The Eternal Father-in-Law
וילך משה וישב אל יתר חתנו ויאמר לו אלכה נא ואשובה אל אחי אשר במצרים ואראה העודם חיים
And Moshe went and returned to Yeser (Yisro) his father-in-law and said, ‘May I please go and return to my brothers who are in Egypt, and see if they are still alive…[i]
[i] Shemos 4:18
QUESTIONS
- We already know from a previous verse[i] that Yisro was Moshe’s father-in-law, why does the Torah repeat this description.
- Also, how could Moshe delay his mission to redeem the Jewish people. Not to mention; how could he possibly condition his mission on the approval of his father-in-law.
[i] Shemos 2:16 together with 2:21
Contextual Background
To understand the dynamic between these two men, we must look at their history. The Midrash relates that Yisro was originally an advisor to Pharaoh. When Moshe was brought to trial for killing an Egyptian, it was Yisro who advised that Moshe should not be killed. For this defense of Moshe, Yisro lost his position and fled.
Thereafter, Moshe flees Pharaoh and arrives in Midian. He meets Tzipporah, and Yisro gives her to him in marriage.
However, the relationship seems to transcend the marriage. Even after the separation of Moshe and Tzipporah, when Yisro comes to the desert, he sends a message: “I, your father-in-law Yisro, am coming to you.” He specifically leverages the title. As Rashi notes there, Yisro was honored by Moshe [as he claimed to be his father-in-law], and previously Moshe had been honored by Yisro [when Moshe went request permission from his father-in-law to follow G-d’s directive to go to Egypt].
And Moshe responds to it, going out to meet him with great honor.[1]
[1] As indicated in the verse ויבא אהרן וכל זקני ישראל לאכל לחם עם חתן משה – on which our sages ask, where was Moshe. The answer of course is that Moshe was serving as the waiter at that meal, as Moshe was honoring his father-in-law.
Expanding the Question: Why is this title maintained
In fact, this question becomes even stronger when we look through the entire Torah; there are eight times[i] where the Torah repeats this combination, “Yisro, Moshe’s father-in-law”.
Furthermore, we need to consider the timing[1] of the verses using this description as the majority of these verses are written when Moshe had already separated / divorced from his wife. As the verse[ii] notes regarding Tzipporah, she was brought back by Yisro אחר שילוחיה – after she had been sent away.
This follows both opinions as to whether Yisro arrived before or after the giving of the Torah. If Yisro came before the giving of the Torah, then, as Rashi notes[iii], Moshe sent Tzipporah away on Aharon’s advice so that she wouldn’t suffer from being in Egypt. If Yisro came after the giving of the Torah, then the reason Moshe divorced Tzipporah was because G-d told Moshe to do so in the verse[iv] ואתה פה עמוד עמדי – that he had to remain in a state of constant prophetic readiness. Accordingly, Moshe had to divorce his wife, as was made apparent to Miriam when she committed לשון הרע in trying to get Moshe to reconcile with his wife.
Since, according to either opinion, the active marriage link was severed – either because Moshe sent Tzipporah away before returning to Egypt, or because Moshe divorced Tzipporah after being told to remain in prophetic readiness, then it becomes even stranger that the Torah continues to refer to Yisro as “Yisro, Moshe’s father-in-law”.
[1] Even though Rashi specifically states אין מוקדם ומאוחר בתורה, there are still lessons to be learned by the placement of various statements. And, here as part of the same section, the Torah includes the information that Moshe had separated / divorced from Tzipporah.
[i] Shemos 3:1, 4:18, 18:1, 18:2, 18:5, 18:12, 18:14, Bamidbar 10:29
One might argue that two of these verses are necessary because they identify names for Yisro that were not previously known – the names of יתר and חובב etc., but that does not explain the other verses.
[ii] Shemos 18:2
[iii] See Rashi Shemos 18:2
[iv] Devarim 5:28
- Why does Moshe—and the Torah—insist on maintaining this title even after the separation / divorce of Tzipporah?
Deepening the Inquiry: The Laws of Judges
This anomaly in the Torah can actually serve as a אסמכתא source for a complex Halaĉic derivation regarding the laws of judges.
