה אלהים למשה ולישראל עמו כי הוציא יקוק את ישראל ממצרים: 2 It is interesting that Ibn Ezra suggests that we apply the hermeneutic principle of Semichut HaParshiot (the juxtaposition of sections of the Tora with one another in order to convey particular meanings) across two separate Parashiot, i.e., the end of BeShalach and the beginning of Yitro. While within a single Parasha, the juxtaposition of subject matter readily presents itself, we tend not to seek out similar patterns from the transition of one Parasha into another. 3 Ibn Ezra assumes that Yitro comes to the encampment after the Tabernacle was built. This takes place at Sinai, when following the Revelation, the people sin with the Golden Calf and the Tabernacle was Commanded in order

1

Amalek in the sense of a “non‐Jew” who nevertheless positively affects the Jews by means of his interactions with them, it would be necessary to assert that he remains an outsider to the religion. While RaShI implies that not only did Yitro become Jewish, but that he returned nto Midia to convert others to his newly‐found faith (RaShi on Shemot 18:27),4 BaMidbar 10:30 which is understood by some commentators as Yitro refusing to continue on with the Jewish people to the land of Israel despite Moshe’s pleading with him, is an indication that he did not wish to make a spiritual commitment to Judaism. Mechilta also supports such an approach in its comment on Shemot 2:21, whereby the Midrash maintains that Moshe only received permission from Yitro to marry his daughter Tzipora on the condition that Moshe promised to raise their first son as an idolator!5—hence the name “Gersham” (Ibid. 2:22), meaning “I (Moshe) was a sojourner in a foreign land”, to the point where I swore to my father‐in‐law to raise my firstborn as a pagan.6

A second implication of Ibn Ezra’s comment about the textual connection between Parshiot BeShalach and Yitro, would be that although Yitro was a single individual, in contrast to Amalek, who apparently is an entire nation, the positive impression made by one person in the past 7can counterbalance the contrasting ongoing8 behavior of a vast number of others.9 Could this also explain to address and sublimate the People’s apparent desire to have a tangible representation of God, if not His Image, than at least the location of His Presence. שמ 4רש"י ות פרק יח פסוק כז )כז) וילך לו אל ארצו - לגייר בני משפחתו: מכ 5 ילתא דרבי ישמעאל יתרו - מסכתא דעמלק פרשה א ואת שני בניה וגו' נכריה, ר' יהושע אומר, ארץ נכריה היתה לו ודאי. ר' אלעזר המודעי אומר, בארץ נכריה [נכר קה]. אמר משה, הואיל וכל העולם עובדי עבודה זרה, אני אעבוד למי שאמר והיה העולם. שבשעה שאמר משה ליתרו, תן לי צפורה בתך לאשה, אמר לו יתרו, קבל עליך דבר זה שאומר לך ואני נותנה לך לאשה, אמר לו מהו, אמר לו בן שיהיה לך תחלה יהיה לעבודה זרה, מכאן ואילך לשם שמים, וקבל עליו. אמר לו השבע לי, וישבע לו, שנ' (שמות ב:כא) "ויואל משה." אין אלה אלא לשון שבועה שנ' (שמואל א' יד:כד) "ויואל שאול את העם לאמר", וכתיב (מלכים ב' ה:כג) ויאמר נעמן הואל וקח ככרים. לפיכך הקדים המלאך להרוג את משהמ, יד ותקח צפורה צר ותכרות את ערלת בנה וגו' וירף וגו' 6 While it is possible to suppose that Yitro had a change of heart either before he came to the encampment, or once he is told by Moshe about the miracles that God had Performed on behalf of the Jewish people, it is interesting to speculate about where such a change would leave Gershom. Even if Moshe would have been released from his vow, would it have been so easy for Gershom to reorient himself to Jewish belief having been raised for several years as an idolator? One could argue, that at worst, this was not for all that long, and therefore Gershom was too young to be permanently affected. Or, since according to the Midrash, the reason why Moshe was attacked by the angel in Shemot 4:24 ff. was because he was fulfilling his oath to Yitro, hence the boy had yet to be circumcised, perhaps from that point forward Moshe no longer felt bound by the promise. Yet, Tziporra returns with her two sons to her father’s house prior to Moshe’s descent to Egypt (RaShI on Ibid. 18:2; since the text states that Tziporra had been previously sent away, the Rabbis posit that this took place upon Aharon’s meeting Moshe prior to his reaching Egypt Ibid. [4:28], and convincing him that where they were going was no place for a wife and children.) Did Tziporra disavow her father’s intentions vis‐à‐vis his first grandson due to the event involving the angel, or were things left in place until the family was reunited at the beginning of Shemot 18, if even then? 7 Yitro’s descendents, the Keinim, continue to be accrued credit for Yitro’s actions, as in I Shmuel 15:6. Yael, married to a Keini, was key to a Jewish victory against the Canaanites when she dispatched Sisro, the enemy general in Shoftim 4:12‐22; 5:24‐27, and possibly could have been influenced by Yitro’s earlier example of being favorably disposed to the Jews. 8 There are those who maintain that anyone who declares as his goal the annihilation of the Jewish people defines himself as, if not a biological descendent, then at least a spiritual descendent of Amalek. Consequently, the Rabbinic “legal fiction” of asserting that upon Sancherev’s, the king of Assyria, ascendency, we no longer can trace

2 why, if in the end, the delegation of legal responsibilities to large numbers of secondary judges that Yitro proposes10 are presented in Devarim 1:15‐16 as either Moshe’s own ideas or those Commanded to him by God, nevertheless in Shemot these recommendations are presented in Yitro’s name, i.e., in order to give a non‐Jew credit for making a valuable contribution to Jewish life and practice?

