What did Yisro hear, that aroused him to come out to the desert?
Rashi: He heard about Keri'as Yam-Suf and Milchemes Amalek. 1
Ramban: He heard about Milchemes Amalek - which the Torah just described. 2 See footnote above.
Why did Yisro have to hear about all of these major events from passers-by? Why did Moshe not inform him of all that was happening?
Oznayim la'Torah: The most humble of men would certainly not boast about his personal achievements. 1 Moreover, he was so involved with matters concerning the sustenance of his people, saving them from their enemies, and preparing them to receive the Torah, that he forgot (or simply did have the time) to inform his family about what was going on.
See Oznayim la'Torah.
Why does the Torah call Moshe's father-in-law by different names in different places (See for example, Shemos 4:18 (Yeser), and Bamidbar 10:29 (Chovav Ben Re'uel))?
Rashi (citing the Mechilta): Yisro actually had seven 1 names - Re'uel, 2 Yeser, Yisro, Chovav, Chever, Keini and Puti'el. 3
Ramban (to Shemos 2:16): His name was Yeser or Yisro; 4 but when he converted, he adopted the name 5 Chovav. When the Torah writes (in Shemos 2:18), "and they (the daughters of Yisro) came to Re'uel their father," it means their grandfather. 6
Pane'ach Raza, Moshav Zekenim citing Sefer ha'Gan: He had an eighth name - Reichav Chosen Moshe; while Rashi counts only names mentioned in the Torah. (But there is no such verse! Tosfos ha'Shalem (1) - It seems that they refer to "Beis ha'Rechavim" (Yirmeyah 35:2), whom the Sifrei (Beha'alosecha 78) says are Bnei Yisro.)
Others maintain that Re'uel was Yisro's father (see answer #2, and refer to Shemos 2:18:1:1 . Also see Rashi to Bamidbar 10:29).
Mechilta: He was called Re'uel - because he became Hashem's companion; Yeser - because he added the Parshah of "v'Atah Sechezeh" (Shemos 18:21) to the Torah; Yisro - they added a letter to his name after he converted; Chovav - because he loved the Torah; Chever - because he became Hashem's friend; Keini - because he was zealous for Hashem's honor and because he acquired Torah; Puti'el - because he struggled with his Yetzer-ha'Ra and overcame it.
Ramban: It is common to find a name that is spelled sometimes with a 'Vav,' and sometimes without - such as Eliyah (Eliyahu) or Yirmeyah (Yirmeyahu). (Gur Aryeh differs; see 18:1:2.2:1 and note.)
Ramban: As converts commonly do. See also Shoftim 4:11.
Why does the Torah specify here that Yisro was "the father-in-law of Moshe;" whereas in Shemos 4:18 it says that Moshe returned to "Yeser his father-in-law" (without mentioning Moshe's name)?
Rashi: Because, whereas initially, Moshe was proud to be the son-in-law of Yisro (who had relinquished his belief in idolatry), now it was Yisro who was proud to be the father-in-law of Moshe 1 (who had since risen to greatness).
Moshav Zekenim (to 18:2): What is the source? "Chosein Moshe" is superfluous, to teach us that Yisro used to say 'I am his father-in-law!'
Why does the Torah here precede the title "Kohen Midyan" to "Chosein Moshe;" whereas above (in Shemos 3:1), it reversed the order? Also, from this point on, it refers to him only as "Chosein Moshe"?
Oznayim la'Torah: While Moshe was staying with Yisro, he was more Moshe's father-in-law than Kohen Midyan. Once Moshe left, Yisro became more Kohen Midyan than Moshe's father-in-law. But from the moment he converted, and all doubts concerning Avodah-Zarah were dispelled, the Torah scrapped the title Kohen Midyan altogether.
What is the Pasuk referring to, when it writes "[he heard] all that Hashem did on behalf of Moshe and Yisrael"?
Rashi: The latter refers to the falling of the Manna, the well, and Milchemes Amalek. 1
Rashbam: It is referring to Pharaoh's inability to do Moshe harm, and to how Hashem raised his prestige in the eyes of Pharaoh and his servants; and to the miracles that Hashem performed with Yisrael through him.
This appears at odds with what Rashi himself wrote earlier - that Yisro heard about the splitting of the sea and Milchemes Amalek. (Chazal (Mechilta and Zevachim 116a) cite three opinions as to what it was that attracted Yisro - Milchemes Amalek, Matan Torah and Keri'as Yam-Suf.) For Gur Aryeh, see 18:1:1.3 and on, and 18:1:4.1 and on.
Why does the Torah see fit to mention Moshe individually?
Rashi: To teach us that Moshe was equal to the whole of Yisrael. 1
Gur Aryeh: The derivation is that it would have been sufficient to state, 'all He did for Yisrael,' without specifying Moshe.
