Did Moshe Need Yitro's Advice/2/he

האם משה היה זקוק לעצת יתרו?

גישות פרשניות

סקירה

העקידת יצחק מציין שבהבנת סיפור זה, הקורא נקלע בין הפטיש לסדן. אם עצתו של יתרו הייתה פתרון נכון וראוי למצב הבעייתי, אז משה נראה טיפשי על כך שלא פתר את הבעיה בעצמו. מצד שני, אם עצתו של יתרו הייתה לא מועילה או בלתי נדרשת, אז למה משה יישם אותה בכלל? ישנן שלוש גישות בסיסיות בהבנת התהליך המחשבתי של יתרו ומשה, והן מציירות ציורים שונים של שתי הדמויות הראשיות והיחסים ביניהן.

משה הזדקק לעזרה

משה הזדקק לעזרה בתיקון המערכת שלו, ויתרו היה מסוגל לספק לו תובנה ופרספקטיבה של גורם חיצוני.

מקורות:אבן עזרא1111במדבר י':ל"א אודות ר' אברהם אבן עזרא¹, רלב"גשמות תועלות י"ח:י"בשמות תועלות י"ח:י"ד-ט"ואודות ר' לוי בן גרשום², אבן כספיטירת כסף ה' (עמ' 140)אודות ר' יוסף אבן כספי, צרור המורשמות י"ח:כ"דאודות ר' אברהם סבע, רש"ר הירששמות י"ח:כ"דאודות ר' שמשון רפאל הירש.

ביקורת על מנהיגות מגדל השנהב של משה – רלב"ג מסביר שרוחניות הגדולה של משה וקרבתו לה' גרמו לו לטעויות בשיפוט ביחס לעניינים ארציים, ולכן הזדקק ליתרו שינחה אותו בהקמת מערכת משפטית יעילה.³ ראו דמותו של משה לדיון כללי יותר על מנהיגותו של משה ופגמי מנהיגות אפשריים.⁴ רלב"ג מרכך את ביקורתו בשבח גדול לחכמתו של משה ולשלמות אישיותו, ומציג את נכונותו להקשיב לעצה ולתקן את מעשיו כדוגמא זוהרת לדבר שצריך לקחת כמודל לחיקוי. אולם, עמדתו עוררה את הכעס של אברבנאל החולק בתוקף על טענתו של רלב"ג (וקורא לה "שקר"). אברבנאל טוען שלמשה הייתה יכולת ניהולית מעולה, וציין כי לא יתכן שה' לא הדריך את משה לפי ידע בסיסי ושכל ישר.⁵ מסקרן, שרש"ר הירש מבקר את יכולתו המשפטית והניהולית של משה בחדות רבה יותר אפילו מזו של רלב"ג.⁶

כרונולוגיה – בעוד שמפרשים רבים מסבירים שיתרו ביקר בשנה הראשונה במדבר, רלב"ג טוען שיתרו הגיע והציע את עצתו רק בשנה השנייה- ראו כרונולוגיה של שמות י"ח. בנקודת זמן זו, כבר ניתנו חוקים אזרחיים ולמשה היו הזדמנויות רבות לכונן מערכת משפטית. לפי רלב"ג, דבר זה מדגיש את חסרונותיו הניהוליים של משה ומבליט את העובדה שהוא לא חשב על עצת יתרו בעצמו.⁷

השראתו של משה – בפירושו צרור המור, ר' אברהם סבע לא מתמקד בחסרון ניהולי אפשרי של משה, אלא בהשראה האלוהית של יתרו שאפשרה לו לראות את מה שמשה פספס- ראו זהותו הדתית של יתרו. הוא מסביר שיתרו זכה בהשראה זו בזכות מעשהו הטוב בבואו לברך את ילדי ישראל.

