The Two Accounts Which Yitro Heard

Exegetical Approaches

In analyzing the relationship between the report Yitro received in Midyan (verse 1) and the account he heard from Moshe (verse 8), commentators offer various approaches which can be divided into two main categories:

Different Events

Moshe shared new events about which Yitro had not yet heard. The variations of this approach differ in identifying what was new:

Moshe vs. the Nation

Yitro had previously heard reports of Moshe's personal success, but Moshe added how Hashem had aided the entire nation after their exodus from Egypt.

Sources:RashbamShemot 18:1,8,10About Rashbam.¹

Syntax issues in verse 1 – Rashbam interprets leMoshe uleYisrael ammo to mean "for Moshe, acting on behalf of Israel his nation".² Accordingly, verse 1 focuses exclusively on what God did for Moshe, in that He protected him from Paroh, enhanced his reputation, and enabled him to perform miracles on behalf of the nation.³

Deliverance from the "תְּלָאָה" of the journey and the internal structure of verse 8 – According to Rashbam, the tela'ah refers both to Paroh chasing them and to the lack of food and water, while the first half of the verse presumably speaks of the plagues in Egypt itself.

Overlap between the accounts – Rashbam is able to avoid having any overlap.

Names of God – Rashbam does not address this issue.

Reason for Moshe's additional report – Initially, Yitro, as Moshe's relative, was most concerned about Moshe's own fate. Moshe, though, being a self-effacing leader, was focused on the good of the nation, rather than his own personal glory.

Yitro's reaction – The first report was most significant for Yitro on the familial level, and it prompts him to bring Zipporah and her sons to Moshe in order to reunite the family. In contrast, Moshe's report was focused on the nation, leading Yitro to react on the religious and national levels, with the family receding into the background. See Purpose of Yitro's Visit. Yitro's words in 18:10 combine both reports, blessing Hashem for saving both Moshe (and Aharon) and the people. This explains the doubling of Hashem's "deliverance" (הִצִּיל) in 18:10.⁴

Egypt vs. En route

Yitro had heard what happened in Egypt; Moshe focused on what happened at Yam Suf and in the wilderness.

Sources:SfornoShemot 18:1,8About R. Ovadyah Sforno.

Syntax issues in verse 1 – Sforno explains the ki to mean "when." In his reading, the initial report described only the plagues and miracles which took place at the time of the Exodus.⁵

Deliverance from the "תְּלָאָה" of the journey and the internal structure of verse 8 – Sforno explains that tela'ah refers to the lack of food and water and the battle with Amalek,⁶ as opposed to the first half of the verse which speaks of the events of Yam Suf.

Overlap between the accounts – According to Sforno there is no overlap, and Moshe recounted later events of which Yitro had not previously heard.

Names of God – Sforno does not relate to this issue.

Chronology and the need for Moshe's additional report – Based on Sforno's comments regarding the altar in 18:12, it is likely that he thought that Chapter 18 is in its chronological place. If so, Yitro may have left Midyan to visit Moshe soon after hearing the reports of the plagues which brought about the Exodus, and before news of the later miracles reached Midyan. Thus the need for Moshe's update.

Yitro's reaction – In 18:11 Yitro acknowledges the greatness of Hashem, as reflected in the punishments of the Egyptians in Egypt and at Yam Suf (thus combining the two reports), and consequently converts (18:12).⁷

General vs. Details

Yitro had heard a general account while Moshe filled in the details.

Sources:U. CassutoShemot 18:1,8-10About Prof. U. Cassuto.

Cassuto appears to combine this difference with the distinctions of Rashbam and Sforno discussed above.

Syntax issues in verse 1 – Cassuto interprets leMoshe uleYisrael ammo to mean "for Moshe, and for Israel his nation,"⁸ with Yitro being focused first and foremost on his relative's welfare. In verse 8, Moshe corrects Yitro's error by emphasizing that Hashem performed his miracles "for Israel's sake."⁹

Deliverance from the "תְּלָאָה" of the journey and the internal structure of verse 8 – According to Cassuto the tela'ah refers to Paroh chasing them, the lack of food and water, and the battle with Amalek, while the first half of the verse speaks of the miracles in Egypt itself.

Overlap between the accounts – Moshe repeats the general description which Yitro has already heard in order to fill in the particulars.

Names of God – The report which initially came to Yitro spoke of the actions of Elohim, using His generic name (while noting that the Israelites refer to Him as Hashem). The name of Hashem, the God of Israel, is used in Moshe's speech and when Yitro reflects Moshe's words. See Character Titles and א-להים for more on the usages of the different names of God.

