What Brings You Here?

By Rabbi Joshua (unexpectedly known as The Hoffer) Hoffman

The Torah relates that Yisro heard all that God did to Moshe and Yisroel when he took them out of Egypt, and that he went, with his daughter Tzipporah, who was Moshe’s wife, and her two sons, Gershon and Eliezer, to meet Moshe in the wilderness. Although the Torah actually tells us what Yisro heard, Rashi, based on the Talmud (Zevochim 116a), asks what he heard that motivated him to come to see Moshe. He answers that Yisro heard of the splitting of the sea and of the battle with Amalek. Interestingly, the Talmud, in response to its question, presents three different opinions, each one standing alone as the motivating factor behind Yisro’s visit. The three opinions are that he heard either of the splitting of the sea, of the battle with Amalek, or of the giving of the Torah. Rabbi Avigdor Bonchek, in his What’s Bothering Rashi?, says that Rashi left out the third opinion because it assumes that Yisro came to Moshe after the Torah was given, a point over which there is a dispute in the Talmud, and on which Rashi remains neutral. Why, however, did Rashi mention both of the other two opinions, instead of choosing over or the other? Rabbi Bonchek explains Rashi’s comment based on considerations of pshat, the plain meaning of the Torah text, but I would like to present a number of more homiletic approaches.

Rabbi Yosef Salant, on his Be’er Yosef, says that it was a combination of the two events, the splitting of the sea and the battle with Amalek, that moved Yisro to come, and that either one of them alone would not have led to this reaction. The splitting of the sea was, indeed, the greatest of all the miracles that occurred in the process of redemption until that time, but we find that the people themselves who were saved through that miracle, began to attribute it to Moshe, thinking that he had some kind of divine power over nature, or that his staff had that kind of power. This led them to question when they thirsted at Rephidim, whether God was in their midst or not. In order to offset that notion, Moshe did not participate in the battle with Amalek, but sent Yehoshua to fight it, and did not give his staff to anyone to use in the battle. Rather, he stood before the people and raised his arms, leading them in prayer. When, as the Mishneh in Rosh HaShana explains, his hands were lifted and the people turned their hearts to God, they held the enemy back, while when his hands were lowered, representing the people’s faltering faith, they suffered losses. This experience convinced the people that it was God who caused their victory over Amalek, as well as the splitting of the sea. Yisro, as well, understood, through the combination of the two events, that it was God who was behind all that occurred, and this led him to come to Moshe and declare, “Now I know that the Lord is greater than all the gods.” Rabbi Salant explicates a variation of this idea that it was a combination of the two events that led Yisro to join Moshe, and the interested reader is referred to his comments.

Rabbi Moshe Vorhand zt”l, in his Ohel Moshe, explains Rashi by saying that it was the contrast between the two events that motivated Yisro to come to Moshe. At the sea, although the nation was armed, it did not do battle, but were told that God would fight for them. When Amalek attacked, however, the people had to fight in order to be saved. The difference was that the merit of their forefathers supported them at the sea, but they subsequently sinned by questioning God’s presence at Rephidim, and needed to repent in order to merit salvation. Yisro was impressed by this distinction, and, as a result, decided to join the Jewish people. It is not clear, however, in Rabbi Vorhand’s presentation, what was so significant about this distinction that so impressed Yisro. I would like to offer an explanation of Rashi based on the contrast between the two events he mentions, but taken in a different direction.

The midrash tells us that the ministering angels asked permission to sing God’s praises as the sea split, but God answered, “the works of My hand are drowning in the sea, and you want to sing?” The fact is, however, that the people themselves, led by Moshe, did sing God’s praises in response to the splitting of the sea, and while it is true that they did so without asking, we do not find any divine disapproval of this reaction. What was the difference? Rabbi Shubert Spero, in his collection of sermons, God in All Seasons, explains that the Jews actually experienced salvation through the splitting of the sea, while the angels didn’t. When the Jews praised God, then, it was out of gratitude for being saved, while, if the angels had engaged in song, it would have appeared as rejoicing over the calamity of the Egyptians. We may also point to that the shira does not express any delight over the catastrophe that occurred for the Egyptians, and, as Rashi points out, it makes a distinction over the severity of the way the different Egyptians died, depending on their spiritual standing. Thus, they were judged with the scale of “measure for measure”, and this, according to Rav Shaul Yisraeli, zt”l, is what lead Yisro to say that he now knows that the Lord is greater than all the gods, in that He cares for all human beings, considering them all His children. There is, actually, a tendency, found already in ancient literature, to gloat over the misfortune of an enemy. Many psychologists have written that this is an inherent part of human nature, as documented by Richard H. Smith in his recent book, The Joy of Pain: Schadenfreude and the Dark Side of Human Nature. The Torah, however, does not condone any expression of this emotion, and the Rambam, in his Laws of Repentance, writes that someone who becomes honored through someone else’s shame will most probably not be able to repent. Israel, in reaction to the downfall of the Egyptians, did not gloat over their deaths, but say praises to God for their salvation. In contrast, after the battle with Amalek, the people were commanded to battle them until they are completely eradicated without distinction between men, women and children. This is so, because, as shown by Rav Yitzchok Arama in his Akeidas Yitzchok, as well by Rav Yitzchok Abarbanel, in his commentary, Amalek represents evil for the sake of evil, having attacked the nation without any motivation of gain that usually leads to war. An ideology of the this nature can be given no sanction, and it is this notion that is behind the command to do battle with it. This contrast and the emerging rejection of any indulgence in the ignoble trait of schadenfreude, is what impressed Yisro about God’s dealing with Israel’s enemies, and led him to come to Moshe in the wilderness.