למה ה' לא ציווה את משה – רלב"ג לא מסביר למה ה' עבד דרך תיווכו של יתרו ולא יעץ למשה למנות שופטים בשלב מוקדם יותר. ראו פרשנות רלב"ג על שימוש ה' באדם ובטבע. צרור המור מציע שה' חיכה לייעץ למשה בנושא זה כדי שיתרו יקבל קרדיט על ההצעה והאומה כולה תבין מדוע משה התחתן עם ביתו.⁸ ראו גם אור החיים המציע שה' רצה להראות שיש הרבה חכמה בין הגויים, ושהוא לא בחר את ילדי ישראל בגלל האינטליגנציה שלהם.

אידיאל ומציאות – בשיחה פרטית, פרופ' אוריאל שמעון הציע שהמערכת של משה הייתה מודל לעולם אידאלי, אבל תוכניתו של יתרו תוכננה כדי להתאים למציאות בה הדרישות היו גדולות מדי ביחס לזמן שעמד ברשות משה.

יתרו היועץ – ר' איתן מאייר מציג גרסה של גישה זו ומשתמש ב"מטאפורה עסקית" המציירת את משה כמנכ"ל של ארגון ללא מטרות רווח למען ילדי ישראל, בו יתרו משמש כיועץ חיצוני. לפיו, יתרו הוא גורם חיצוני המביא נקודת מבט חדשה לגורמים המעורבים בדבר שהתרגלו לסטטוס קוו.

משה ויתרו שניהם צדקו

Moshe was making the best of a difficult situation, but Yitro correctly advised him that there was a need for God to fix the underlying cause of the problem by giving a code of civil law.

R. Yitzchak Arama in his Akeidat Yitzchak charts this middle ground in attempting to portray both Moshe and Yitro in the best possible light.

מקורות:Akeidat Yitzchak43About Akeidat Yitzchak

Why had Moshe not already appointed judges – The Akeidat Yitzchak explains that by the time of Yitro's advice, the people had only received some basic laws at Mara. Therefore, until the people received the body of civil law in Parashat Mishpatim, Moshe needed to adjudicate all disputes, as both Moshe and the nation did not trust anybody else to judge fairly. And thus, there is no fault to be found in Moshe's leadership, as he was doing the best that could be done with the hand that God had dealt him.

If Moshe was acting correctly, what was Yitro suggesting? According to R. Yitzchak Arama, Yitro (like Moshe) realized that there could be no effectively functioning judiciary without first having a code of civil law,⁹ and therefore he attempted to address the root of the problem by proposing that the nation receive a Divine civil law code.¹⁰ Thus he understands that Yitro's words "and God will command you" ("וְצִוְּךָ אֱלֹהִים") in 18:23 refer to the necessary condition of God giving Moshe the laws¹¹ (rather than to God commanding Moshe to appoint the judges).¹² According to the Akeidat Yitzchak, Yitro was also well aware of the impending revelation, as Zipporah and her sons had come to participate in the experience – see Chronology of Shemot 18.

Divine civil law: Yitro's revolutionary concept – The Akeidat Yitzchak suggests that until Yitro's advice, Moshe did not realize that Hashem was planning on bequeathing a Divine code of civil law, and that Yitro was the first to conceive of this concept and recognize its desirability.¹³ While at first blush, this approach may be difficult to digest, in truth, the Torah was the first corpus to combine ritual prescriptions with civil legislation; all other Ancient Near Eastern codes of civil law were established by the king and were separate from matters of religious worship. Thus, the Akeidat Yitzchak is proposing that Moshe originally thought that in civil matters, the nation would conduct themselves like all other nations, i.e. there would be a separation of church and state.¹⁴ Cognizant of the novelty of his approach,¹⁵ R. Arama concludes by pointing to parallel cases where Torah laws are given as the result of new circumstances,¹⁶ and where it appears that Moshe had been previously unaware of the need to institute them.¹⁷

Chronology – In order to understand both Moshe and Yitro, Akeidat Yitzchak needs to posit that Yitro gave his advice before the Decalogue but that it was implemented only in the second year once the nation had received the laws – see Chronology of Shemot 18.¹⁸ However, he does not explain why Yitro would have given his advice already before the Decalogue, knowing that it could not yet be implemented, and given the likelihood that Moshe on his own could have figured it out when the time was ripe.

