What news had he heard. . . that motivated him to come? (Re”m) Question: Perhaps his coming was motivated equally by all the news, not by one incident more than another? The answer is: [One Tanna says that Yisro heard of the splitting of the Sea and thus came, and another says it was the war with Amaleik (Zevachim 116a).] According to the Tannaim, וישמע יתרו means Yisro heard [especially significant] news other than what the Torah mentions afterward, for otherwise the Torah should have stated ויתרו שמע . Accordingly, the phrase following את כל אשר עשה means: “And he heard about all. . .” This is similar to כי הוציא , which [perforce] means: “And that Hashem brought.” Re”m asks: Why did Rashi omit the [third] opinion (in Zevachim 116a) that Yisro heard of the giving of the Torah, and thus came? Re”m offers an answer, but it seems he overlooked the dispute in Zevachim 116a as to whether Yisro came before the Torah was given, or afterward. Since Rashi stated in many places that Yisro came after the Torah was given, [Rashi gave this opinion sufficient mention. Thus] he does not need to mention it here. (See Nachalas Yaakov.) [Alternatively, Rashi says it was the splitting of the Sea and the war of Amaleik] because he is answering the question: Why is it not written either: “Yisro saw,” as in “Balak saw” (Bamidbar 22:2), or: “Yisro knew”? Rashi answers: Because Yisro heard about the splitting of the Sea and the war of Amaleik. They were one-time events, about which it cannot be said that “he saw” or “he knew.” For when Yisro came, he did not see that the Sea had split or that there had been a war with Amaleik. Now it is understandable why Rashi did not say Yisro “heard” about the manna, the well or the Torah. For [if it was referring to them] the Torah would have written, “Yisro saw,” since the manna, the well and the Torah were there for many years, and it could properly be said that he saw them. But this is not the case with the splitting of the Sea and the war of Amaleik. (Maharshal)

He was called by seven names. . . However, in Bamidbar 10:29, Rashi mentions only two names, as it stated in the Sifrei. [It is Rashi’s way to cite differing Midrashim.]

A letter was added to his name. Re”m asks: If so, there are only six names! Before he converted he was called Yeser and not Yisro. After he converted he was called Yisro and not Yeser. They should not be considered as two names, just as Avram and Avraham should not be considered as two names. Re”m leaves this question unanswered. But it seems to me not to be a question, for Rashi does not say, “He has seven names.” He rather says, “He was called by seven names.” I.e., some names he was called before he converted, and some, afterward. (Maharshal) Yet, it seems to me there is no proof that his name was [always] Yeser until he converted. Perhaps he [originally] had a different name. For Rashi also explained the verse, “Moshe went and returned to Yeser his father-in-law” (4:18), that Yisro was called seven names, just like Rashi explains here — but that was before Yisro converted and before he caused an additional parsha in the Torah. Perforce, he had a different name before he converted, and there the Torah called him “Yeser” based on a future event. In truth, when he came and advised Moshe how to judge the people, he was immediately called [the new name of] Yeser, because he caused this additional parsha in the Torah. And this occurred before he converted. After he converted, the letter ו was then added [to his name]. Thus, he was called seven names in addition to his original, nonJewish name. We need not object: In Parshas Shemos it said, “Moshe went and returned to Yeser, his father-in-law,” implying that his nonJewish name was Yeser. For this is no proof, as it is also written there, “Moshe tended the sheep of his father-in-law Yisro” (3:1),” [though Yisro had not yet converted]. Perforce, [he was called Yeser and Yisro] based on a future event, as I explained. (Author’s commentary)

Chovov is Yisro. . . [Rashi says this] so we will not think Chovov was Yisro’s son. And Rashi clearly explains so on v. 13, [that we should not think this].

