בהעלותך

Yitro's Departure from the Camp

As they are departing Mt. Sinai Moshe proposes to Yitro[1] that he join the people on their onward journey to Israel with all the benefits this will entail. Yitro politely but firmly refuses saying he will return to his own land:

וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו לֹא אֵלֵךְ כִּי אִם־אֶל־אַרְצִי וְאֶל־מוֹלַדְתִּי אֵלֵךְ[2] (במדבר י:ל)

Moshe tries again, this time emphasising Yitro's ability to guide them through the wilderness, tactically shifting the focus to the value Yitro can provide, instead of what he stands to gain:

וַיֹּאמֶר אַל־נָא תַּעֲזֹב אֹתָנוּ כִּי עַל־כֵּן יָדַעְתָּ חֲנֹתֵנוּ בַּמִּדְבָּר וְהָיִיתָ לָּנוּ לְעֵינָיִם (במדבר י:לא)

Surprisingly, the passage does not inform us of Yitro's response. This raises two important questions - what indeed was his response and, of equal importance, why was the response not recorded? Much has been written on the former, but it is the latter which I would like to focus on.

The real guide – Yitro or the Ark?

We first ought to flip the question on its head. Since the overarching purpose of the Torah is to convey the human/national story, the conversation between Moshe and Yitro must serve a purpose in this broader context. The life story and personal relationships of Moshe, as interesting as they may be, are not part of the Torah's agenda. The question which should be asked, therefore, is not why the response was omitted but why was such a personal dialogue included in the first place.

The omission of Yitro's response seems to be a way to encourage us to seek the meaning elsewhere. By blocking out the personal story, the Torah highlights the significance of the juxtaposition with the subsequent verse:

וַיֹּאמֶר אַל־נָא תַּעֲזֹב אֹתָנוּ כִּי עַל־כֵּן יָדַעְתָּ חֲנֹתֵנוּ בַּמִּדְבָּר וְהָיִיתָ לָּנוּ לְעֵינָיִם (במדבר י:לא)

וַיִּסְעוּ מֵהַר ה' דֶּרֶךְ שְׁלֹשֶׁת יָמִים וַאֲרוֹן בְּרִית־ה' נֹסֵעַ לִפְנֵיהֶם דֶּרֶךְ שְׁלֹשֶׁת יָמִים לָתוּר לָהֶם מְנוּחָה (במדבר י:לב)

Read side by side the contrast between these two verses comes into focus. Moshe implies they are reliant on Yitro as a guide ('do not forsake us') whereas the next verse immediately rebuts this assumption by describing how the Ark (i.e. God) guided them through the wilderness.[3] The description of the Ark travelling three days ahead to seek out a resting place for the nation certainly sounds like the quality of guide which Moshe was seeking in Yitro.

In other words, it is not Yitro's response which is the main story here but God's response. The sudden and abrupt displacement of Yitro within the narrative demonstrates his dispensability, creating the sense that God has stepped into the position sought out for Yitro.[4]

It is noteworthy that the root ת-ו-ר appearing in this verse is the same as used throughout the episode of the spies at the beginning of next week's parashah. Relevant for our purposes is the fact that the word is used only 13 times in the Torah, 12 of which are in these two related narratives. The purpose of the connection is related to the fact that the lack of appreciation of God as the ultimate guide was the root cause of the error of the spies.

One might add, as some have suggested, that a trace of the failings of the spies can already be discerned in this dialogue between Moshe and Yitro. In this conversation, Moshe himself appears to underestimate, or at least understate, the role of God as the true guide, placing reliance on man instead.[5] Indeed, from the perspective of sefer Devarim (see 1:37 and 4:21), the denial of Moshe's entry to the land seems directly related to the sin of the spies (a matter for separate discussion).

Given all the above, this is a tempting suggestion. Nevertheless, I am unconvinced as within the very same dialogue Moshe demonstrates steadfast belief that they will succeed: 'for God has spoken good about the people'. Altogether, the word טוב is mentioned no less than five times in this brief passage by Moshe evidencing his unwavering faith in the success of the mission.

It seems more likely, therefore, that there was nothing inherently wrong in Moshe's request for Yitro's guidance. On the contrary, as always, it is fully appropriate to engage in maximum human effort. Rather, the educational message is that since God was leading the people, the personal decision of Yitro would have no bearing on the success or failure of the journey. Providence would guide them into the land with or without him. Moshe seems to have understood this very well as demonstrated within his appeal to Yitro. His opening point is that God will deliver on his promise and bring them into the land; Yitro is invited to join the party, but the result is not dependent on him. 

 

---

[1] Assuming that Yitro is identical to Chovav in accordance with the view of Rashi, Rashbam and Ramban. For the alternative view that Chovav was Moshe’s brother in law, see Ibn Ezra.

[2] It is noteworthy that this was the exact language that Avraham used to press Eliezer to leave Israel to find a wife for Yitzchak.

[3] See  R. Yonatan Grossman, פרשת בהעלותך - והיית לנו לעינים, VBM

[4] This an example of where the literary form of the story (as distinct from its content) helps shape the underlying message. 

[5] R. Amnon Bazak, נקודת פתיחה, p.314. Grossman does not go as far as reading it as a literal criticism, but rather as an educational device as described above.