Reason for Moshe's additional report – Moshe, as an intimately involved eyewitness, was able to share many details that Yitro had not previously heard.

Yitro's reaction – Cassuto 18:9 says that, after hearing the additional details, Yitro was "even happier." However, Yitro's religious convictions do not change – see Yitro's Religious Identity, Purpose of Yitro's Visit, and Yitro's Sacrifices for elaboration on Cassuto's position that Yitro did not convert.

Exodus vs. Yam Suf

Yitro had previously heard only about the Exodus from Egypt, whereas Moshe told him how Hashem had drowned the Egyptians at Yam Suf.

Sources:New approach.¹⁰

Syntax issues in verse 1 – The ki means "that" and precedes the parenthetical clarification that the Exodus was the subject of the reports which had come to Yitro.

Deliverance from the "תְּלָאָה" of the journey and the internal structure of verse 8 – The tela'ah refers only to the events at Yam Suf, which are the exclusive subject of the entire verse.¹¹ A major advantage of this approach is that vayatzilem ("delivered them") refers solely to salvation from an enemy, and is consistent with its standard Biblical meaning.¹²

Overlap between the accounts – According to this possibility there is no overlap whatsoever.

Names of God – The original report in verse 1 which comes via Gentiles utilizes the generic name of Elohim.¹³ As would be expected, in verse 8, Moshe employs the name of Hashem which reflects God's supremacy and his special relationship with Israel. For elaboration, see Character Titles.

Chronology and the need for Moshe's additional report – Assuming that Chapter 18 is in its chronological place, Yitro may have left Midyan to visit Moshe soon after hearing the reports of the plagues which brought about the Exodus, and before news of the later miracles reached Midyan. Thus the need for Moshe's update.

Yitro's reaction and the uniqueness of Yam Suf – According to this interpretation, Yitro's reaction fits Moshe's report perfectly. It is specifically Moshe's report about the miracles of Yam Suf which prompts Yitro's exhilaration and profession of faith, as this was the greatest of the miracles, and Hashem's glory at Yam Suf was apparent, not just to Israel, but to all of the nations of the world. That the splitting of the sea (even more than the Exodus) had such a profound impact, is similarly manifest in the fear of the neighboring countries described in the Song of Yam Suf (Shemot 15:14-16), and in the words of Rachav (Yehoshua 2:9-11).¹⁴ Thus, it is not coincidental that Yitro employs the same verb הציל in 18:9,10 which Moshe had used in 18:8,¹⁵ as all three verses are speaking of the same "deliverance" at Yam Suf.¹⁶

Same Events

Moshe did not describe any new events, but his retelling was intended to transform Yitro's understanding of the events and Hashem's role in them. This position subdivides regarding the message Moshe wanted to convey:

Moshe repeated the news to bring Yitro closer to Hashem

Sources:Mekhilta DeRabbi YishmaelYitro Amalek 1About the Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael, RashiShemot 18:1,5,8,9About Rashi.

Yitro heard it all – The Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael cites three different opinions regarding the content of the original report which Yitro heard in 18:1: the battle with Amalek, the giving of the Torah, and the splitting of the sea.¹⁷ It then combines all three possibilities in describing what Moshe recounted to Yitro in 18:8.¹⁸ In addition, the Mekhilta brings three additional opinions as to the identity of the "good" to which Yitro reacts in 18:9 – the manna, the well, and the land of Israel.¹⁹

Rashi's adaptation of the Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael – Rashi combines almost all of the various opinions found in the Mekhilta,²⁰ in some cases transferring them from one clause to another so as to make them fit better with the simple sense of the verses.²¹

Deliverance from the "תְּלָאָה" of the journey and the internal structure of verse 8 – According to both the Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael and Rashi, tela'ah refers only to hostile encounters with the Egyptians and Amalek, and vayatzilem ("delivered them") refers solely to salvation from an enemy, matching its usual Biblical meaning.

Overlap between the accounts – There is significant overlap between the two accounts.

Names of God – This position does not relate to this distinction.

Yitro's reaction – According to R. Eliezer in the Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael, Yitro came in order to convert, and thus Moshe's second account only provided further encouragement.²² However, it is also possible that Yitro came for family purposes, and that Moshe's account is what convinced him to convert. See Purpose of Yitro's Visit.

Hashem is just

Yitro had heard of the punishments the Egyptians received, but did not understand the justice involved. Moshe explained how the Egyptians deserved these punishments.

Sources:Toledot YitzchakShemot 18:8About Toledot Yitzchak.

