Yisro 5772

The story of Yisro is comprised of two parts. The first tells of Yisro’s arrival at the encampment of B’nai Yisrael and his reception; the second tells of the advice that Yisro gave Moshe, his son-in-law, to appoint subordinate judges, thus sparing him the burden of dealing with the entire nation’s litigation. Whether Yisro’s arrival took place before or after the revelation at Mount Sinai is a matter of dispute (Avoda Zara 24a; Zevachim 116a), but the second part of the story, in which Yisro is prompted to make his suggestion by the sight of Moshe judging from morning to night, must have taken place after the Torah was given; otherwise, on what basis was Moshe doing the judging? (See Rashi Shemos 18:13.)

Yet, this part of the story is also written before the account of the Sinai revelation. Of course, the rule אין מוקדם ומאוחר בתורה – the Torah does not follow a strict timeline – can be applied here, but the rule must be properly understood. It cannot mean that the Torah is in disarray. It must rather mean that the Torah is not in chronological order but rather in thematic order. This leads us to the inescapable conclusion that the story of Yisro’s advice is in some way the thematic introduction to the story of the giving of the Torah. How is this to be understood?

The concept of מתן תורה – the giving of the Torah – is not simply G-d’s sharing His wisdom with us; it is actually the conveyance of a proprietary right. With the giving of the Torah, it became our possession. This can be well illustrated by a famous story recorded in the Gemara (Bava Metziah 59b):

On that day R. Eliezer brought forward every imaginable argument, but they did not accept them. Said he to them, “If the halachah agrees with me, let this carob-tree prove it!”  Thereupon the carob-tree was torn a hundred cubits out of its place — others affirm, four hundred cubits. “No proof can be brought from a carob-tree,” they retorted.

Again he said to them: “If the halachah agrees with me, let the stream of water prove it!” Whereupon the stream of water flowed backwards — “No proof can be brought from a stream of water,” they rejoined.

Again he urged: “If the halachah agrees with me, let the walls of the schoolhouse prove it,” whereupon the walls inclined to fall. But R. Joshua rebuked them, saying: “When scholars are engaged in a halachic dispute, what have ye to interfere?” Hence they did not fall, in honour of R. Joshua, nor did they resume the upright, in honour of R. Eliezer; and they are still standing thus inclined.

Again he said to them: “If the halachah agrees with me, let it be proved from Heaven!” Whereupon a Heavenly Voice cried out: “Why do ye dispute with R. Eliezer, seeing that in all matters the halachah agrees with him!” But R. Joshua arose and exclaimed: “It is not in heaven.” What did he mean by this? — Said R. Jeremiah: That the Torah had already been given at Mount Sinai; we pay no attention to a Heavenly Voice, because Thou hast long since written in the Torah at Mount Sinai, “After the majority must one incline.”

R. Nathan met Elijah and asked him: What did the Holy One, Blessed be He, do in that hour? — He laughed saying, “My sons have defeated Me, My sons have defeated Me.”

Upon refection we can understand that this Divine grant of ownership is an absolutely necessary element in the entire scheme of Judaism. As no human being could possibly fathom the inscrutable, impenetrable wisdom of G-d, how could he be expected to comply with the Divine Will? How could we ever have confidence in the correctness of our legal and moral judgments? There are only two possible answers to these questions: Either we would require ongoing access to Divine Revelation and thus be provided with the necessary corrections, or that the Divine Will would be defined by the interpretations of the mortal earthly authorities.

This is the issue which underlies the story of Moshe and Yisro. Moshe initially believed that he would have to be the sole judge of the people; as a prophet with whom G-d communicates, there would be assurances that his judgments are correct. No one could possibly replace him. (But what would happen when Moshe was no longer present?)

Yisro understood the concept which lies at the very basis of the giving of the Torah – it is no longer in heaven and that it was given to man. Thus, even in the lifetime of Moshe, legal issues could be adjudicated by subordinate judges whose rulings would be valid and authoritative. As this principle is the correct understanding of the “Giving of the Torah”, the story in which the concept is revealed is the most appropriate introduction possible to the account of the Sinai revelation.