Yitro Answers

Yitro 5715

Alef.

1.א. Professor Heinman is opposing the “either-or” view that pits universalism against particularism. He is suggesting that only a combination of the two will allow for a coherent understanding of the idea of Chosenness.

  ב. Shemot 19:5

     Now therefore, if ye will hearken unto My voice indeed, and keep My covenant,  then ye shall be Mine own treasure from among all peoples; for all the earth is Mine.

Devarim 7:6

For thou art a holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be His own treasure, out of all peoples that are upon the face of the earth.

Devarim 14:2

For thou art a holy people unto the LORD thy God, and the LORD hath chosen thee to be His own treasure out of all peoples that are upon the face of the earth.

2.  Shemot 19:6

and ye shall be unto Me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.'

The Chosenness of Israel results in their becoming priests of HaShem, serving the rest of mankind, as well as paradigms of holiness in the world. (If God is considered the essence of Holiness, then those who follow in His Path, who fulfill His Mitzvot, can represent that quality of Holiness to the rest of the world.

Bet.

1.א. In Shemot 19:2,

(ב) וַיִּסְעוּ מֵרְפִידִים וַיָּבֹאוּ מִדְבַּר סִינַי וַיַּחֲנוּ בַּמִּדְבָּר וַיִּחַן שָׁם יִשְׂרָאֵל נֶגֶד הָהָר:

all the verbs are in the plural form except for the last one that is in the singular. Since the subject appears to be the same, i.e., the Jewish people, then why suddenly the switch? RaShI interprets that there was a change in the mindset of the people, from one of divisiveness to one of unity, hence the singular form of the verb when they come to Sinai.

   ב. Shemot 14:10

(י) וּפַרְעֹה הִקְרִיב וַיִּשְׂאוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת עֵינֵיהֶם וְהִנֵּה מִצְרַיִם נֹסֵעַ אַחֲרֵיהֶם וַיִּירְאוּ מְאֹד וַיִּצְעֲקוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶל יְקֹוָק:

While there isn’t the same direct contrast of verb forms as in 19:2, nevertheless, the army that was pursuing the Jews was made up of diverse individuals. Nevertheless the singlular verb form is used leading RaShI to a similar comment as in Chapt. 19. (Contextually, I could sooner imagine that members of a military unit would be united in their goals and motivations, sooner than a disparate group of civilians, let alone those who had just recently been freed from slavery and probably were quite self-absorbed, to the exclusion of being able to feel that they were part of some greater entity.)

ג. RaShI will interpret the singular as indicative of a unified purpose only when there isn’t other textual evidence to contradict such a conclusion. RaShBaM supplies textual evidence “on both sides of the ledger.”

a. It was only Kalev who went to Chevron:

i. Devarim 1:36

   Save Calev the son of Yephunneh, he shall see it; and to him will I give the land that he hath trodden upon, and to his children; because he hath wholly followed the LORD.'  (If all of the spies had visited Chevron, then why should Calev be the one to receive this land as his portion?)

ii. Yehoshua 21:12

    But the fields of the city, and the villages thereof, gave they to Calev the son of Yephunneh for his possession. (This is the fulfillment of the promise that was made by HaShem in Devarim.)

b. They all visited Chevron, consistent with RaShI’s interpretations in Shemot.

i. BaMidbar 13:22

   And they (he)  went up into the South, and came unto Hebron; and Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai, the children of Anak, were there.--Now Hebron was built seven years before Zoan in Egypt.—

    Ibid. 33

   And there we saw the Nephilim, the sons of Anak, who come of the Nephilim; and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.' (The assumption is that the three childrenof Anak were synonymous with the Nephilim, and since they were located in Chevron, they all must have visited Chevron if they were witness to these giants.)

2.א. RaShI is addressing two difficulties in this verse:

a. Isn’t it obvious that the people whom Moshe will be addressing saw what took place in Egypt? How does this impact upon their choice to be HaShem’s Chosen People? (RaShi answers that because they were eye witnesses as opposed to people who simply learned of what took place, this should serve as greater impetus to accept HaShem’s terms and the responsibilities that He Wishes they will assume on His Behalf.)

b. If the Egyptians have been abusing the Jews all this time, as well as having sinned in other ways, why hasn’t HaShem Punished them previously? (RaShI answers that since HaShem had Promised Avraham that his descendants would eventually be redeemed from their servitude and afflictions, HaShem Decided to coordinate the Egyptians’ Divine Punishment with the Jews’ Divine Liberation and Redemption.)

3.א. RaShI reverses the order of the words “And now” and  “If” in order to demonstrate that HaShem was Presenting a choice to the Jews, rather than Assuming that they had already chosen to become His Chosen People. This is necessary from the immediate context. Since the people eventually say, (19:8) “And all the people answered together, and said: 'All that the LORD hath spoken we will do.' And Moses reported the words of the people unto the LORD,” until they actually said that, there was no binding agreement. Consequently, if a choice is being offered, it is most appropriate that the conditional clause of the choice should begin with the word “If”.