Perspectives on Moshe and Yitro – The Akeidat Yitzchak depicts both Moshe and Yitro as capable leaders possessing administrative competence and insight. According to him, Yitro was a wise man¹⁹ whose advice was fundamentally sound, and he praises Moshe for implementing Yitro's advice as given, citing the verse from Mishlei 12:15 "but he who is wise listens to counsel."

Yitro's Advice was Unnecessary

Moshe's system was the best possibility for the time being, and Yitro's advice was unnecessary or unhelpful. There are a number of distinct variations of this possibility,²⁰ but they all agree that the appointment of judges which ultimately occurred was not directly connected to Yitro's advice (see Chronology) and took place only significantly afterwards:

Long lines were an anomaly

The long line for judgment was a one-time aberration on the day of Yitro's visit, while in general there was no need for additional judges at this time.

Moshe had been away

According to the Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael and Rashi, Yitro observed Moshe judging the people on the day after Yom HaKippurim (when he descended from Mount Sinai with the second tablets) – see Chronology. If Moshe had spent the last four months on Mount Sinai, one can readily understand why a huge backlog of cases had accumulated in his absence.

מקורות:Mekhilta DeRabbi YishmaelYitro Amalek 2About Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael, RashiShemot 18:13About Rashi

Moshe had taken the previous day off when Yitro visited

Chizkuni, in explaining why the Torah notes that "it happened on the next day" posits that on the day of Yitro's arrival Moshe was busy with Yitro and had not judged the people. This might explain why he needed to work overtime on the following day.²¹

מקורות:Chizkuni18:13About Chizkuni

Newly acquired wealth

R. Medan offers an alternative predicated on the assumption that most of the Yitro story appears in chronological order – see Chronology, and that Yitro arrived and observed Moshe shortly after the battle with Amalek. According to him, the division of the spoils with Amalek caused significant strife and was responsible for Moshe's heavy caseload on that particular day.²² R. Medan posits that shortly thereafter things settled down and while the nation was encamped at Mount Sinai there was little need for additional judges. It was only in the second year, when the nation resumed their journey that complaints spiked once again and Moshe needed assistance – compare opinion cited in Hoil MosheHoil Moshe Devarim 1:9About Hoil Moshe and see Relationship of Shemot 18 – Bemidbar 11 – Devarim 1.

מקורות:R. Yaacov Medan²³

Recent water shortage

R. Medan offers an additional possibility that Moshe's busy schedule resulted from the need to allocate the water which the nation had just received.²⁴ According to this explanation, the people's complaints and the need for more judges arose only while they were in transit and not during the year they were at Mount Sinai.

מקורות:R. Medan²⁵

There were additional prerequisites

There was a consistent need for additional judges to assist Moshe, but additional preparatory steps needed to be taken before they could be appointed:

The nation needed to first receive the laws

מקורות:AbarbanelShemot 18About Abarbanel²⁶

Why had Moshe not already appointed judges – According to Abarbanel, Moshe had already thought of Yitro's suggestion by himself and was planning to implement it as soon as it would be viable. He explains that although Moshe himself had received the Torah's civil laws already at Mara, it was not until Parashat Mishpatim that he was instructed to transmit the laws to the people. Thus in the meantime Moshe could not yet entrust cases to other judges.²⁷ Abarbanel's explanation of why Moshe had not already selected judges is thus almost identical to the Akeidat Yitzchak above.²⁸ They differ significantly, however, in their assessment of what Moshe was planning and what Yitro was suggesting.