Syntax issues in verse 1 – Since R. Yitzchak Karo thinks that 18:1 focuses on how Paroh and the Egyptians were punished, he is forced to say that leMoshe uleYisrael ammo means "because of Moshe and Israel,"²³ and that ki means "when." In his reading, the Exodus is not the focus of the initial report, but only the time at which the Egyptians were punished.²⁴

Deliverance from the "תְּלָאָה" of the journey and the internal structure of verse 8 – The tela'ah refers to the Egyptians pursuing the Israelites, and explains why Hashem punished the Egyptians. Similarly, the first part of the verse clarifies that the Egyptians were punished on account of what they did to the Israelite nation ("עַל אוֹדֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל").

Overlap between the accounts – There is significant overlap because Moshe is explaining that the punishments were not arbitrary, but rather "measure for measure".

Names of God – The Toledot Yitzchak does not address this issue.

Yitro's reaction – Yitro arrived at a greater appreciation of Hashem as a result of his new understanding of Divine justice.²⁵

Hashem rules over both good and evil

Yitro had heard only of the good that Hashem did for the Children of Israel; Moshe told him also of the punishments inflicted on Paroh, emphasizing that Hashem controls both good and evil.

Sources:Keli YekarShemot 18:1About R. Shelomo Ephraim Luntschitz.²⁶

Overlap between the accounts – The accounts describe the same events but do not overlap, as each reported on the consequences for a different nation.

Names of God – The name Elohim (the name usually associated with the Divine attribute of justice) is used in 18:1 regarding the redemption of the Children of Israel, while the name of Hashem (the name related to the attribute of mercy) is employed in 18:8 to describe the punishment of the Egyptians. The purpose of this reversal is to underscore for the reader the same message which Yitro learned, that both justice and mercy emanate from one God and that there are not two separate powers ruling over different realms.²⁷

Yitro's reaction – Only after hearing Moshe's report did Yitro come to the realization that there is only one God who controls all of the forces in the world.

Hashem is the only God

Yitro had heard that Hashem took the people out of Egypt, but assumed that the miracles in the wilderness were performed by other gods. Moshe corrected his misperception, pointing out that everything was done by Hashem, the only God.

Sources:MalbimShemot 18:1,8About Malbim.²⁸

Syntax issues in verse 1 – According to Malbim, the ki means "and that", and Yitro thought that Elohim performed the miracles of the manna and water, while Hashem was responsible for the Exodus. The difficulty with this approach is that one would have expected the Exodus to be mentioned before the manna and water.

Overlap between the accounts – The accounts overlap as Moshe needs to correct Yitro's error.

Names of God – Malbim explains that verse 1 utilizes both the name Elohim as well as the name of Hashem because Yitro attributed different miracles to different gods. In contrast, in verse 8, Moshe uses only the name of Hashem to clarify that all actions were performed by Hashem, the only God.

Yitro's reaction – As a result of Moshe's words, Yitro was convinced that Hashem is the only God, and he therefore converted.

¹ Rashbam appears to also distinguish (like Sforno below) between the locations of the events. Verse 1 speaks of Moshe's personal success in Egypt, while verse 8 describes the miracles in the wilderness.

² I.e. Rashbam reads "his nation" and not "His nation"; cf. the first option in Ibn Ezra 18:1.

³ See also Melekhet MachshevetShemot 18:1About Melekhet Machshevet and U. CassutoShemot 18:1,8About Prof. U. Cassuto who explain that Yitro thought that Hashem had brought all of the miracles solely because of Moshe's merits. The Septuagint, in contrast, omits both Moshe from 18:1 and the doubling of the "deliverance" (הִצִּיל) in 18:10 (see below). In its attempt to harmonize all of verses 1 and 8-10, the LXX thereby trains the focus exclusively on the nation. For further analysis, see Textual Variants.

⁴ The verb is previously used both with regard to Moshe personally (18:5) and the entire nation (18:8-9). Cf. Ibn Ezra in his Short Commentary Shemot 18:10 that the first הִצִּיל refers to the events in Egypt and the second alludes to what happened at Yam Suf.

⁵ In attempting to explain the motivation of the opinions in the Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael that Yitro heard about events unconnected to the Exodus, Sforno explains that the root שמע (in contrast to the root ראה) refers to past rather than ongoing events, and that the Exodus should be regarded as a continuing process. Consequently, in his own interpretation, he is forced to explain that the verse refers not to the Exodus itself, but only to the plagues which took place at that time (and that ki must mean "when").

⁶ Cf. the use of "בַּדֶּרֶךְ" in Devarim 25:18-19 in reference to Amalek's attack.

⁷ The difficulty with Sforno's approach is that Yitro's reaction does not address the events to which the tela'ah refers.

⁸ Reading "his nation" and not "His nation", like Rashbam above.