Others say that Re’uel was Yisro’s father. . . Question: If so, Yisro would have only six names! The answer is: [Here,] Rashi is explaining according to the Mechilta [read: Sifrei] which says that he only had two names, Chovov and Yisro. Assumedly, the Mechilta [read: Sifrei] holds that he was called also Yeser, for it is written: “Moshe went and returned to Yeser his father-in-law.” This is because the Mechilta [read: Sifrei] holds that Yeser and Yisro are actually the same name, similar to Avram and Avraham. [Accordingly, Rashi is answering the] question: It is written, “They (Yisro’s daughters) came to their father Re’uel” (2:18). Does this not imply that Yisro was also called Re’uel, [giving him more than two names]? The other names do not pose a difficulty, for they could be family names, as the Torah does not say “their father” regarding them. But “Re’uel” poses a difficulty. Therefore [to resolve this difficulty] Rashi explains: “Others say that Re’uel was Yisro’s father.” (Maharshal)

Here Yisro prides himself with Moshe. . . [Taken on its own,] there is no difference between וישמע יתרו חותן משה and וישב משה אל יתר חותנו . In both cases, the Torah identifies Yisro by means of Moshe, not the other way around. This is because חותנו (“his father-in-law) means the same as חותן משה (“Moshe’s father-inlaw”). But the context makes a difference. [In the latter verse,] the subject of the story is Moshe, and Yisro is mentioned as “his father-inlaw.” Thus the story implied that Moshe is priding himself [with Yisro. In the former verse,] the story’s subject is Yisro, and Yisro is mentioned as “Moshe’s father-in-law.” Thus it is implied that Yisro is priding himself [with Moshe].

Moshe is equal to all of Yisrael. [Rashi knows this] because otherwise it should say only “Yisrael,” for this would also include Moshe. Perforce, it comes to teach that Moshe is equal. Why does Rashi’s commentary not follow the order of the verse? [I.e., he first explains, “For Moshe and Yisrael,” and then, “About all that Elohim had done.”] It is because Rashi is answering the question: “All that Elohim had done” surely [seems to] refer to, “Hashem brought Yisrael out of Egypt.” But [if it is really] referring to this, why [does it say, “For Moshe and Yisrael”? The phrase should place Yisrael before Moshe, because Yisrael was enslaved, but Moshe and his tribe were not, as Rashi explained in 5:4. But if Moshe is greater than all of Yisrael, it would be logical [to place Moshe first]. But being that Moshe was equal but not greater, Yisrael should have come first, since the main reason for the Exodus was for them [and the question remains unresolved]. Neither can we answer that Moshe is placed first in order to teach that he was equal to all of Yisrael. For this is learned from the mere fact that Moshe is mentioned separately, as I explained at the beginning. Thus, Rashi answers as follows: “All that Elohim had done” does not refer to Hashem’s bringing them out of Egypt. It rather refers to the manna, [the well and the war of Amaleik, as Rashi states in the next entry]. These acts of goodness benefited both Moshe and Yisrael equally. And since Hashem performed these acts mainly for Moshe, he is mentioned first. Hashem brought the manna and the well in order to save Moshe from Yisrael’s complaints against him. And Moshe, who was the king of Yisrael, defeated Amaleik by his prayer and by confusing the hours for Amaleik as it says in the Midrash (see Rashi on 17:12). [This answers the original question: Why does Rashi’s commentary not follow the order of the verse? The answer is that Rashi first explained “For Moshe and Yisrael” because it is the key to understanding “About all that Elohim had done.” Since Moshe is placed before Yisrael, “All that Elohim had done” cannot refer to Hashem’s bringing them out of Egypt.]

For them. . . [You might ask:] Why does Rashi write, “For them,” instead of saying, “For Moshe and for His people Yisrael”? [The answer is: It is simply] for the sake of brevity. Similarly, Rashi says on 6:3, “To the fathers,” instead of saying, “To Avraham, to Yitzchok and to Yaakov.” (Re”m) [An alternative answer:] So we will not think Hashem did some miracles for Moshe alone, and some for Yisrael alone. Therefore Rashi says, “For them,” to group them together. What he did for one, he did for the other. (Gur Aryeh)

This being the greatest of them all. Rashi is answering the question: Why was bringing them out of Egypt mentioned separately? Perforce, it is to tell us that it was “the greatest of them all.” For it says, “All that Elohim had done,” and concludes with, “That Hashem brought Yisrael out.” This implies that Hashem did other miracles as well, [besides bringing them out]. Otherwise, why does it says, “All”?

He said to her, “Go to your father’s house”. . . [Question: Why was Moshe concerned only about his wife, whereupon her sons she took on her own accord? The answer is:] Moshe was worried only for his wife, lest the Egyptians enslave her. But he was not worried for his sons because they would not be enslaved there. This is because the tribe of Leivi was not subjected to the enslavement, as Rashi explained in 5:4.