What was Yitro thinking? While the Akeidat Yitzchak assumes that Yitro knew about the upcoming revelation and conditioned the appointment of judges on the nation's first receiving the laws, Abarbanel disagrees and thinks that Yitro knew nothing of the imminent revelation or the giving of a law code²⁹ and erroneously thought that Moshe was planning to continue indefinitely as the sole judge.³⁰ According to Abarbanel's understanding, Yitro recommended that Moshe appoint judges immediately (without the nation first receiving any of the laws), who would then render verdicts based on their own common sense.³¹ Consequently, Abarbanel concludes that Yitro's advice was both ill-timed ("ויתרו אכלה פגה העצה הזאת") and reflective of a Midianite model of justice rather than a Divine one.

Chronology – Like the Akeidat Yitzchak, Abarbanel needs to claim that Yitro gave his advice before the Decalogue but that Moshe selected judges only in the second year once the nation had received the laws – see Chronology of Shemot 18.³²

Perspectives on Moshe and Yitro – It is likely that Abarbanel's position reflects his instinctive recoil (see above) from the suggestion of Ralbag that Moshe's administrative skills were lacking and that he was in need of Yitro's advice.³³  In response, Abarbanel tries to demonstrate not only Moshe's wisdom but also the flaws in Yitro's advice. Thus, Abarbanel emphasizes that Moshe's ultimate implementation was not a result of Yitro's suggestion,³⁴ that it differed from Yitro's advice in several critical respects, and that Moshe by himself had already thought of whatever positive aspects Yitro's plan contained.³⁵ Abarbanel adds that for these reasons Moshe does not even credit Yitro for the suggestion in his retelling of the story in Devarim 1.³⁶ This is all in stark contrast to the Akeidat Yitzchak (see above) who portrays Yitro and his advice in a very positive light.³⁷

Moshe needed to build support

Initially, Moshe needed to judge the people himself in order to win over their hearts so that they would accept the Torah and its commandments.

מקורות:Shadal18:24About Shadal

Why Hashem didn't command Moshe – Shadal thus explains why Hashem had not yet commanded Moshe to appoint judges.

Implementation – It is unclear according to Shadal here how long a period was necessary until Moshe could begin to delegate, but according to one possibility in Shadal 18:1 Moshe implemented the advice before the Decalogue. See Chronology of Shemot 18.

¹ אבן עזרא מצטט דעה זו בשם אחרים. בעוד שדעה זו איננה מבקרת את משה, היא טוענת שליתרו הייתה תובנה שנעלמה ממשה, ושזו הייתה אחת מהסיבות בגללן משה ביקש מיתרו להישאר עם העם.

² תועלות י"ד, הקטע המכיל את הניסוח החריף ביותר אינו מופיע במהדורת ונציה של פרשנות רלב"ג, אך מופיע במהדורות המפורטות המאוחרות יותר. ראו רלב״ג שזוהי תוספת מאוחרת יותר של רלב"ג לפירושו. רלב"ג הוא הפרשן הראשון שמתייחס לנושא שלנו באופן ישיר, ופירושו משפיע על פרשנים ספרדים מאוחרים יותר. התקפתו של אברבנאל (ראו למטה) היא כנראה ישירות נגד דעה זו של רלב"ג. לעוד על מערכת היחסים ביניהם, ראו אברבנאל ורלב"ג.

³ אבן כספי וצרור המור מבהירים גם הם שיתרו היה מסוגל לספק תובנה שמשה לא הגיע אליה בעצמו, אך ניסוחם הרבה פחות חד מזה של רלב"ג.

⁴ רלב"ג, לאורך כל פירושו, עקבי בהכרת פגמיו של משה ויחוסם לרוחניותו הגדולה. ראו  
Moshe's Speech Impediment וMoshe's Character לדיון על פרשנות רלב"ג על מום הדיבור של משה וגילויים אקראיים של כעס.

⁵ ראו למטה לניתוח עמדתו האישית של אברבנאל.

⁶ מניע פולמוסי נראה בבירור בהערותיו של רש"ר הירש.