There are generally three categories of men[1] who are disqualified from serving as a judge (and consequently, from testifying)[i]:
- קרוב – a relative. The prohibition against relatives testifying, and by extension, serving as judges, is derived from the verse[ii] לא יומתו אבות על בנים – fathers will not die for [because of] their sons. The Gemara[iii] notes this is obvious and concludes the verse means that fathers will not die because of the testimony of their sons.
- רשע – a wicked person. The prohibition against wicked people testifying is derived from the verse[iv] אל תשת ידך עם רשע להית עד חמס – do not weaken your hand, by being a malicious witness, when testifying with a wicked person.
- נוגע בדבר – one who is affected by the matter-at-hand. A party who is biased because he is affected by the outcome of the matter being judged cannot testify. This rule can be derived from the verses[v] prohibiting bribery, which can ‘blind the eyes of the wise.’ One who is blind to the truth cannot judge properly.
However, the Shulĉan Aruĉ also lists a fourth category, which is considered an exception to the rule about the other categories, namely:
- אוהב (או שונא) – a friend (or enemy). Unlike the other categories which cannot serve either as a witness or a judge, this category can serve as a witness, even though they cannot serve as a judge.
The commentaries do not provide a source for why this category is different, but perhaps we can source it from our discussion at hand.
On the surface, it would seem logical that one’s close friend (or enemy) cannot serve as a judge on a case involving their friend, as they would be biased for (or against) their friend – and the foremost requirement of a judge is that he must be impartial.
However, while this can be understood when defining this category to include an enemy, the inclusion of a “friend” as being prohibited from judging is problematic. The Torah[vi] commands us regarding every Jew: ואהבת לרעך כמוך – Love your fellow as [you love] yourself. If loving a fellow Jew disqualifies one from being a judge, then no Jew could ever judge another! We would be left with a court system that cannot function.
Therefore, we must determine: Where do we derive the source that a specific kind of close friendship disqualifies a judge, distinct from the general commandment to love all Jews.
Furthermore, we need to understand why the testimony of friends is acceptable, but judgement by friends is not.
[1] We are specifically listing only men, because; it is possible that women can indeed be judges, as per the opinions that Devorah the prophetess was an actual judge, and not just a leader of the Jewish people. And it is possible that women can be witnesses, as we find with the daughter of Rav Ĉisda who testified to her husband about another person as being untrustworthy in her oaths.
Another category is converts; about whom the Shulĉan Aruĉ [Ĉoshen Mishpat 7:1] provides an interesting statement:
“… שהיה אחד מהם גר, הרי זה פסול לדון לישראל אלא אם כן היתה אמו מישראל. וגר דן חברו הגר…”
This statement though cannot be understood in its simple meaning, because a convert whose mother was Jewish is not a convert.
[i] Phrasing of Shulĉan Aruĉ Ĉoshen Mishpat 33:1
[ii] Devarim 24:16
[iii] Gem. Sanhedrin 27b
[iv] Shemos 23:1
[v] Shemos 23:8, & Devarim 16:19
[vi] Vayikra 19:18
Foundational Principles: חוס דרגא
Ĉassidus explains the etymology of the word חתן as being related to the Aramaic phrase חות דרגא or נחית דרגא – meaning descending a level.
The Pardes[i] provides[1] the following:
חתן is called תפארת as in the verse[ii] כחתן יכהן פאר.[2] However, we use the term חתן only when connected with his bride – מלכות. And they are adorned with עטרות חתנים – the adornments of the groom and bride.
This connection between the groom and bride, between תפארת and מלכות happens underneath a חופה which etymologically means to surround and is described by the Pardes as follows:
חופה has been drawn by the masters of Kabala [as follows]: the entirety of אצילות is the חופה. The roof represents כתר meaning we draw down its flow over everything similar to the canopy of the חופה which covers everything. חכמה is the walls of the חופה. בינה is the opening of the חופה.[3] [The Sefiros of] חסד, גבורה, נצח, הוד are the poles that stand in the opening of the חופה. תפארת and מלכות are the groom and bride standing within the חופה connected by יסוד who are represented by the שושבין the wedding attendants.