Having told us generally that Yisro heard about "all the things that Hashem had done on behalf of Moshe and Yisrael," why does the Torah add "... that Hashem took Yisrael out of Egypt"?
Rashi: Because the miracle of Yetzi'as Mitzrayim was the greatest of all. 1
Seforno: (The word "Ki" in this context means "when," not 'that.') The Pasuk is saying that the above-mentioned miracles took place "when Hashem took Yisrael out of Egypt." 2 It refers to the ten plagues and the miracles that occurred at that time. 3
Oznayim la'Torah: If indeed the word "Ki" means 'when,' then the Pasuk is telling us that when Hashem took Yisrael out of Egypt, He did so by performing miracles -- and not by means of war, or by appeasing Pharaoh.
Though it is not clear why the Exodus from Egypt was greater than Keri'as Yam-Suf - the crowning glory and ultimate objective of all the other miracles? (For Maharal, see 18:1:6.2:1 .)
Seforno: Which was the larger episode of which these details were a part.
Seforno: And it is for these reasons that Yisro made a point of taking Tziporah and her sons to the desert himself, rather than sending a Shali'ach.
When exactly, did Yisro join Yisrael?
See Rashbam to 18:13 below.
Ramban points out that these are two opinions in Chazal (see Mechilta, and Zevachim 116a). He begins by citing many reasons in support of this opinion. (What is Rashi's view? See 18:1:1.3:1 .)
While they were still in Refidim, and he traveled with them from there to Har Sinai. See Ramban DH 'v'ha'Karov Eilai,' also see 18:12:2:1 .
This would follow the chronological order of the Pesukim. Further proof of this lies in the fact that Moshe only told Yisro about the various travails that they encountered on the journey and about Yetzi'as Mitzrayim - and said nothing about Matan Torah (as it had not happened yet). See Ramban DH 'u'ch'she'Amar.'
According to the opinion that Yisro came after Matan Torah (see above, 18:1:7 ), why does the Torah mention his arrival now, before the account of Matan Torah?
Ramban #1 (citing Ibn Ezra): The Torah juxtaposes the Parshah of Yisro to that of Amalek, in order to emphasize the difference between Amalek - who did us so much harm, for which we are obligated to take revenge; and Yisro - who did us a great favor, which we are obligated to acknowledge. 1
Rashbam (to 18:13): The Torah inserts his arrival here, in order not to break in the middle of the Parshah of Mitzvos.
Oznayim la'Torah (to 18:13): Due to the fact that the main objective of Torah is Dinim, 2 it makes a point of placing one Parshah of Dinim before Matan Torah and another Parsha of Dinim (Parshas Mishpatim) after Matan Torah. 3
Gur Aryeh (to 18:13): Even if Yisro finally arrived much later, his arrival began with what he heard - "about the splitting of the sea, and the war of Amalek" (Rashi). He heard of these events prior to Matan Torah; and as such, that is when the Torah records the entire account, in topical progression. 4
Ramban: As King Shaul would later remind them in Shmuel I 15:6 . Interestingly, Bil'am too, highlights the distinction between Amalek and Yisro (see Bamidbar 24:20-22).
Oznayim la'Torah: As Moshe asked the angels on Har Sinai - to explain why the Torah belongs on earth - 'Do murder, theft and jealousy exist in your realm?'
Oznayim la'Torah (citing the Midrash) elaborates with a Mashal.
Refer to 18:13:2.01:1**** .
According to the opinion that Yisro came after Matan Torah (see above, 18:1:7 ), why does the Pasuk not insert here that Yisro heard about it - the greatest event since the creation of the world (see Devarim 4:32)? Why does Moshe not tell Yisro about it below, in Pasuk 8?
Ramban: Indeed, this is a clear proof that Yisro came before Matan Torah. 1
Gur Aryeh (to 18:13): The Pasuk is telling us what it was that inspired Yisro to leave his home - and at that time, it was still before Matan Torah. See above, 18:1:8:4 . 2
As above, 18:1:7:2** .
Why does the Torah call Yisro "Kohen Midyan"? It is a disgrace to be the priest of idolatry!
Moshav Zekenim: It is because Yisro reverted to his prior ways. Refer to 18:9:1:2 and the note there. 1
One opinion in Shemos Rabah: "Kohen" means an officer, as in the verse "u'Vnei David Kohanim" (Shmuel II 8:18).
Chizkuni: He was the great person of Midyan.
Ohr ha'Chayim: This is his praise - he was distinguished in Midyan, yet he married his daughter to Moshe, who was not yet distinguished. Also, we should know that it was the priest of a nation who now declared, "I know that Hashem is greater than all the gods" (18:11)!
Also see 18:11:1.1:1 and its note .
Why does the verse say, "... what Elokim did to Moshe," yet conclude that "Hashem (the Name Havayah) took them out of Mitzrayim"?
