Yitro's System – A Bloated Bureaucracy/2

Yitro's System – A Bloated Bureaucracy?

Exegetical Approaches

There are several approaches to understanding the workings of Yitro's system and to explaining the number of rulers of thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens:

A Full 78,600 Judges

The system really had 78,600 rulers who all served as judges.

Sources:Mekhilta DeRabbi YishmaelYitro Amalek 2About the Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael,¹ Mekhilta DeRashbiShemot 18:21About Mekhilta DeRashbi, Bavli SanhedrinSanhedrin 18aAbout the Bavli, RashiShemot 18:21About Rashi, Ibn Ezra in his Short CommentaryShort Commentary Shemot 18:21About Ibn Ezra.²

Usage in Tanakh – In Melakhim II 1:9-14 each "ruler of fifty" commands fifty men.³

Bloated system – These sources do not address why it was necessary to have such a disproportionately high ratio of judges to laypeople.⁴

Finding qualified judges – Ibn Ezra in his Long CommentaryLong Commentary Shemot 18:21About Ibn Ezra dismisses the possibility that there were that many judges, arguing that it would have been impossible to find 78,600 qualified leaders possessing all of the traits in Yitro's job description.⁵ However, see Advice and Implementation that Rabbinic sources and Rashi are not bothered by this objection, as they maintain that since Moshe was unsuccessful at finding all of the desired criteria, he simply settled for lesser standards.

78,600 Appointees with Various Tasks

The system had 78,600 rulers, but each group of rulers had a different task and not all of them were judges. The two variations of this approach differ with regard to which other tasks Moshe delegated to the rulers:

Military

The vast number of rulers was needed because they formed a military chain of command, and not just a judicial system.

Sources:AbarbanelShemot 18Devarim 1About Abarbanel.⁶

For elaboration, see Moshe's Duties.

Civilian and Military

Each group of rulers had different responsibilities – The rulers of thousands were administrative and military leaders, the rulers of hundreds judged and were also military leaders, the rulers of fifties educated, and the rulers of tens were enforcement officers.

Sources:Vilna Gaon (GR"A)Aderet Eliyahu Devarim 1:15About the Vilna Gaon, HaKetav VeHaKabbalahShemot 18:21Devarim 1:15About HaKetav VeHaKabbalah, R. D"Z HoffmannShemot 18:25Devarim 1:15About R. D"Z Hoffmann.⁷

For further discussion, see Moshe's Duties.

Significantly Less Than 78,600 Rulers

There are several variations of this position found in the commentators, each one suggesting a new interpretation of the term "rulers of thousands":

Rulers of Many Thousands

Each "ruler of thousands" was in charge not just of one thousand people but of many thousands of people,⁸ with a similar concept applying to all of the other categories of rulers as well.

Sources:RalbagShemot 18:21About Ralbag.

Usage in Tanakh – This position is supported by the verses in Divrei HaYamim II 17:14-18 where Yehoshafat's "rulers of thousands" rule over hundreds of thousands of people and not one thousand.⁹

Entourage of a Thousand

Each "ruler of thousands" had an entourage of a thousand men/servants, but was in charge of many thousands of people,¹⁰ with a similar concept applying to all of the other categories of rulers as well.

Sources:Ibn Ezra in his Long CommentaryLong Commentary Shemot 18:21About Ibn Ezra.¹¹

Trait or title – Ralbag points out that according to Ibn Ezra the terms "rulers of thousands…" should have been listed together with the other necessary qualifications.¹²

Slaves with servants – Abarbanel notes that it is unlikely that recently freed slaves would now have hundreds or thousands of servants. He therefore raises the possibility that it was only upon their appointment that they were given these support staffs of aides and enforcement officers.

Court of a Thousand Judges

Each "ruler of thousands" was part of a supreme court of a thousand judges, while the lower courts were manned by quorums of a hundred, fifty, and ten judges.