⁹ This point is already noted by Malbim.

¹⁰ This approach is most similar to Sforno's, but has a narrower view of the scope of each verse. It thereby accounts for the contrast between the focal points of Hashem's actions in verse 1 (Moshe and Israel) and verse 8 (Paroh and the Egyptians). The focus in verse 1 is on what God did for Moshe and the Children of Israel, that he took them out of Egypt. In contrast, verse 8 highlights what Hashem did to Paroh and Egypt at Yam Suf.

¹¹ Verse 8 is thus structurally similar to verse 1; in each, the second half of the verse explains the first half rather than describing an additional event. The etnachta cantillation sign thereby functions as a colon in each verse.

¹² The root of הציל is used in Tanakh to refer to salvation from a predator or an enemy, rather than to describe providing for a physical need such as hunger or thirst. See נצל.

¹³ Only the narrative voice's parenthetical clarification at the end of verse 1 uses the name of Hashem, not the report itself.

¹⁴ The shared awestruck reactions may motivate Shemuel's interpretation (Bavli Sanhedrin 94a) of vayichad that Yitro also trembled. See Encounters with Foreign Leaders and Yitro's Religious Identity for more on the parallels between Yitro and Rachav.

¹⁵ See the note above regarding the meaning of the root of הציל.

¹⁶ See here for the possibility that Yitro's words in 18:11 "for that which they plotted (or acted arrogantly) against them" (and the similar verse in Nechemyah 9:10) also refer to the Egyptians intentions to drown the Israelites in Yam Suf.

¹⁷ The Oxford and Munich manuscripts of the Mekhilta omit the first position, that of the battle with Amalek. However, from various other textual witnesses including Genizah fragments [see Menachem Kahana, קטעי מדרש הלכה מן הגניזה (Jerusalem, 2005): 87,88], early printings of the Mekhilta, parallel texts in Midrash Mishlei 21:222 and Bavli Zevachim 116a, and the citation of the Mekhilta in Ramban Shemot 18:1, it appears that the missing section in these two manuscripts is the result of a copyist's error (perhaps a homeoteleuton).

¹⁸ This is also only according to the printed editions of the Mekhilta. The formulation in the Oxford and Munich manuscripts of the Mekhilta is more cryptic and appears not to include the giving of the Torah.

¹⁹ Regarding the syntactical issues of the vav of uleyisrael and the ki, the Mekhilta suggests that the first conveys that Moshe and Israel are of equal importance, and the second teaches that the Exodus and all subsequent miracles are also of comparable significance.

²⁰ Rashi interprets the first clause of 18:1 ("Yitro heard") as refering to news of the splitting of the sea and war with Amalek, the second clause ("all that God had done for Moshe and Israel") as relating to the miracles of the manna, well, and the victory over Amalek, and the last clause ("Hashem had brought Israel out of Egypt") as speaking of the Exodus itself. Rashi may be motivated by a desire to find a textual hook for every miracle that had previously occurred. It is not clear why Rashi attaches the salvation from Amalek to two different clauses (see R. Eliyahu Mizrachi's for an attempted explanation).

²¹ Rashi inserts the miracles of the manna and water already in 18:1 in order to provide the basis for Yitro's reaction in 18:9. In 18:1 (and 18:8, but see note above regarding the variant versions of the Mekhilta), Rashi omits the possibility in the Mekhilta that Yitro heard about the giving of the Torah. However, in 18:9, Rashi includes the Torah in the list of what caused Yitro to rejoice. [This has ramifications for Rashi's position on whether Yitro arrived before or after the Decalogue – see Chronology of Shemot 18.] Rashi also leaves out the possibility that the "good" refers to the land of Israel, perhaps because the land had not yet been received.

²² This may also be the position taken by Rashi 18:5.

²³ Cf. Ibn Ezra Shemot 18:1,8.

²⁴ The reading of the Toledot Yitzchak would be much more viable if the verses were reversed, i.e. if 18:1 had spoken of what God did "to Paroh and to the Egyptians" and 18:8 had told of what Hashem did "for Moshe, and for Israel His people."

²⁵ The Toledot Yitzchak thus reads "for that which they plotted against them" (18:11) back into each of the previous three verses (18:8-10), explaining that the principle of "measure for measure" is the focus of the entire dialogue between Moshe and Yitro.

²⁶ This position is almost the mirror image of the previous opinion of the Toledot Yitzchak.

²⁷ This is one of two explanations offered by the Keli Yekar. Both have difficulty accounting for the appearance of the name Hashem at the end of 18:1.

²⁸ Malbim combines this approach with the above distinction of the Keli Yekar.