Moshav Zekenim: Initially, Midas ha'Din encountered Moshe [and wanted to kill him] when he returned to Egypt, for not circumcising his son (Shemos 4:24-26). Hashem knew that Aharon would dissuade Moshe from bringing his wife and sons to Egypt. 1 Had Moshe not circumcised his son, Bnei Yisrael would not heed his command that they themselves circumcise. Furthermore, Moshe himself would have been unable to partake of the Korban Pesach (as his son far away in Midyan was uncircumcised)!
Oznayim la'Torah: Because the first half of the Pasuk is referring to Hashem's Midas ha'Din - avenging the evil that Pharaoh had perpetrated against Moshe 2 and Yisrael. Whereas the second half refers to the Midas ha'Rachamim, Hashem taking Yisrael out of Egypt.
Rashi seems to be of the opinion that Yisro arrived prior to Matan Torah (see 18:1:1.3:1, and 18:27:1:2). But the Midrash Tanchuma says that because Yisro did not suffer along with Yisrael (in Mitzrayim), he would not merit to be present at Matan Torah!
Rosh (to 18:4): Moshe sent Yisro away (18:27), even prior to Matan Torah. 1 (For Maharal, see 18:27:1.1 ).
Rosh (ibid.): If so, we must say that Moshe was judging Yisrael (in verse 18:13) about Mitzvos that they received at Marah, which included monetary laws. Furthermore, this explains how "Navol Tibol Gam Atah" includes Aharon and Chur (see Rashi to 18:18), as Chur was killed only after [the Egel, after] Matan Torah.
QUESTIONS ON RASHI
Rashi writes: "'Yisro heard' - What report did he hear [that inspired him] to come? The splitting of the Sea, and the war against Amalek" (Zevachim 116a). But why not suffice with what our Pasuk states - that Yisro heard everything that Hashem had done for Moshe and Yisrael?
Gur Aryeh: The miracles in Mitzrayim took place over the course of an entire year (Mishnah Eduyos 2:10). If Yisro heard everything, why didn't he come earlier? (Rather, there must have been a specific event after Yetzi'as Mitzrayim that was the impetus for his journey.)
Rashi writes: "'Yisro heard' - ... the splitting of the Sea, and the war against Amalek." The Gemara (Zevachim 116a) gives an additional answer - Yisro heard about Matan Torah. Why does Rashi omit this?
Gur Aryeh: Rashi does not consider that answer to be Peshuto Shel Mikra (the simple meaning of the text). The section of Yisro's arrival is placed in the Torah after the war of Amalek, but before the account of the Giving of the Torah. 1
Therefore, he could not have heard about it, as it had not yet taken place! (Yet Gur Aryeh later points to Rashi to 18:9, where he does mention the Torah, among "the good that Hashem did for Yisrael" - implying that Yisro arrived after Matan Torah). Also see Rashi to 18:13. (CS)
Rashi writes: "'Yisro heard' - ... the splitting of the Sea, and the war against Amalek." These are in fact two opposing viewpoints in the Gemara (Zevachim 116a, citing the views of R' Eliezer and R' Yehoshua respectively). Why does Rashi combine them into one view?
Gur Aryeh: We cannot say that Yisro heard only of the war against Amalek, seeing as our verse concludes, "... [he heard] that Hashem took Yisrael out of Mitzrayim." Rashi therefore interprets that even to that opinion, he heard about Keri'as Yam Suf as well (which was the primary stage of the Exodus, and its greatest miracle). 1 The Tana'im dispute (ibid.) what else Yisro heard in addition to Keri'as Yam Suf, and Rashi sides with Rebbi Yehoshua - that he heard about the war against Amalek.
Rashi writes: "'Yisro heard' - ... the splitting of the Sea, and the war against Amalek." What was it about these two events that inspired Yisro to come?
Gur Aryeh: Yisro soon exclaims, "Now I know that Hashem is greater than all the (other) gods ..." (18:11). The ten plagues were each specific strikes against one aspect of Egypt (referred to as "Etzba Elokim"). Idolaters believe that each idol has power over but one aspect of the world; hence, the Makos in Egypt did not yet inspire Yisro to come 1 - as he did not yet see proof that Hashem is greater. Keri'as Yam Suf, however, was a general blow (called "Yad Ha'Gedolah" 2 ), to the element of water as a whole 3 (i.e., all of the world's seas are one; and Chazal teach that all of the waters in the world split). 4 Then, at the war of Amalek, Moshe made the luminaries stand still in their orbits, frustrating Amalek's calculations of the Mazalos (Rashi to 17:12). This was a general change to the world as a whole - and the idolaters know of no such deity that can control everything. Hence, it was these events that led Yisro to his conclusion - recognition of Hashem.