He attempted to kill Moshe, his neck became. . . See [Rashi on] v. 4:11.

Through a messenger. [Rashi knows this] because it is written afterwards, “Moshe went out to greet his father-in-law.” Accordingly, “He said. . . I am coming,” is what Yisro told the messenger to say in his name.

Go out on account of your wife. . . [Rashi knows this] because otherwise the Torah should have written, “I, your father-in-law Yisro, along with your wife. . . are coming to you.” Why does the verse separate “Yisro” from “Your wife”? Perforce, because Yisro was telling Moshe: “I am coming to you; go out on account of me. But if you do not want. . .”

And if. . . not. . . on account of your wife. . . Since Rashi needed to interpret “Your wife” in this manner, he also needed to explain “Her two sons” in this manner. (Re”m) But it seems to me that Rashi deduced [this whole explanation, even regarding “Your wife”,] because the verse says the [superfluous] word “I.” (Nachalas Yaakov)

Once Moshe went out. . . Rashi is answering the question: How was Yisro being honored by Moshe going out by himself to greet him? [Furthermore,] Moshe was their king and leader. Is it not a disgrace for the king to go out by himself? Thus Rashi explains that once Moshe went out, Aharon assumedly went out too, etc. Rashi says this [as the simple meaning of the verse, although its source is in various Midrashim,] because of logical reasoning. [Moshe must have intended to honor Yisro when he went out to greet him].

Who is referred to as איש**? That is Moshe. . .** Question: Is not Yisro also referred to as איש , as it says (2:21): “Moshe agreed to reside with the man ( איש )”? It seems [the answer is:] The איש written about Moshe is superfluous. It could have said, “Moshe was very humble,” [instead of saying, “The man Moshe was very humble” (Bamidbar 12:3).] Perforce, it is to show that Moshe is called איש . However, “Moshe agreed to reside with the man” is the same as writing, “Moshe agreed to reside with Re’uel,” [i.e., Yisro]. (Nachalas Yaakov)

In order to draw his heart to bring him closer to the Torah. [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, why did Moshe tell him? Yisro already heard everything, as it is written: “Yisro heard. . . about all that Elohim had done” (v. 1).

His flesh had חדודין חדודין . . . I.e., it became very creased. Rashi knows this because the Torah varied from [the usual term,] וישמח , and wrote ויחד instead.

And above all: That He had rescued them. . . [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, the verse should just say, “Yisro rejoiced,” [and stop there]. For it would refer to the previous verse, “Moshe told his father-in-law. . . all that Hashem had done.” But the phrase “Hashem had rescued them” of the previous verse does not teach us [that being rescued from Egypt was above all]. For there, it was speaking of the means by which they were rescued. [I.e., it was speaking of] what was done to Pharaoh and to Egypt.

As Onkelos translates it. . . authority and dominion. . . [Rashi is explaining that “Under the hand of Egypt”] does not mean the same as “From the hand of Egypt” [written at the beginning of the verse]. For that means “from his possession,” as in: “He took all his land from his hand” (Bamidbar 21:26), which Rashi there explains as: “From his possession.” [Rashi here knows that “Under the hand of Egypt” means as Onkelos translates] because otherwise, why [does our verse need] both phrases?

I was aware of Him in the past. . . [How does Rashi know this?] Because Rashi is answering the question: עתה is in the present tense. [Why is it followed by] ידעתי , which is in the past tense? Therefore Rashi explains, “I was aware of Him in the past, but now. . .” Alternatively, Rashi is answering the question: In 2:16, [Rashi explained] that Yisro had abandoned idolatry. Why then does it say here, “Now I know”? Perforce it means, “Now, all the more so.” [Another approach:] Re”m explains that it is because the verse does not say, “Now I know Hashem, and He is greater than all. . ..” Thus we may infer that Yisro knew Him in the past. But only now, after all these deeds [of Hashem], he recognized that His power is greater than that of all the gods.