      ב.

(ה) "וְעַתָּה , אִם שָׁמוֹעַ תִּשְׁמְעוּ בְּקֹלִי , וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם אֶת בְּרִיתִי , (רק אז) וִהְיִיתֶם לִי סְגֻלָּה מִכָּל הָעַמִּים , כִּי לִי כָּל הָאָרֶץ:

 ג. The simple meaning of the text is that what is being discussed is the here-and-now, i.e., what will happen if they accept upon themselves the yoke of Heaven. RaShI interprets that what is being discussed is a comparison of what is taking place now in contrast to what will take place in the future vis-à-vis the ease and comfort people will feel with respect to the performance of Mitzvot, a form of the principle of Mitzva Goreret Mitzva.

4.א.  Shemot 19:5 “Now therefore, 1) if ye will hearken unto My Voice indeed, and 2) keep My Covenant, then ye shall be Mine own Treasure from among all peoples; for all the earth is Mine.”

Since the verse precedes mention of the Covenant with the need to listen to HaShem’s Voice, i.e., to adhere to the Commandments that He has been and will Continue to issue, what is being discussed is not whether or not people accept God as their focus of worship, but rather accept His Program for how they are to live their lives. Discussing whether or not to listen to God presupposes an acceptance of Him as an authority figure.

     ב.  Verses 7 and 8 would seem to bear out RaShI’s approach:

“And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and set before them all these words which the LORD Commanded him. And all the people answered together, and said: 'All that the LORD hathSpoken we will do.' And Moses reported the words of the people unto the LORD.” 

There is no mention of accepting HaShem as their God; only that they were prepared to enact the various Commandments that HaShem was Giving them.

Gimel.

1. When we compare this occasion of Moshe’s ascending Sinai, he does not give any instructions or leave anyone in charge, as he does when he embarks on his forty-day stay:  Shemot 24:14-15 “And unto the elders he said: 'Tarry ye here for us, until we come back unto you; and, behold, Aaron and Hur are with you; whosoever hath a cause, let him come near unto them.' And Moses went up into the mount, and the cloud covered the mount.” Consequently we wonder why we are not told about Moshe ordering the people to do things during the time that he is away. Sephorno suggests that this was not necessary since there was a lot to take care of on the part of the people in terms of their first setting up camp. In contrast, Shemot 24 is when the encampment is already set up and Moshe was going to be away for more than a month.

Despite the fact that Moshe was going to Sinai to be alone with God, much as he did in Shemot 3 when he was shepherding his sheep, in both instances, there was no one else with whom he was connected or for whom he was responsible. In this instance, there is an entire nation whom he has led out of Egypt who might become quite perturbed if their leader suddenly disappears. Apparently in Shemot 24 it would have been noticeable, but in Chapt. 19, the people were so busy with their own affairs, they didn’t have time to notice that he was gone before he returned with God’s Proposal to the people.

2.א. It would seem that Sephorno attributes to God a Concern that the people might be reticent to accept His Proposal because they might think that in light of what He Did to the Egyptians, He is very Vengeful  and therefore they are putting themselves at considerable risk were they to throw in their lot with Him. While they certainly appreciated His Redeeming them from slavery, if in fact they were being given a choice as to whether to become HaShem’s Am Segula, perhaps they would think twice. Therefore the commentary interprets this verse as God Claiming that He Gave the Egyptians many chances to repent before“lowering the boom” on them. The verse in Yechezkel 18:32 “For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, Saith the Lord GOD; wherefore turn yourselves, and live” is in order to demonstrate that the Jewish people should not think they have something to fear should they accept God’s Arrangement. 

   ב. RaShI interprets the verse as a demonstration about how HaShem Cares about the Jews, waiting to punish the Egyptians who had already incurred culpability for all sorts of bad acts, until it could be parlayed into a way to free the Jews from slavery. Sephorno understands the verse as an attempt to convince the Jews that they had nothing to fear from God Himself in the sense that perhaps He would Treat them cruelly as He Appeared to treat the Egyptians.

Daled.

1. The Midrash’s difficulty is with the order of the phrase in question, that would have made more sense if it was reversed, i.e., HaShem would Speak and Moshe would respond/explain/ repeat out loud. What is the meaning of Moshe speaking and HaShem, as it were, responding? Hence the Midrash’s interpretation that just as HaShem made it possible for Moshe to understand what was going on, on his level, the same was done for each different category and group.

2.  The Midrash parallels Howard Gardner’s Multiple Intelligence theory. Since people have different ways of learning, looking at the world, understanding, etc., then in order to teach so many different people, one has to make it possible for different groups to each comprehend on its own level and on its own terms. While this can never be perfectly done by human beings, HaShem has the Capability to pull something like this off, and we assume that at Sinai this was exactly what he did. Were HaShem to “teach” but no one could understand, then what would have been the point of the entire exercise?