In other words, although each Makah showed how Hashem overpowered that specific natural force, it did not show that Hashem is Master of All forces (Ba'al ha'Kochos Kulam). To illustrate, when water extinguishes fire, we can see that water is more powerful than fire; and yet, water itself remains a limited physical entity that can be overpowered by other entities. That is what Yisro was trying to ascertain - that Hashem is Master of All forces, and not merely master of one force (like the nations attribute to their Avodah Zarah). That is why Yisro came only after hearing of Keri'as Yam Suf and Milchemes Amalek; also see 14:31:1.3:1 . What made Yisro different from all the other idolaters, and inspired him to seek out such an all-inclusive Power? See below, 18:11:1.2:1 .
See our comments to Parshas Beshalach, 14:31:1.2:1 and onwards.
As explained above, 14:31:3:1* .
Rashi to 14:21. Also see question 18:1:1.7 below, and Maharal's comments on Milchemes Amalek (17:12:4.1:1 ).
Rashi writes: "'Yisro heard' - ... the splitting of the Sea, and the war against Amalek." After he heard about Keri'as Yam Suf, which affected the world in general (see above), what additional insight did Yisro glean from Milchemes Amalek?
Gur Aryeh: The splitting of the sea took place exclusively in the lower realms; whereas during the war against Amalek, Moshe held up the heavenly bodies. This proved that "Hashem is the G-d in the heavens above, and upon the earth below." 1
Cf. Devarim 4:39. Also see the following question.
Rashi writes: "'Yisro heard' - ... a. the splitting of the Sea, and b. the war against Amalek." The Gemara (Zevachim 116a, citing R' Elazar ha'Moda'i) gives an additional answer, c. - he heard about Matan Torah. To that view, what additional insight did Yisro learn from Matan Torah (after having already heard about Keri'as Yam Suf and Milchemes Amalek, as above)?
Gur Aryeh: From Matan Torah, Yisro learned that Hashem rules even over the realm that is above the Heavens - i.e. Torah and Olam ha'Ba. (Chazal refer to the Torah as "above the sun.") 1
Maharal (Gevuros Hashem Ch. 42, p. 160): Though it is impossible for a member of one nation to turn himself into a member of another (in the physical sense), it is possible for members of other nations to convert and join Am Yisrael; that is because Yisrael is sanctified and distinct (Nivdal) from the other nations. Thus, to view a. , Yisro came after Keri'as Yam Suf - that is when Yisrael acquired their G-dly status, and Yisro understood that he could convert. b. Yisro came after Milchemes Amalek - As long as opposition to Yisrael remained, they had not yet reached a level of supremacy to which converts could join. c. Nevertheless, only after Matan Torah 2 could others join Yisrael; the Torah's greatness can be received by converts as well. 3
See Shabbos 30b. Gur Aryeh summarizes - To view a. , Keri'as Yam Suf was enough proof for Yisro, seeing as the Yam is a general rather than a specific entity (as explained above, 18:1:1.5:1 ) . View b. adds Milchemes Amalek, from which Yisro saw that Hashem controls also the upper realms. c. R' Elazar ha'Moda'i adds Matan Torah, which showed that even in 'the third world,' Olam ha'Ba, there is none other than Hashem. These three realms correspond to the three sanctifications of Kedushah (Targum to Yeshayah 6:3, recited in U'Va l'Tziyon) -"bi'Shemei Meroma... Al Ar'aa... l'Alam ul'Olmei Almaya." For more regarding the "three Olamos," see Maharal (Nesivos Olam, Nesiv Ha'Avodah, beg. Ch. 11).
Presumably Maharal means, that it is impossible for an outsider to directly join Am Yisrael in the sense of its nationality - because nations are inherently different. It is possible, however, for any individual to accept the Torah, and via the Torah join with Klal Yisrael. (EK) Also see below, 18:1:2.4:1** .
Maharal (Derech Chayim p. 277, to Avos 5:22) adds that Torah is relevant to all nations; had they been willing, they could have accepted it! (See Avodah Zarah 2b). Hence, Geirus comes by virtue of Torah. Also see Maharal (Chidushei Agados Vol. 4, p. 71, to Zevachim 116a) - The ascendancy we gained at Keri'as Yam Suf is associated with the right side (i.e., Hashem's Chesed to us); and that of Milchemes Amalek with the left side (the Midas ha'Din with which Hashem battled our foes). Matan Torah does not relate to the right or left, but rather to the center. Also see Maharal in Tif'eres Yisrael (end Ch. 1). For more on the association of Torah with the number 3, or with being third or in the center, see Shabbos 88a, and Maharal Tif'eres Yisrael Ch. 11 .
Rashi writes: "Yisro was called by seven names." But some Midrashim count only two names (as do some texts of Rashi to Bamidbar 10:29)?