⁷ תיארוך שמות י"ח בתחילת השנה השנייה גם יוצר קרבה לסיפור בבמדבר י"א בו משה נראה באופן דומה מוצף וחסר יכולת, וצריך שה' יסייע לו על ידי מינוי עוזרים.

⁸ ראו כאן ביחס לנישואי משה עם ציפורה. הרעיון של נתינת קרדיט ליתרו מבוסס בחלקו על ספרי במדבר ע"ח המסביר שמשה כבר צווה על מינוי השופטים בהר סיני, אבל הביצוע חמק ממנו, כדי שיתרו יקבל את הקרדיט. נראה שהספרי ממקם לפחות את חלקו השני של פרק י"ח אחרי עשרת הדיברות- ראו כרונולוגיה. ראו גם ר' סעדיה שמות י"ח:כ"ג. 

⁹ Compare to Abarbanel's position below that Yitro had no idea that laws would be given, and was recommending that the judges decide cases based on their own intuition, like in the Midianite system.

¹⁰ See Structure of Sefer Shemot for the possibility that Chapter 18 constitutes an introduction to the Covenant unit of the Book.

¹¹ See Literary Analysis for Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael, Rashi, and Abarbanel's alternative interpretations of these words.

¹² The difficulty with the Akeidat Yitzchak's approach is that this most central aspect of Yitro's advice is mentioned only as part of the summation at the tail end of Yitro's words, rather than being stated at the outset as the necessary foundation upon which his entire proposal is dependent. [Yitro's earlier words in verse 20 about Moshe communicating the laws to the people do not break any new ground and merely reflect what Moshe had already said in verse 16 (and thus R. Arama does not point to them as a support for his thesis).]

¹³ R. Arama writes: "ובא יתרו והעיר על צרכה, וגם רוח המקום נוחה הימנו, כדי שירגישו תועלת החלק הזה מהמשפטים היותו א-להי, נוסף על שאר התועלות שיזכרו בפרשת משפטים (שער מ"ו) ב"ה." In Chapter 46, he expounds at length on this theme. Cf. the Midrash in Pesikta DeRav Kahana 12:11 which may be a reaction to the possibility later formulated by the Akeidat Yitzchak. A significantly more radical position is put forth by R. Chaim HirschensohnSeder LaMikra pp.133-134About R. Chaim Hirschensohn in his work Seder LaMikra Vol. II (Jerusalem, 1932): 131-137. He proposes that the entire code of civil law found in Shemot 21-22 (Parashat Mishpatim) was all part of Yitro's advice.

¹⁴ Akeidat Yitzchak seems to consider both the possibility that Moshe thought that there wouldn't be a civil law code at all, as well as the option that there would be a code of civil law, but humanly legislated. Even regarding ritual law, one may consider the possibility that Moshe did not yet know that Hashem was planning on presenting the nation with a set of rules. Until this point, Moshe had heard only that the nation would "worship" God on Mount Sinai (Shemot 3:12), and he may have learned that Hashem would also speak only in Shemot 19:9.

¹⁵ In his own words: "והנה אם יקשה לבך על זה, תאמר איך יתכן שעל פי עצתו של יתרו נתנו הדינים לישראל, והלא התורה כלה כהוייתה קדמה לעולם תתקע"ד דורות".

¹⁶ Such as the inheritance of daughters (Bemidbar 27) and Pesach Sheni (Bemidbar 9), and the cases of the blasphemer (Vayikra 24) and the mekoshesh (Bemidbar 15). See Moshe for further discussion.

¹⁷ See the Akeidat Yitzchak's formulation: "וכבר היה משה בלתי חושש לחסרונה, כמו שלא היה מקפיד על הדינים ההם, עד שבא לו הצורך אליהם, ובא יתרו והעירה על צרכה".

¹⁸ See the discussion there regarding R. Arama's position that Moshe waited to appoint judges until the second year, its motivations, difficulties, and alternatives.

¹⁹ See Yitro's Character for more regarding Akeidat Yitzchak's portrait of Yitro.