He did not leave any idol. . . Otherwise, how would he know [that Hashem is greater than all the gods]? You might object: Referring to Dovid Hamelech it is written, “For I know that Hashem, our Master, is greater than all gods” (Tehillim 135:5). Re”m answers: Dovid knew it through practical exploration rather than logical explanation. Whereas Yisro said, “Now I know.” I.e., he knew this because of all the deeds that Hashem [just now] did. It was not through the wonders [that He performed]. If so, how did Yisro know this? Perforce, by [comparing Hashem’s deeds to that which he knew from previous] exploration. Another answer: Here it is written, “Yisro said, ‘I know that Hashem is greater than all the gods.’” Due to the definite article, it means: “. . .Greater than all the gods, who are known to me and to no one else.” How did Yisro know this to be true? Perhaps someone else also explored, as he did, and also has this knowledge. Perforce, [Yisro knew this to be true] because “Yisro did not leave any idol unworshipped.” [But Dovid said, “Greater than all gods,” without the definite article.]

In the pot in which they cooked, they were cooked. . . [Rashi knows this] because it is not written אשר הרשיעו , [the more usual term. An alternative approach:] It seems to me that Rashi is answering the question: Why did our Sages (Sotah 11a) use cooking in a pot for their analogy? They could have said, “They fell into the pit that they themselves dug,” using Scripture’s own analogy in Koheles 10:8! Perforce, it is because they understood זדו as in ויזד יעקב נזיד (Bereishis 25:29).

And to what does ממחרת refer. . . It cannot refer to the day after they ate and drank [as mentioned in v. 12. For if so,] the Torah would not be using this as an indication [when this event took place], for we still do not know on what day [they ate and drank]! Perforce, it was the day after Moshe’s descent from the mountain. And [the date of] descending the mountain is clearly understood from the Torah [as Rashi explains].

Even according to one who says that Yisro came before the giving of the Torah. . . According to the view that Yisro came after the giving of the Torah, the parsha obviously is not recorded in order. Since [the giving of the Torah is not stated until the next chapter,] even the beginning of the parsha — when Yisro came — is not in order. Rather, Rashi is explaining that even if Yisro came before the Torah, it still is not in order. Until this verse the sequence is indeed in order, but from here on, it is not.

Until the second year. . . This is according to regular years, i.e., counting from Tishrei. Rashi is bringing another proof that beginning from this verse, the parsha is not recorded in order, as he continues to explain: “For it says here. . .”

Where do we find that he returned? [You might ask: Why is this a proof? Many events are not expressly stated in the Torah! The answer is:] If Yisro was sent away after the giving of the Torah, then [even if he returned,] the Torah does not mention his return because it is of no importance. He already accepted Torah and mitzvos. But if he was sent away before the giving of the Torah, [he must have returned, as Rashi proved. And then] he came to accept the Torah, which is the main purpose of his coming. The narrative would then mention his return, so people will not say that Yisro came once, and only in order to bring Moshe’s wife and sons — for his return is not mentioned. See all this in Re”m, who wrote at great length, citing various versions of Rashi and discussing them. The main point is as I wrote.

He was not showing proper respect to Yisrael. . . The Ibn Ezra objected that this was not disrespectful, for judges always sit while the litigants stand. Re”m writes that this is no objection: Yisro was displeased that everyone stood, even those who had no litigation. He thought that they stood before Moshe to afford him princely honor. [Alternatively,] the Maharshal wrote that this is no question: litigants stand (Devarim 19:17) only during the hearing. But with Moshe they stood even before the hearing, for Moshe was the only judge and they were unable to come before him [immediately]. Sometimes they would stand until the evening, waiting to come before him. For this, Yisro reproved him. (Maharshal)

Can this be taken literally. . . This parsha speaks of the day after Yom Kippur, when Moshe needed to gather Yisrael and command them to build the Mishkan. If so, how could he have sat to judge from morning to evening?

As if he has become a participant with Hashem. . . Since the world’s existence depends on judgment. The proof is that the Flood [destroyed the world, and it] came because there was no judgment among them and people were robbing each other. As it is written, “The land was filled with robbery” (Bereishis 6:13). Therefore, he who judges truthfully supports the world’s existence, and it is as if he is partnership with Hashem.

[The same as:] כי בא in the present tense. I.e., כי יבא is not in the future tense, otherwise Moshe would not have sat before they came to seek instruction.