Gur Aryeh (to Shemos 4:18): Perhaps both versions are correct. The Torah refers to Yisro by seven different names, teaching us various aspects of Yisro's deeds and virtues. 1 To his colleagues, however, he was known only by two names - Chovav and Yeser. 2 Alternatively, he was not called by his other names on a regular basis.
As will be explained in the following questions.
Gur Aryeh: It is by these two names that Moshe addresses his father in law - "Yeser" in Shemos 4:18; and "Chovav" in Bamidbar 10:29. ("Yisro," with the added Vav, is essentially the same as "Yeser.") He was not addressed by the name "Re'uel," because that was his father's name as well (see Rashi here).
Rashi writes: "Yisro was called by seven names... 'Yeser,' because he added a section to the Torah...." Why are all seven names open to interpretation? Perhaps one of them was simply his given name?
Gur Aryeh: We would expect Yisro's given name to be used at the first instance he is mentioned in the Torah. But on that occasion, he is called "Re'uel" (Shemos 2:18) - which cannot be his proper name, because it was his father's name as well (see Rashi here, and to Bamidbar 10:29). Seeing as even the first name the Torah uses is descriptive, Chazal interpret his other names as well. Furthermore, even according to the opinion that the "Re'uel" in Shemos 2:18 was in fact Yisro's father 1 - whereas Yisro himself is first mentioned by the name "Yisro" in Shemos 3:1 - why is he later called "Yeser" (Shemos 4:18)? A proper name is not usually shortened! 2 Rather, this indicates that these are descriptive names, open for interpretation. 3
As Rashi cites below.
Although it is quite common for a name ending in Yud-Hei-Vav (a suffix standing for Hashem's name) to appear at times without the final Vav (such as Chizkiyahu / Chizkiyah, Tzidkiyahu / Tzidkiyah, Yirmeyahu / Yirmeyah), that is not the case here. Such names do not appear in Chumash, nor do we find a name ending in a Cholam being shortened (only those ending with Shuruk). (CS)
For more about names and when they may interpreted, see Gur Aryeh to Bereishis 36:43 and to Vayikra 16:8; as well as 18:1:153:2 below.
Rashi writes: "Yisro was called by seven names...." What is the significance of this number?
Maharal (Gevuros Hashem, end Ch. 19, p. 90): Yisro's greatness was that he was unsatisfied with worshiping specific powers [i.e. idolatry]; he searched for a G-d of Heaven who is All-encompassing. 1 This created a point in common 2 with Moshe - to the degree that Moshe married Yisro's daughter. Hence, Yisro had seven names, just like Moshe did 3 - indicative of his 'Hachanah Kelalis.' 4
See below, 18:11:1.2:1 .
What does this indicate? Refer to Shemos 2:21:1.3:1* .
Maharal cites this Midrash, that Moshe had seven names, elsewhere as well (Nesivos Olam, Nesiv Gemilus Chasadim Ch. 1, p. 149). From his comments regarding Yisro, we may derive that this number is significant - 7 is a whole that encompasses all of its component parts (also see Gur Aryeh to Bamidbar 23:4). Also see other Midrashim - Shemos Rabah (1,26) - 'Moshe had many names.' Pesikta Shemos (2,10) - 'Moshe had six names (other than 'Moshe').' Vayikra Rabah (1,3) - 'Moshe had ten names;' see comments of Maharip, loc. cit.) (EK)
I.e., Yisro's preparatory stage to his conversion; he was fitting for taking such a step.
Rashi writes: "Yisro was called by seven names... [one of which is] 'Re'uel.'" What is the meaning behind this name? Why does the Torah use this name to refer to Yisro, when Moshe first arrived in Midyan (Shemos 2:18) - according to the opinion that 'Re'uel' in that Pasuk was Yisro himself, and not his father?
Maharal (Gevuros Hashem Ch. 20, p. 91): Yisro was called 'Re'uel' because he became a friend (Rei'a) to Hashem; 1 and Moshe's arrival signaled the beginning of that attachment to Hashem. Maharal explains - Generally, the convert's identity becomes subsumed into Klal Yisrael. In Yisro's case, however, the marriage of Moshe Rabeinu - and by extension, the future of Yisrael as a whole 2 - depended upon his successful conversion! Yisro therefore maintained his own unique identity. He is called 'Rei'a La'Kel,' on the level of two friends (so to speak).
Shemos Rabah to Shemos 2:18 .