²⁰ A radical expression of this position appears in Philo's work On Drunkenness X:37. In this work, Philo presents an exceedingly negative portrait of Yitro (see here) and goes so far as to say that Yitro in his arrogance 'proposes laws contrary to those of nature.' However, it is difficult to find any textual basis for his tirade, and Philo himself praises Yitro's proposal in The Special Laws IV:XXXIII:173-175.

²¹ Cf. R. Saadia in his Commentary to Shemot 18:13 who says that Moshe only judged the people on certain assigned days, and thus did not judge them on the day Yitro came.

²² Cf. Lekach Tov and Sekhel Tov 18:13 who attribute the workload to disputes regarding the spoils from the Egyptian army, and Chizkuni's note (18:13) that this would not make chronological sense.

²³ In his article, "איפה ואיפה – עיון בפרשיות נדודי ישראל במדבר", Megadim 17 (1992): 79-80.

²⁴ This is an extension of the suggestion he develops (pp. 62-64) that despite the miraculous nature of the manna and water, supplies were not unlimited – see Life in the Wilderness.

²⁵ In footnote 67 of the same article.

²⁶ See Moshe's Duties and Yitro's Advice for a discussion of Abarbanel's alternative suggestion in his commentary to Devarim 1. There he offers that the need for additional judges came about only in the second year as the nation prepared to conquer and settle the land of Israel.

²⁷ Abarbanel does not explain why Moshe could not have taught civil law to the nation already at Mara, and thereby have avoided the unmanageable workload.

²⁸ They also concur in the need to split Shemot 18 into two different time periods – see below. There are numerous near verbatim parallels between their commentaries, and this is not by chance. See Akeidat Yitzchak and Abarbanel regarding the relationship between these two commentators.

²⁹ Abarbanel adds that Moshe did not share this information with Yitro. In contrast, according to the Akeidat Yitzchak, Moshe was unaware that Hashem planned to give a civil law code, while Yitro assumed that this would happen.

³⁰ Cf. Akeidat Yitzchak who suggests that this may have in fact been Moshe's plan until Yitro gave his advice.

³¹ In other words, according to the Akeidat Yitzchak the essence of Yitro's advice was that there was a need for a code of law (to enable an effective judicial system), while according to Abarbanel it was to appoint judges (even without a legal code).

³² See the discussion there as to why Moshe waited until the second year.

³³ Abarbanel, who spent much of his life in a diplomatic/political role, was probably inclined to assume that Moshe also was skilled in these areas.  Little information is known about Ralbag's life, but some of his works give an impression that their author was more of an ivory tower scholar than a person engaged with the masses.

³⁴ According to Abarbanel, though, it is unclear why the Torah chose to record Yitro's advice, and why the Torah would make it appear that Moshe followed it to the letter. Abarbanel attempts to explain that Moshe, out of respect for his father-in-law, told him that he would implement his advice. However, see R. Eliezer Ashkenazi in Ma'asei Hashem, Ma'aseh Torah 5, who rejects Abarbanel's argument, noting that it is not Moshe himself who states that he followed Yitro's advice, but rather the Torah in its narrative voice recording that Moshe did so.

³⁵ Thus the Akeidat Yitzchak and Abarbanel have a fundamental difference of opinion on what might have happened had Yitro not given his advice. According to Abarbanel, the eventual outcome would have been the same, while according to the Akeidat Yitzchak, Moshe might never have appointed judges.

³⁶ R. Eliezer Ashkenazi in Maasei Hashem critiques Abarbanel's position and argues for an alternative explanation that in Devarim 1 Moshe is concerned only with the implementation and not the genesis of the idea and therefore doesn't mention Yitro. He points out that in similar fashion, Moshe doesn't always mention that an instruction came from Hashem. Additional approaches can be found in Ramban Devarim 1:18 – see Chronology and Appointing Moshe's Assistants.

³⁷ See Yitro's Character for further comparison of the views of Akeidat Yitzchak and Abarbanel.