EXISTENTIAL
COMMUNICATION Rashi’s words are actually based
upon T.B. Zevachim 116a which
presents a three-way disagreement concerning the news of which specific event
actually caused Yitro to come to convert.1 Rabbi Yehoshua says that it was the
war with Amalek; Rabbi Elazar HaModaii says that it was the giving of the
Torah; and Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says that it was the splitting of the Sea.2 The issue is not what Yitro heard but,
rather, what made Yitro act – and the answer to this question may be personal. Ishei HaTanach, Yitro quotes a midrash,3 for example, that states that Yitro
had some type of connection to the military tribunal of Amalek and it was with
their demise that Yitro came to convert.4 Implied in this midrash’s answer is the recognition that another, who did not have
this connection, may not have so responded. We, each, respond to news and we each
hear the same news differently. Our desire to investigate such a
cause-and-effect, thus, must also include a desire to understand this personal
connection. What makes one person to respond to
some news in a certain way and what is the reason that another is not so
touched by this very same news? In investigating this question in connection to
Yitro, the objective must also include a desire to understand what there was in
Yitro that led him to be affected by this specific news and what there was in
this news item that would touch such an individual. It is too simple to
maintain that Yitro came to the Jewish camp upon hearing this news because he
was a righteous individual. There was, no doubt, righteousness in his behaviour
but it was within the personal parameters of his life that it was developed. It
is within the specifics of this three-way disagreement that we see this
personal focus. Each opinion sees a different news event as spurring Yitro to
travel. Each news event had a different message and, as such, each one is also
portraying Yitro as somewhat different. This distinction in the factors of a
message and a response is also found further enunciated in what later occurs
within the story. We have already been told that Yitro not only heard this news
but also responded by traveling to join the Jewish People yet we are then told that
Yitro was told this news again. Shemot
18:8 informs us that Moshe again tells Yitro about everything that
happened. This latter time Yitro rejoices over this news. What makes Yitro
specifically respond with joy in this particular circumstance?5 It may be that in hearing the
news from Moshe, from someone who personally experienced the events, there was
a difference. The verse adds that Moshe also included all the troubles that the
nation encountered on this journey. Moshe’s recounting was personal; he did not
just report on what happened but shared with Yitro the experiences of what
happened. The personal element in the message made the message different. It is
quite possible that this difference in the message led to a difference in the
response of Yitro in that he now rejoiced and praised God. Rashi,
Shemot 18:9, however, presents a midrash that
would seem demand further contemplation. The midrash states that, rather than feeling joy in response to Moshe’s
presentation of the events, Yitro was mournful over the destruction of Existence is not black-and-white.
The truly feeling individual recognizes the multi-layered nature of life. It
was precisely at the time that Yitro is hearing the personal account of what
happened from Moshe Rabbeinu, when
the story is no longer just a story but clearly takes on a human dimension,
that Yitro has the potential to rejoice for those saved and be pained by those
who met negative consequences (albeit just). Our recognition of the personal in
the message also changes the message. Rabbi Benjamin Hecht Footnotes 1 It
may be interesting to note that Rashi does not mention Yitro’s intent to
convert in coming – yet, it may also not be an issue. 2 In
comparing the actual words of the gemara with Rashi’s presentation, two questions immediately
arise. One is that the gemara
actually presents three different possible news events while Rashi only
mentions two, leaving out the giving of the Torah. Second, Rashi seems to group
the news events that he presents together as one motivator – Yitro heard about
these two events and came. The gemara, however, seems to present the variant opinions as
distinct, each tanna maintaining a
different view of what news event caused Yitro to act. The fact is that Rashi’s
overall comments on this verse actually demand further contemplation. In
further explaining this verse, he goes on to single out the miracle of Miriam’s
Well and the manna and then concludes with the greatest event being the Exodus.
How does Rashi actually understand how all these events, distinctly and
collectively, affected Yitro? See, further, Mizrachi, Shemot 18:1 and Maharsha,
Zevachim 116a. (It should be noted that Rashi’s non-reference to the giving
of the Torah as a possible event that affected Yitro’s coming may actually not
be such a problem. Rashi may have wished, in explaining these verses, to adopt
the general position that Yitro came before Sinai, just as the story is
presented chronologically in the text. Rashi thus did not want to mention this
opinion that Yitro came in response to the Sinaitic event as that opinion is
clearly based on Yitro coming after Sinai. In regard to this issue of when
Yitro came, see, further, Ramban, Shemot
18:1). 3 Midrash Shmuel II, 12:2. 4 This
would seem to be in line with the view of Rabbi Yehoshua. 5 As
one may find it difficult to assume that Yitro did not rejoice previously upon
hearing this news, one may wish to re-phrase this question as: what made the
Torah only inform us of this rejoicing at this time? © Nishma 2014
Return to top |
© 2010 NISHMA