Moshe was the essence (Ikar) of Yisrael as a whole. Due to Yisro's role as Moshe's father-in-law, he is called "friend" (Rei'a). Yisro's significance among the Gerim is discussed by Maharal in various places; see the footnotes to 18:27:1.1:1 .Also see below (18:9:1.1:1) as to the distinction between Yisro's Bris Milah and that of other converts. All this relates to what was stated above (18:1:2.3:1, also see 18:11:1.2:1* ) - Yisro was different than the other idolaters even prior to his conversion; he was dissatisfied with idolatry and searched for a greater power. That is why he tried all the idols in the world; Yisro sits at the head of those who reject Avodah Zarah (see Shemos 2:21:1.3:1). Also see below 18:10:0.2:1 (Yisro was an addition onto Yisrael), 18:19:4:1 , and 18:27:1.1:1 3
. (However, since we learned above (17:8:3:1* ) that the Avos rejected Timna as a convert, because she was a princess and unable to humble herself in joining Yisrael, we must say that Yisro did lower and nullify himself to Yisrael.)
Rashi writes: "[Yeser...] Yisro; when he converted and fulfilled the Mitzvos, they added one letter to his name." Mizrachi asks - If the name 'Yisro' comes to replace the name 'Yeser,' then he has are only six names!
Gur Aryeh: 'Yisro' is not a replacement name; as the word 'Yeser' remains intact inside the name Yisro (both in spelling and meaning). This is as opposed to Avraham's new name, which replaced his previous name of Avram. Furthermore, perhaps Yisro continued to be known as Yeser as well, even after his conversion.
Rashi writes: "[Yeser...] Yisro; when he converted and fulfilled the Mitzvos, they added one letter to his name." Why specifically the letter Vav?
Gur Aryeh: With the added Vav, the Gematriya of "Yisro" equals 616 - corresponding to the 613 Mitzvos he accepted, plus the three Mitzvos through which a Ger converts - Milah, Tevilah and Korban. Hence Rashi's precise wording - "when he converted and fulfilled the mitzvos..." (referring to the three Mitzvos of conversion). 1
Maharal: See the following question.
Gur Aryeh: Although Milah is already counted as one of the 613, the Milah of a Ger is counted separately, because he is not yet a Yisrael until he immerses, and is therefore not yet obligated. A Ger will fulfill the standard Mitzvah of Milah when he has Jewish children, and brings them to Milah.
Rashi writes: "Yisro - ... When he converted and fulfilled the Mitzvos, they added one letter to his name." What is the meaning of the name "Yisro"?
Maharal (Derush Al ha'Torah, p. 6 (printed after Be'er Ha'Golah)): The [added] letter "Vav," value 6, alludes to the 60 myriads of Yisrael. 1 The letters Yud-Sav Reish indicate that he was "Yateir" (added on to) Yisrael itself. Mechilta (cited in Rashi) teaches that he was called "Yeser" because he added a section in the Torah. The Torah has the boundary of 613 [Mitzvos] - the number fitting for Yisrael. 2 Only Yisro, who was added on to Yisrael, 3 was capable of adding a section to the Torah. Indeed, Yisro's contribution was exactly of that nature - additional judges to assist Moshe (in judgement -- a task that was fitting for Moshe himself). 4
Refer to Shemos 12:37:1.3:1 and its notes; Yisrael reached completion at the number 600,000.
See ibid.
See below (18:27:1.1:1*** ) - In contrast to other converts, Yisro did not become subsumed under Yisrael; rather he was on an equal level. Perhaps this is why the "Vav" alluding to Yisrael was added after the letters of the name 'Yeser,' and not before.
Rashi writes: "'Father-in-law of Moshe' - Here, Yisro was honored by [his association] to Moshe, 'I am father-in-law to the king!' Whereas in the past, Moshe ascribed the greatness to [Yisro], as in the Pasuk, 'Moshe went and returned to Yeser his father-in-law' (Shemos 4:18)." Mizrachi asks - But even in that Pasuk, it is Yisro who is identified through Moshe!
Gur Aryeh: In our Pasuk, the narrative is about Yisro; and if the verse introduces him by his relationship to Moshe, it must mean that Yisro took pride in that. In Shemos 4:18, however, the narrative is about Moshe (returning to Egypt), such that when it states that Yeser was his father-in-law, it indicates that Moshe attributed the greatness to Yisro. 1
Compare to Mizrachi's answer.
Rashi writes: "'All that He had done' - ... in the falling of the Manna; the Well; and [against] Amalek." Why doesn't Rashi mention in this comment, the other two events mentioned by the Gemara (see above 18:1:1.7 ) - the splitting of the sea, and the giving of the Torah?
Gur Aryeh: Keri'as Yam Suf is included here by the conclusion of the Pasuk, "... [he heard] that Hashem brought Yisrael out of Egypt." 1 Matan Torah is not mentioned here, because our verse comes to list the factors that inspired Yisro to convert - i.e., wonders that showed clearly that Hashem is Ruler over the world - and Matan Torah was not a "wonder." 2 Rather, Rashi references Matan Torah below, "'Yisro rejoiced over all of the good that Hashem did for Yisrael' - the goodness of the Man, the well, and the Torah" (Rashi to 18:9). 3
As above; without the miracle at the sea, the initial exodus from the borders of Egypt would have been inconsequential. Also see Mizrachi.