Ibn Ezra’s insight regarding the contrast between the hostility of Amalek and the positive concern of Yitro brings to mind a chapter in a fine contemporary work of textual interpretation by Judy Klitzner, Subversive Sequels in the Bible.11 In addition to discussing Yitro’s, the Midianite priest, contributions to Moshe’s administrative abilities and communal sensibilities, she also cites MalkiTzedek’s, Shalem’s king and the priest to God on High, interactions with Avraham at the time that the latter emerged victorious following his battle with the armies of the kings that had kidnapped Lot. While these are both cases of non‐Jewish personalities who teach important lessons to seminal figures in the Jewish narrative, the author makes an important distinction between the point of each of these stories, seeing the Yitro story as a sequel of and compliment to the MalkiTzedek story. On the one hand, Avraham is depicted as a person who while initially extremely idealistic, due to a series of events in his personal life, e.g., dealing with Pharoah over the status of Sara and becoming personally enriched as a result, separating from Lot due to a dispute over possessions and the potential alliance with the corrupt king of Sodom, has to some extent lost his single‐mindedness and direction. “…At this critical juncture in Abraham’s life, MalkiTzedek’s name and essence, as well as his words and actions, remind the patriarch of his purpose and calling. If Avraham could reconnect with the ideals that first motivated him, he would again look upward to God, the source of all blessing.”12 In contrast to Avraham’s loss of focus due to his involvement with others, i.e., the Egyptians, his nephew Lot and the Sodomites, Moshe could be said to have too much singular focus and had effectively isolated himself from the Egyptians (by killing the taskmaster), the Jews (being rejected when he attempted to intervene in the dispute between two of his co‐religionists), and even from the Midianites (when he saves the women from the shepherds.) It is Yitro who recognizes his lofty virtues and principles, invites Moshe into his family, and makes sure that his son‐in‐law remains connected tos hi wife and children by reuniting the family after a significant separation. Even his advice that Moshe concern himself with the general needs of the people rather than spend all of his time judging their disputes can be viewed as Yitro’s further attempts to keep the Jewish leader on the right track. One further recognizes Yitro’s importance by what transpires after his ethnic and national groups mentioned in the bible due to his policy of uprooting national groups and sending them to other parts of his empire in order to discourage uprisings, this may not apply to Amalek, remnants of whom may be regrettably identifiably extent to this day. 9 In the parallel context of Kiddush vs. Chillul HaShem (the Sanctification vs. the Profanation of the Divine Name), it is also a matter of quality rather than quantity in the sense of one person’s either positive or negative example can counter the actions of many. Consequently, even a solitary individual’s actions should always be weighed in this light. 10 It is important to note that according to the Rabbis, not only does Yitro tell Moshe what not to do, but also what he should be doing instead, i.e., explaining to the people how best to live their lives— בבא קמא צ"ט א תנא רב יוסף, "והודעת להם" - זה בית חייהם, "את הדרך" - זו גמילות חסדים, "ילכו" - זה בקור חולים, "בה" -קב זו ורה, "ואת המעשה" - זה הדין, "אשר יעשון" - זה לפנים משורת הדין. 11 Jewish Publication Society, Philadelphia, 2009. 12 P. 71.

3 return to Midian (BaMidbar 10:29‐32), resulting in Moshe’s reverting to his previous style of interaction, or lack thereof with others. “With no one to guide him and critique his actions, Moses’ lone tendencies get the better of him. As he continues in this vein, Moshe will gradually, as preseen by Yitro (Shemot 18:18), lose his ability to lead.”13 But in an extremely creative and wonderful twist, Klitsner adds one more element to this sequence of stories, specifically the reference by God to the ultimate role that He Intends for the Jewish people, to serve as a (Shemot 19:5) “Mamlechet Kohanim” (a kingdom of Priests):

The revelation narrative offers an intriguing twist to the earlier models of the story of the patriarch and his mentor. In the first two stories, the troubled hero in need of help was the Israelite patriarch and the moral guide was the foreignor. In the new scenario at the foot of Mt. Sinai, these positions are reversed. This time it is the Israelite nation as a whole to guide them toward Tzedaka U’Mishpat. This reversal hints at a dynamic mutual relationship between the guided and the guide, between insider and outsider, and—to employ an anachronistic term—between Jew and non‐Jew. Depending on the situation, Jew and Gentile may trade positions, each will need the other in moments of historic or personal crisis in order to maintain moral and pragmatic clarity.14

Instead of suggesting that there is a linear progression, with the Jews taking over the priestly role from non‐Jewish individuals and peoples, Klitzner proposes that an ongoing synergy will allow all of the participants in these interactions to retain a sense of importance and reach their highest respective Kedusha‐potential.

13 P. 89. 14 P. 93.

4