In Kabbalistic terms, this is the idea of bringing higher levels of emotion (the חתן representing the level of תפארת the essence of זעיר אנפין) down to lower levels, the world of מלכות and action (the כלה).
To sweeten this further, the Pardes also talks about the etymological root of the name Tzipporah – צפור an excerpt of which is:
A צפור – bird is called the שכינה מלכות (the divine presence resting / מלכות). Because, just like a bird flies from its nest, so too the divine presence flies from its ‘nest’ which represents its unity [with G-d].
This idea that “term חתן (Moshe) is only when connected with his bride (Tzipporah)” is easy to understand at its most basic level. When a couple get married, they are the groom and bride.
But this raises a different question, why is the word for a groom used for a father-in-law?
Perhaps we can say that the חתן doesn’t just connect תפארת to מלכות but also connects the Kabalistic פרצופים of אבא (חכמה) and אימא (בינה) – where חכמה represents the father-in-law (the parents of the כלה)[4] and בינה represents the mother of the groom (the parents of the חתן).
Furthermore, he doesn’t just connect the intellect, but he also brings כתר itself down to מלכות which can be represented by the joining of G-d himself in this union[5], as the Gemara[iii] states, Rabbi Akiva says, איש ואשה זכו שכינה ביניהם.
The purpose of the union is not just for the Groom and Bride to connect, but to draw the intellect of the ‘parents’ and G-d’s presence down into the practical reality of the home.
[1] Author’s note: Kabbalistic discussions, even those of the Ramak, are extremely brief and rely heavily on the mentor student relationship to ensure things are not ‘lost in translation’. My translation of the Pardes text is my best guess at understanding the concepts discussed. The reader is encouraged to study these texts with a proper mentor in order to gain a better understanding of the concepts discussed.
[2] פאר being a hint at תפארת.
[3] And the walls and opening are connected in a way that cannot be separated.
[4] Based on the Kabbalistic principal of אבא יסד ברתא (Zohar Pinĉas 256b) which can be said to paraphrase the verse [Mishlei 24:3] בחכמה יבנה בית or the verse [Tehillim 104:24] כולם בחכמה עשית.
[5] As evidenced by the ability of the groom and bride to procreate and bring new lives into this world.
[i] פרדס רימונים ערכי הכינויים שער כ”ג
[ii] Yeshayahu 61:10
[iii] Gem. Sota 17a
Answer
This explains the Torah’s (and Moshe’s) continued use[1] of the term ‘father-in-law’.
[1] Perhaps we can say that the number of times this phrase is repeated represents – eight (8) times, represents the number of Sefiros through which אבא (חכמה) (Yisro) descends to reach מלכות.
The connection to Wisdom
The direct connection between אבא (חכמה) (Yisro) and מלכות (Tzipporah) remained active, even though Moshe himself, physically, had to refrain from being connected to Tzipporah – either because G-d told him to, or because ‘bringing her into Egypt [from the term מצר meaning limitation] is antithetical to the purpose of a relationship between תפארת (Moshe) and מלכות (Tzipporah), just like a bird (the divine presence) cannot be tied down and must flit from her nest[1].
This is strongly hinted at in Moshe’s request to Yisro to join them in their journeys to the Land of Israel, where he states והיית לנו לעינים – and you will be as ‘eyes’ for us. Judges are euphemistically referred to as the עיני העדה – the ‘eyes’ of the congregation. Judges are meant to function as the guides to the congregation, advising the people of potential pitfalls and guiding them – just as the eyes guide the person. This corresponds to the Sefiros of the mind, which in Kabbalah are compared to ‘eyes’ as it says in Tanya[i]
שהעינים הם כינוים להמשכת והארת אור החכמה, שלכן נקראו חכמים “עיני העדה”.
As the eyes are an expression of bringing down and shining the light of Wisdom, which is why the Sages are called “the Eyes of the Congregation.”