One may ask that the Torah does want us to learn Hashem's sovereignty from the miracles at Har Sinai, as in the Pasuk, "You have been shown, to know, that Hashem is the G-d; there is none other than He alone!" (Devarim 4:35, and see Rashi there). Perhaps, Matan Torah proved Hashem's sole Sovereignty in its essence in the Heavens, yet it did not demonstrate how this is revealed in practice on Earth - i.e., how Hashem overcomes and eliminates all those who oppose His Unity. That was demonstrated by the miracles against Egypt, and at the war against Amalek. (EK)
Gur Aryeh: Likewise, that comment in Rashi does not mention the splitting of the sea and the war of Amalek - which were not "Tovah" (goodness, favors); but rather "Hatzalah" (salvation from peril).
Rashi writes: "'All that He had done' - for them; in the falling of the Manna, the Well, and [against] Amalek." How is the context of this comment different than Rashi's opening comment on this Pasuk - in which he mentions "the splitting of the sea, and the war against Amalek"?
Gur Aryeh: In his opening comment, Rashi focuses on the specific events that caused Yisro to come and convert. (Whereas here, he expands the list to include all that Yisro heard about .) 1
To summarize - Rashi gives three different lists as to what Yisro heard. a. In Rashi DH 'Va'Yishma Yisro' - 'Keri'as Yam Suf, and Milchemes Amalek.' b. Rashi DH 'Es Kol Asher Asah' - 'Yeridas ha' Man, the Be'er, and Amalek.' c. Rashi to 18:9, DH 'Al Kol ha'Tovah'- The 'Tovah' of the Man, the Be'er, and the Torah.' Gur Aryeh explains, List a) includes the factors that inspired Yisro to convert (see questions 18:1:1.3 thru 18:1:1.6 above). List b) includes all the wonders that Yisro heard Hashem did for Yisrael - including "that he took them out of Egypt" - but does not mention Matan Torah. List c), in verse 9, includes ways in which Hashem showed favor to Yisrael - including Matan Torah and the Exodus itself (as that verse concludes, '... that He saved them from Egypt') - but does not mention Keri'as Yam Suf and Milchemes Amalek. (EK)
Rashi writes: "'All that He had done' - for them; in the falling of the Manna, the Well, and [against] Amalek." Why does Rashi need to add the term "for them"; is this not clear from the text?
Gur Aryeh: The pronoun "them" includes Moshe and Yisrael together. Rashi clarifies that although Moshe and Yisrael are listed separately, the miracles Hashem did were for both Moshe and Yisrael collectively.
Rashi writes: "'For Moshe and for Yisrael' ... 'All that He had done' - for them...." Why does Rashi comment on these phrases out of order?
Mizrachi: Rashi pointed out above, that Yisro here takes honor in his son-in-law Moshe - something that goes against the norm. Rashi therefore explains the reason for this, in his very next comment - because Moshe was the equivalent of all of Yisrael. 1
Gur Aryeh: Rashi tells us in advance, that when Moshe and Yisrael are listed separately, it does not mean that each received their own miracles; rather, it indicates that Moshe was tantamount to them all. 2
Rashi writes: "Moshe is tantamount to all of Yisrael." Why is this so?
Gur Aryeh #1: Moshe brought Yisrael to their state of completion - in Torah, and indeed in all matters. Without Moshe, they would not be considered a nation, 'Am Yisrael.' That is why Moshe is the equivalent of their entirety. 1
Gur Aryeh #2: Moshe was distinct and apart (Nivdal) from all of Yisrael, thus he was tantamount to them all. That which is Nivdal has no division into Prat and Klal (individual and community); division into component parts is a property of that which is Gashmi (physical). 2
Gur Aryeh #3: Moshe's knowledge and wisdom, encompassed that of all 600,000 individual members of Klal Yisrael. 3
Gur Aryeh: Nonetheless, Moshe is not considered the equivalent of all future generations of Yisrael - despite that he brought them all to completion as well - but rather, he was the equivalent of his own generation of Yisrael. (As Chazal express it, 'Moshe was equivalent to the 600,000'; Maharal (Gevuros Hashem Ch. 19, p. 87) cites this from Mechilta, also see Shir ha'Shirim Rabah 1, 15.) That is because a Mashlim (completing element) serves as Tzurah (defining form) to that which it completes. (Chomer and Tzurah are common expressions in Maharal's thought; refer to 15:22:152:1*). Tzurah by definition remains with the Chomer it serves; Tzurah is the actualization of Chomer -- for as long as it remains present. So too, Moshe was the completing factor for that generation of Yisrael who were his contemporaries. Furthermore, a Mashlim does so actively. Moshe was actively involved with his own generation, bringing and teaching them the Torah; whereas for future generations, although their Torah came via Moshe, he did not teach them directly. (For further reference in Maharal about Moshe being Tzurah, see 2:10:1.4:1 and 2:21:1.3:1 .)
