A.
Our parasha opens with Yithro’s arrival in Israel’s camp, because וישמע יתרו כהן מדין חתן משה את כל אשר עשה אלקים למשה ולישראל עמן כי הוציא ד' את ישראל ממצרים: (“And Yithro, the priest of Midyan, father-in-law of Moshe, heard everything that G-d had done for Moshe and Israel, His people, that Ha-Shem had brought Israel out of Egypt”; XVIII, 1).
The Talmud (זבחים קט"ז.) records three opinions concerning what, precisely, Yithro had heard which galvanized him to seek out Israel’s camp and join their ranks: Rabbi Yëho-shua‘ suggests that he heard of Israel’s first war with ‘Amaléq (XVII, 8-16); Rabbi El‘azar ha-Moda‘i, that it was Mattan Torah (XIX, 16 - XX, 18); and Rabbi Eli‘ézer ben Ya‘a-qov, that it was Qëri‘ath Yam Suf (XIV, 21-31). This, in turn, leads to another question: Did Yithro arrive before Mattan Torah (as was possible in the opinions of Rabbi Yëhoshua‘ and Rabbi Eli‘ézer ben Ya‘aqov or afterward (the only possible conclusion of we hold according to Rabbi El‘azar ha-Moda‘i)?
This second question seems moot, at first blush, when we read, a bit later in our parasha: וישלח משה את חתנו וילך לו אל ארצו: בחדש השלישי בצאת בני ישראל מארץ מצרים ביום הזה באו מדבר סיני: ויסעו מרפידים ויבאו מדבר סיני ויחנו במדבר ויחן ישראל נגד ההר: (“And Moshe saw his father-in-law off, and he went to his land. In the third month of the exodus of the bënei Yisra’él from the land of Egypt; on this day, they came [to] the Sinai desert. And they traveled from Rëfidim and came [to] the Sinai desert, and camped in the desert; and Israel camped opposite the mountain”; XVIII, 27 - XIX, 1-2).
So how could Rabbi El‘azar ha-Moda‘i imagine that Yithro had arrived after the Torah was given, if he left before Israel entered the Sinai desert?
The fact is that this is a classic example of Rashi’s famous principle, אין מוקדם ומאוחר בתורה, that the events recorded in the Torah are not necessarily in chronological order. In our case, this becomes very clear when we read elsewhere, that in Israel’s second year out from Egypt, Moshe told his father-in-law: נוסעים אנחנו אל המקום אשר אמר ד' אתו אתן לכם לכה אתנו כו' ויאמר לא אלך כי אם אל ארצי ואל מולדתי אלך: (“...We are traveling to the place concerning which Ha-Shem has said, 'That one shall I give you; go with us....' And [Yithro] said, 'I will not go; rather, to my land and to my birthplace shall I go'”; Numbers X, 29-30). Whenever Yithro arrived, he was clearly still with Israel after Mattan Torah.
So if the Torah’s purpose in our passage is not chronological, what are we to learn from this odd, ahistorical juxtaposition?
B.
The Maharal mi-Prag (דרשות מהר"ל, הקדמה לדרוש על התורה) offers us insight.
He calls our attention to the beginning of the ‘Asereth ha-Dibbëroth: אנכי ד' אלקיך אשר הוצאתיך מארץ מצרים מבית עבדים (“I am Ha-Shem your G-d Who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of slaves”; XX, 2). What a very peculiar way to introduce the infusion into the world of its fundamental organizing principle, the blueprint of the cosmos and its raison d’être; after all, Hazal tell us אסתכל קודשא בריך הוא באורייתא וברא עלמא (“The Holy One, Blessed is He, looked into the Torah and created the world”; בראשית רבה פ"א סי' ב'), and התנה הקדוש ברוך הוא עם מעשה בראשית וא"ל אם ישראל מקבלים התורה אתם מתקיימין ואם לאו אני מחזיר אתכם לתהו ובהו (“The Holy One Blessed is He made a condition at the act of Creation, and told it: 'If Israel accept the Torah, you exist; and if not, I am returning you to chaos'”; שבת פ"ח:); or, as the prophet Yirmëyahu proclaimed, כה אמר ד' אם לא בריתי יומם ולילה חקות שמים וארץ לא שמתי (“Thus has Ha-Shem said, 'If My covenant is not [in effect] by day and night, the laws of heaven and earth I did not put in place'”; Jeremiah XXXIII, 25).