Moshe was asking that Yisro remain with the Jewish people as our ‘eyes’ (judge) and continue to provide guidance. Even though Moshe himself might no longer be physically connected to מלכות, the Jewish people still needed to maintain the connection between חכמה (wisdom, eyes, judges) and מלכות (the world of action). Perhaps, it is for this reason that the Torah does not note Yisro’s response, and that he eventually left to go to his own land – because, the actions of Yisro himself, once he had established a system of judges (eyes, חכמה) no longer was critical to the connection between חכמה (wisdom, eyes, judges) and מלכות (the world of action).
[1] Nor can the divine presence (מלכות – צפורה) rest in a land of impurity – which is why Moshe initially indicated he needed to leave the city to pray to G-d.
[i] Igeres Hakodesh 14
Defining a friend – אהבו
This brings us to the Halaĉic derivation of the source for friends being unable to judge. Moshe Rabeinu was the epitome of מדת האמת – the attribute of Truth.[i] And yet, when it came to Yisro, Moshe continued to use a title “Father-in-law” even though that was no longer legally precise. Because he was blinded[1] by his love for Yisro.
Yisro himself also took advantage of this. When he arrived in the wilderness, he sends the message, אני חותנך יתרו בא אליך – I am your father-in-law, Yisro, come to you, even though this occurred אחר שילוחיה – after her separation. Essentially, his request was that even though he Yisro was an outsider, he still expected preferential treatment due to his relationship with Moshe, the leader of the Jewish people. Granted, Yisro was humble enough to also ask for preferential treatment due to Tzipporah and due to Moshe’s children, but the point remains. Because Yisro enjoyed a close relationship with Moshe, he expected preferential treatment.
In the language of Ĉassidus, this can be likened to the intellect demanding special treatment because of its special relationship with the soul.
As it says in Tanya[ii] אך מקום משכן נפש האלקית הוא במוחין שבראש – however, the place of the Seat of the G-dly Soul is in the mind in the head. And as defined in the Tanya[iii] כי המוח שליט על הלב בתולדתו וטבע יצירתו – for the mind rules over the heart from birth and by the nature of how it is formed.
Under the natural order of things, the mind, represented by Yisro, should indeed find itself given preferential treatment. However, Yisro at the time, was still a כהן מדין, the priest of Midian, which country was so named because it exists to forment chaos and argument, as מדין is etymologically related to the Hebrew words מדון ומריבה. Nevertheless, the intellect (Yisro the priest of Midian) demands preferential treatment.
And Moshe complies, bringing him in with great honor, which serves to overcome the negativity of כהן מדין until, ultimately, this led to ויחד יתרו … ברוך ה’ – Yisro not only becomes inspired and unified with the Jewish people, but he is also the first to coin the phrase ברוך ה’.[2] But in the interim we see that if even Moshe Rabeinu—the man of Truth—could be “bribed” by his affection for a former father-in-law to the point of using an outdated title of honor, then certainly a regular person is blinded by close friendship. This specific, blinding love is distinct from the general love experienced for a fellow under the Mitzva of ואהבת לרעך.
[1] Euphemistically, we can say that the act of being blinded is because Moshe’s judgeship was taken away by Yisro – who instituted a system of judges to take over from Moshe.
[2] The term ברכה is מלשון המשכה.
[i] See Gem. Bava Basra 74a
[ii] Tanya Chp. 9
[iii] Tanya Chp. 12
Divine Bias
This explains why Moshe allowed himself to be affected in this manner. The entire purpose of the upper Sefiros is to be brought down (חתן) into מלכות (action).
To effect change in the world, one cannot remain aloof in the world of pure intellect. One must descend a level – forming connections that are subjective and personal, and infusing those with חכמה and תפארת. And when done properly, when the ‘eyes’ are used to guide the people properly, then the result is a people among whom the divine presence rests, as it says in the verse[i] אלקים נצב בעדת א-ל – G-d stands in the congregation of G-d (amongst justices who judge properly).
And that connection / drawing down must remain active, even if a person finds himself called to G-d to the point of ואתה פה עמוד עמדי.