Whoever has the matter comes to me. Rashi is answering the question: Why does it begin in plural: [ להם ], but conclude in singular: בא אלי ? Thus Rashi explains: “Whoever has. . .” [In vs. 15-16,] Moshe is answering Yisro, who thought that Moshe’s sitting is [inappropriate] princely behavior. [The thrust of] Moshe’s answer is only, “I judge between man and his neighbor.” I.e., Moshe is answering that the people stand for judgment, not for his honor. [The thrust of] Moshe’s answer is not, “I impart to them Hashem’s statutes and His laws,” [which, taken on its own, could] mean that he is teaching them [and not judging them. This would not answer Yisro] because [in the early generations] both master and disciple stood while studying. Due to the fact [that everything revolves around, “I judge between man and his neighbor,”] Rashi explains that [everything] refers to judgment — even כי יבא in v. 15, and כי יהיה להם דבר in this verse. This is against [the simple understanding of] Onkelos, [that v. 15 speaks of teaching, not judgment].

As a way to honor him. . . Why did Rashi not make this comment before, where it said, “Moshe’s father-in-law saw” (v. 14)? The answer is: This verse here is preceded by (v. 15), “Moshe said to his father-in-law.” So here it should say, “His father-in-law said,” not, “Moshe’s father-in-law said.” Thus Rashi explains that [Moshe was mentioned] as a way to honor Yisro. And this is why Rashi did not make this comment before.

This includes Aharon, Chur. . . Question: Was not Chur killed when they made the Golden Calf, and this parsha comes afterward? The answer is: Rashi mentions Chur according to a different Aggadah which opines that Chur was not killed when they made the Golden Calf. According to the first Aggadah, גם אתה includes only Aharon and the seventy elders. (Maharshal)

Through the Divine Spirit which is upon you. [Rashi knows this] because תחזה is an expression related to חזיון (prophetic vision). Otherwise, it should say תבחר (choose). Alternatively, [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, how would Moshe be able to choose the capable and the truthful from among 600,000 men?

Any judge from whom property is taken. . . Re”m writes: The adage which Rashi cited does not exactly fit the point of discussion. [This is because property, if taken away through litigation, is not their own property. On the contrary, it rightfully belongs to the other party.] The answer [to the Re”m is as follows: Rashi’s adage] refers to the case [stated in Midrash Tanchuma, Yisro ch. 2] where one litigant says to the judge, “If you do not rule in my favor, I will burn down your house.” The judge rules in his favor, out of fear. Yet, the judge knows that the other litigant will sue him for the false ruling, and the judge will have to compensate him [from his own property] for the loss he caused him. About this Rashi said, “Any judge from whom property is taken through litigation.” In other words: Any judge who must pay money because he ruled against the innocent party is not fit to be a judge, for it is written: “Do not fear any man” (Devarim 1:17).

וידונון — an expression of a command. It means “They shall always judge,” which is called the “future progressive” tense. I.e., they will always be judging. But the second ושפטו (v. 26) is translated by Onkelos as ודיינין , which means: “They were always judging.” This is called the “past progressive” tense.

The present tense. I.e., it is not an expression of a command because the above-mentioned appointing of the judges already made things easier, and no further action is necessary. It means, “This is the way to make things easier; not any other way.”

If He will command you to do so. . . [The verse literally means: “Hashem will command you, and you will be able to survive.” Thus] Rashi explains that it [should be understood] as if it said: “If Hashem commands you, then you will be able to survive.” For how could it mean, “Hashem willcommand you”? How did Yisro know that Hashem will command Moshe to do as he proposed?

And the seventy elders. . . [How does Rashi know this? An answer is:] Because it cannot mean the litigants. For in the desert, there were no farmers or craftsmen who would miss work by [standing and] waiting. Although the Torah seemingly says that Moshe was judging alone, our Sages interpret “You, and also this people” (v. 18) to mean that Moshe was accompanied by the elders even before Yisro’s advice. (Re”m) [An alternative answer:] גם comes to include Aharon and the elders, and כל comes to include Nadav and Avihu, who were not yet elders. Rashi did not want to mention Chur here, since one Midrash says he had already died, so there is no point in mentioning him. (Maharshal)

Converting his family. [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, why was the sending attributed to Moshe? Perforce, because it was to convert Yisro’s family. And [the Torah considers] this to Moshe’s credit, for it is written, “The children of Keini, Moshe’s father-in-law, ascended from the city of palm trees with the children of Yehudah. . . and dwelt among the people” (Shoftim 1:16).