In light of all of the above, we should rather have expected something a bit more grandiose, along the lines of אנכי ד' אלקיך עושה שמים וארץ (“I am Ha-Shem your G-d, Maker of heaven and earth”). Why, instead, does He lead off by mentioning the Exodus?
The reason, says the Maharal, is להורות לנו כי לישראל בפרט ובעצם נתייחסה נתינת התורה בהחלט ולא לזולתן מהעמים כו' תלה הדבר בהוציאו אותם ממצרים ולא אמר "אשר בראתי את כל" או זולת זה מהמעלות היותר כוללות ועליונות מההוצאה אלא שרצה לומר אחר שהוצאתי אתכם ממצרים מבית עבדים היא היא סבה מכרחת אתכם לעבדים לי ושמוכרחים אתם לקבל גזירותי ותורותי בעל כרחכם (“to instruct us that it is to Israel particularly and specifically that the giving of the Torah is decidedly related, and not to any of the nations outside of them... He made the matter depend upon His taking them out of Egypt, and did not say ‘Who created everything’ or anything else of the things more general and exalted than the Exodus, but rather wanted to say, 'Since I brought you out of Egypt, out of the house of slaves, his is the very reason obligating you to My service, and you are obligated to accept My decrees and My Toroth, [even] against your will...'”).
As the Maharal goes on to say, that could not be said of Yithro. He had not been enslaved by the Egyptians, and liberated by Ha-Shem. This in no way detracts from the magnitude of what Yithro did; on the contrary, his acceptance of the Torah was entirely voluntary, entirely an expression of his free will. In this sense, his experience was utterly different from that of Israel, and it is to point this out to us and highlight it that the Torah ahistorically notes Yithro’s departure from Israel’s camp before the bënei Yisra’él entered the desert to approach that fateful encounter a the foot of the mountain.
C.
‘Ad kan ha-Maharal. The English word “nation” is derived from the Latin natio, itself derived fro the past participle (natus) of the verb nasci, “to be born.” The English and Latin words thus emphasize ethnic heritage, what the Germans call Blut und Boden, “blood and soil,” as the key to nationhood.
And the ethnic component is important; we are called Israel because of our eponymous ancestor. But ethnicity alone does not provide for any sense of national cohesion. Indeed, if a person becomes divorced or alienated from his national culture such that his only tie to his people is his ethnic heritage, anything can happen; witness all of the people with Polish, German, Italian or Japanese names who have become so completely American.
Shortly before Mattan Torah began, G-d told Moshe: כה תאמר לבית יעקב ותגיד לבני ישראל: אתם ראיתם אשר עשיתי למצרים ואשא אתכם על כנפי נשרים ואבא אתכם אלי: ועתה אם שמע תשמעו בקלי ושמרתם את בריתי והייתם לי סגלה מכל העמים כי לי כל הארץ: ואתם תהיו לי ממלכת כהנים וגוי קדוש אלה הדברים אשר תדבר אל בני ישראל: (“...Thus shall you say to [the women] and tell the bënei Yisra’él. You saw what I did to Egypt, and I carried you on the wings of eagles and brought you to Me. And now, if listening you will listen to My voice and keep My covenant, you will be more precious to Me than all the nations, for Mine is the entire earth. And you will be My kingdom of kohanim and holy nation; these are the words which you will speak to the bënei Yisra’él”; XIX, 3-6).
In short, Ha-Shem decreed that the Torah is Israel’s national culture. As Rav Sa‘adya Ga’on famously writes: אין אומתנו אומה אלא בתורה (“Our nation is not a nation, save through the Torah”; ספר אמונות ודעות הקדמה רביעעית), and the Meshech Hochma similarly emphasizes that Israel’s national survival is dependent upon our knowing that Yërushalayim is our capital, that Lëshon ha-Qodesh is our language, and that the Torah is our culture (שם, פרשת בחקותי). it is only because we clung to that knowledge through the 3324 years since that meeting at Sinai, despite all o the stresses and strains, the pressures and blandishments of far-flung exile across the world, that we have continued to exist as G-d’s eternal people. And it is the whole-hearted adoption of Israel’s national culture which makes possible the “naturalization” of members of other nations – such as Yithro – amongst us; just as the failure to internalize the knowledge and practice of our national culture, the Torah, is the reason for the inroads which foreign cultures have made on ethnic Israel.
No comments:
Post a Comment