This explains why Moshe seeks Yisro out to ask if he should go to Egypt. Moshe wasn’t blind to the plight of the Jewish people in Egypt. In fact, he had risked his life to kill an Egyptian who was hurting another Jew. But in doing so he revealed a previously unknown flaw in his character. He judged the other Jews when he stated אכן נודע הדבר – now he knows the reason why the Jewish people were still in exile[1], because they were willing to tell on their fellow Jew and get him in trouble. This problem was recognized even by the two troublemakers, Dasan and Aviram, who respond to him with מי שמך לאיש שר ושופט אלינו – who made you the judge over us.
Moshe, a descendant of Levi, whose tribe did not experience the servitude in Egypt, who was brought up in the royal palace by בתיה daughter of Pharaoh, had no true understanding (at the time) of the suffering of the Jewish people, and how it affected them negatively. He tried to understand, as it says ויגדל משה ויצא אל אחיו וירא בסבלתם – and Moshe grew up and went out to his brothers and saw their burdens. He saw what they were suffering, but it was only an intellectual ‘seeing’. Moshe himself had not experienced any suffering prior to that and therefore could not properly relate to his brothers.
This condition was expressed again when Moshe spoke to Hashem, and Moshe once again spoke improperly about the Jewish people when he stated והם לא יאמינו לי – and they will not believe me. The Jewish people are מאמינים בני מאמינים – the Believers Sons of Believers, and this is whom Moshe thinks will not believe in Moshe and believe that their redemption has arrived!?
This attitude is antithetical to Moshe the Redeemer of the Jewish people, which is why G-d had to first cure Moshe of that fault:
- Moshe experienced exile when being chased out of Egypt.
- He experienced outward assimilation when he mistaken for an Egyptian even by his own future wife.
- He experienced physical suffering by being afflicted with צרעת.[2]
And having experienced, and not just seen, the suffering, he would never again make this mistake of misjudging the Jewish people.[3]
However, to be sure that his attitude had properly been adjusted[4], he needed to consult with Yisro, Moshe’s ‘eyes’ and judge, his personal representative of the Sefira of Wisdom, to see if he should go and ואראה העודם חיים – and he will see if they are still alive. Having experienced the kinds of suffering the Jewish people had experienced in the hundreds of years of Egyptian exile, now his mindset flipped – he couldn’t understand how it was that the Jewish people remained עודם חיים – still alive.[5]
[1] The reality is there is no reason for exile. It is something G-d claims to want. There is no logic to it. This applied to the exile of Egypt, and it applies to our own exile which we are finally exiting. There’s no reason for it.
[2] A מצורע is considered like a dead person. See Gem. Nedarim 64b, based on the verse אל נא תהי כמת.
[3] Not even when G-d told Moshe that they were sinning with the Golden Calf, as it says in the verse לך רד כי שחת עמך… Moshe refused to believe it. When Yehoshua asks Moshe what the noise was that he was hearing from the camp, Moshe isn’t able to answer him with what G-d had told him was the truth. Instead, he was still trying to figure it out, as he wonders to Yehoshua אין קול ענות גבורה אין קול ענות חלושה, קול ענות אנכי שמע. He needs to see it for himself to believe it.
[4] Since the Halaĉa is אדם קרב אצל עצמו – a person is his own relative and therefore can’t judge himself.
[5] Incidentally, this is a call for the fulfillment of the Rebbe’s directive of עשה לך רב. Even Moshe needed someone in that capacity.
[i] Tehillim 82:1. See Gem. Sanhedrin 6b and Beraĉos 6a
AND THEREFORE…
We often strive to be objective, thinking that truth requires detachment. But a lesson of יתרו חתן משה is that connection can be a vehicle for holiness. It is only in the specific instance of rendering דין, which is function of גבורה and withholding – it is then that being a friend, an אהבו becomes a problem. And even then, judges are meant to be an עדת א-ל – using G-d’s name of kindness, not strictness.
There are times when we might be called upon to be a judge—cold and impartial. Those are the exceptions though, the ויהי ממחרת וישב משה לשפוט – judgement is that which we should push off to tomorrow. Instead, we need to focus on the times when we must be a חתן משה – willing to descend a level and deliberately form a personal bias toward our fellow Jews. We must be willing to view others through the lens of love, especially if it blinds us to their faults. By doing so, we draw the highest wisdom down into the lowest reality, turning our world into a dwelling place for G-d’s presence.