Sources:Abarbanel's third possibilityShemot 18About Abarbanel.¹³

Number of judges – Abarbanel implies that there were 1160 rulers for each one of the twelve tribes.¹⁴

Inefficient system – R. Eliezer AshkenaziMa'asei Hashem Ma'asei Torah 5About Ma'asei Hashem points out that in a court of a thousand judges it would be difficult for the judges to hear each other, let alone come to any agreements quickly.¹⁵

Reversed pyramid – According to Abarbanel, the highest court which decided the most important issues consisted of the greatest number of judges (one thousand judges).¹⁶

¹ The Munich and Oxford manuscripts of the Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael specify (like the Bavli) that all were judges (דייני). The printed editions of the Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael merely use the word שרי like the Biblical verse.

² In contrast to his Long Commentary cited below. On the general relationship between the two commentaries, see Ibn Ezra.

³ In contrast, see Divrei HaYamim II 17:14-18 where Yehoshafat's "rulers of thousands" rule over hundreds of thousands of people, and see Ralbag below.

⁴ If these judges were part time volunteers rather than full time salaried officials, the need for larger numbers might be better understood.

⁵ Ibn Ezra's argument is consistent with his generally negative view of the generation which came out of Egypt. See Ibn Ezra's Exegesis and Ibn Ezra Shemot 19:9 (cf. Ramban) and Devarim 12:8 (cf. Ramban).

⁶ See Ibn Kaspi18:21About Ibn Kaspi and AbarbanelShemot 18About Abarbanel (influenced by and using nearly identical language to Ibn Kaspi) who explain that a large bureaucracy is effective, as long as it is hierarchical.

⁷ Both HaKetav VeHaKabbalah and R. D"Z Hoffmann cite the GR"A and follow in his footsteps.

⁸ According to Ralbag, there was a total of twelve "rulers of thousands," one per tribe. Shadal, though, while supporting Ralbag's general approach, suggests that there were more than twelve.

⁹ However, see above that in Melakhim II 1:9-14 each "ruler of fifty" commands fifty men.

¹⁰ According to Ibn Ezra, there was a total of twelve "rulers of thousands," one per tribe.

¹¹ See above for his differing approach in his Short Commentary. On the general relationship between the two commentaries, see Ibn Ezra.

¹² R. Eliezer AshkenaziMa'asei Hashem Ma'asei Torah 5About Maasei Hashem also wonders why this would be a prerequisite.

¹³ Abarbanel notes that such a system could be found in his own day in Venice. Abarbanel's examples are from the administrative realm, consistent with his notion that the rulers served more than just a judicial function.

¹⁴ Cf. Ibn Ezra in his Short CommentaryShort Commentary Shemot 18:21About Ibn Ezra who refers to an interpretation that there was a total of 1160 judges for all of the tribes together. Alternatively, one could maintain that while there was only one court of a thousand judges, there were numerous courts of a hundred, fifty, and ten.

¹⁵ Making the system more efficient was the purpose of Yitro's proposed reform. R"E Ashkenazi also suggests another interpretation that there were a total of 678 rulers – 600 "rulers of thousands," 6 "rulers of a hundred [thousand]," 12 "rulers of fifty [thousand]", and 60 "rulers of ten [thousand]." [This is also one of the possibilities mentioned by Ibn Ezra in his Short CommentaryShort Commentary Shemot 18:21About Ibn Ezra. However, see the Zafenat Paneach of R. Yosef Bonfils whose version of Ibn Ezra reads 78000 + 600 rather than 78 + 600.] However, in addition to the difficulty of adding the word "thousand" to each term, the resulting ordering of the list would be inconsistent (according to the Ma'asei Hashem, the "rulers of a hundred thousand" would be at the top of the pyramid). [In response, R"E Ashkenazi could perhaps suggest that the terms "hundreds", "fifties" and "tens" refer back to the "rulers of thousands" themselves (i.e. "ruler of a hundred" means "ruler of a hundred rulers of thousands").] See also HaKetav VeHaKabbalah who points out that Bemidbar 31:5,14,48 mentions "rulers of hundreds" even though there were only 12,000 soldiers (and not hundreds of thousands).

¹⁶ Alternatively, one could suggest that there were a thousand judges at the lowest level who each adjudicated cases by themselves, one hundred judges at the second level, fifty judges on the third level, and ten judges at the highest level.