Also see Shemos 2:1:2:2 and 2:2:1.2 . Maharal writes at length, that Moshe was the Tzurah of Yisrael - not the sort of Tzurah that is attached to Chomer, but rather a transcendent (Nivdal) Tzurah, apart from the physical. See Maharal (Gevuros Hashem Ch. 19, p. 87; and Be'er Ha'Golah, Be'er #5, p. 96).
Maharal: As a parallel - Chazal instituted that upon seeing 600,000 members of Yisrael, one recites the Berachah, "Chacham ha'Razim" (Berachos 58a), in praise of Hashem, Who knows the secrets in the diverse hearts of all those individuals. On the following Amud (58b), we find precedent for reciting the same Berachah upon seeing a great Talmid Chacham (whose wisdom spans the collective wisdom of myriad individuals). Now, although that is true of any great Chacham, and Moshe's generation had many great Chachamim, when compared to Moshe they were akin to average individuals. It was in that sense that Moshe was the equivalent of all of Yisrael.
Rashi writes: "'(And) that Hashem brought Yisrael out of Egypt' - This [miracle] was the greatest of all." Why does Rashi insert the term 'and'?
Gur Aryeh: By adding a Vav to the title, 1 Rashi is telling us not to explain the conclusion of the Pasuk as modifying what came before - i.e. '... all that Hashem did... meaning that He took Yisrael out of Egypt.' Surely Yisro heard that Hashem did much more! Rather, he heard both; and the Exodus is listed separately only because it was greater than all the rest.
In today's printings of Rashi, it seems, the Dibur ha'Maschil cites the Pasuk verbatim, without adding a Vav. Yet Mizrachi and Gur Aryeh clearly did have an added Vav in their text of Rashi. (EK)
Rashi writes: "'(And) that Hashem brought Yisrael out of Egypt' - This [miracle] was the greatest of all." But it would seem that the actual event of leaving the borders of Egypt, was not such a great change in the natural order - in any event, not to same degree as the miracles and the Makos. In what sense was it greater?
Maharal (Gevuros Hashem, beg. Ch. 3, p. 25):The Torah compares Yisrael's sojourn in Egypt to gold being smelted in an iron crucible (Devarim 4:20) - which is being heated by the fire, separating it from the goldsmith and making it difficult to remove. Nevertheless, Hashem established connection with us and brought us out. It also compares Yisrael Bnei Yisrael in Mitzrayim to a developing fetus in the innards of the mother animal (see Devarim 4:34) - until the shepherd stretched in his hand and brought the calf out to life. This illustrates how Bnei Yisrael were subservient to Mitzrayim, and seemingly lacked their own identity and any independent existence - or any connection to Hashem. 1
See Maharal further; refer to our comments at the beginning of Sefer Shemos, 1:1:.2.7:1 . In explanation - Although to human eyes, the miracles that Hashem did for Yisrael were a greater wonder than the actual Exodus, in truth the Exodus itself was also a wonder. Yisrael had been completely attached to Mitzrayim. Hashem shaped them, and took them unto Him, while they were yet under Mitzrayim's domain (Maharal emphasizes that in the parable, the goldsmith reaches his hand into the heated crucible to remove the gold -- without using tongs!) Also see Maharal (Netzach Yisrael Ch. 10, p. 61) - It was at that time that Yisrael became a nation. Perhaps this relates to Maharal in Gevuros Hashem (Ch. 7, p. 42) - As opposed to what people may think, in truth changing of Mazal is a greater miracle than changing of nature. Nature is Chomer that is easily changed - which is not so of the decrees of Heaven; also refer to 13:3:3.1:1. See note 14:19:4:1* - A miracle is not the negation of world order, but rather, linking in to the order of the world that transcends Chomer and nature. See 14:27:0.3:2* - There is no partition between the natural world and the Nivdal world; therefore when necessary, miracles are performed for Yisrael that follow the order of the Nivdal world. (EK)
Rashi writes that Chever and Keini are both names for Yisro. But the only time we find this name used, is in Sefer Shoftim 4:1, "v'Chever ha'Keini... mi'Bnei Chovav Chosein Moshe." It seems to refer not to Yisro himself, but rather to one of his descendants!
Hadar Zekenim: Yisro's son was called the same name as his father.
Gur Aryeh: "Chever" cannot be merely the given name of Yisro's descendant; because a given name need not have meaning, 1 whereas the name 'Chever' does have meaning - becoming a friend of Hashem, so to speak. The name must refer back to Yisro himself - the ancestor who originally converted - and his later descendant is attributed to him. 2
