What Did You Hear?

The name of this week’s Parsha refers, of course, to Yisro the father in law of Moshe, who is the subject of the first section of the Sedra. Although the Torah refers to Yisro earlier, when Moshe fled to Midyan and married Tzipporah, he is much more prominently featured in in this week’s Parsha. As with any other figure discussed so extensively in the Torah, we must try to discover what we can learn from Yisro, and from his interactions with Moshe Rabbeinu, that can be applied to our lives.

Chazal tell us that Yisro was known by no less than seven names, and they explain the origins of some of them. Perhaps most famously, we are told that he was given the name Yesser due to the fact that an additional Parsha, or section, was added to the Torah because of his actions. That additional section, in which Yisro advises Moshe to establish a system of judges rather than attempting to adjudicate all matters on his own, appears later in our Sedra, and is known as “V’Atah Sechezeh”.

The events of that Parsha, however, may appear to be less than monumental. Yisro came to be with the Jews and witnessed Moshe struggling while trying to attend to the various civil matters that arose. Yisro, clearly a pragmatist, offered a solution that seems relatively simple. Rather than Moshe hearing every case, Yisro suggested that he establish a system of leveled courts—any case that could not be decided by a lower level court would be brought to a higher-level panel and so on until a decision was reached. Matters of particular weight or difficulty would still be brought to Moshe for the ultimate decision, but much of the work load would be spread over the many lower-level Dayanim.

What was the great Chachma involved in Yisro’s idea of “V’Atah Sechezeh” that is merited its own Parsha and that he was given a name—Yesser—which reflected this addition? Those of us who tend to be compulsive fixers can certainly identify with Yisro: he saw a problem and found the most pragmatic solution. Why did this warrant an additional Parsha in the Torah?

On the other hand, if this solution was in fact so simple, if any practical-minded individual presented with the same issue would have come to a similar conclusion, why did only Yisro think of it? Why did it not occur to Moshe Rabbeinu himself to establish such a system? Once Yisro finishes describing his idea, including the caliber of judges that Moshe should select, the Torah tells us that Moshe immediately implemented the plan: “Vayishma Yisro L’Kol Chosno VaYa’as Kol Ashe Amar.” Moshe did not wait to hear whether Hashem would instruct him to follow Yisro’s advice—clearly the idea foun favor in his eyes. Why was it that it took a Yisro to come up with this idea?

The question is perhaps reinforced if we look back at the Medrash that discusses the names of Yisro. We are told that his name was Yesser, and when he was Migayer, and became Shomer Torah U’Mitzvos, a “Vav” was added to his name to become Yisro. The Sifsei Chachamim points out that is is similar to the way that the name of Avram was changed to Avraham by adding a “Heh”—both added letters come from the name of Hashem. We see then that the name Yisro, the most common name for the Chosen Moshe, is actually based on the name Yesser, which is related to the addition of the Parsha of V’Atah Sechezeh. Certainly we must understand why this one idea spurred the addition of a Parsha, which seems to be so central to the life of Yisro. In order to understand the importance of the Parsha of V’Atah Sechezeh, perhaps it is important to understand more about Yisro and, more specifically, his mindset at the time the advice was offered.

The Parsha begins with the words “Vayishma Yisro...Es Kol Asher Asah Elokim L’Moshe Uliyisroel Amo”, and Rashi brings the words of Chazal “Mah Shmuah Shama U’Ba? Krias Yam Suf U’Milchemes Amalek.” While this a simple—and quite well known—Chazel, and one which explains Pshat in the Passuk very clearly, as usual a further look exposes some interesting points.

The Sar Shalom of Belz asks two questions on Rashi: First, what is the question “Mah Shmuah Shama U’Ba?” The Torah tells us exactly what Yisro heard—“Es Kol Asher Asah Elokim L’Moshe Uliyisroel Amo”. Second, why does Rashi add the word “Uba”, in order to explain the word “VaYishma”? Seemingly it would be enough to explain “Mah Shmuah Shama.”

He answers that Rashi was bothered by the fact that later on the Passuk says “VaYavo Yisro,” but makes no mention of the fact that he left his previous life behind. We know that Yisro was a preist for Avodah Zarah and in fact Chazal tell us that there was no Avodah Zarah that he did not try—he was truly one who was Shakuah in the Olam Hasheker. This being the case, it would have been appropriate for the Torah to recognize that he left something behind, perhaps using the term “Vayetzei” to indicate that not only did Yisro have to travel to reach Klal Yisroel but that he left a life of Avodah Zarah behind in doing so.

The reason the Torah did not do so, however, is that the term “Vayetzei” indicates that someone made a conscience decision, after deliberation, to leave his current location. Yisro did not do so, however—he left Midyan to join Klal Yisroel immediately upon hearing the “Shmuah”. Yisro did not contemplate the ramifications of his move, he did not weigh his options—he heard and he came. That is the meaning of Rashi’s question: “Mah Shmuah Shama U’Ba”—what was it that Yisro heard that made him come immedatiely? What was the Shmuah that resulted in “VaYavo Yisro” without a “Vayetzei”? To this question Rashi answers “Krias Yam Suf U’Milchemes Amalek”. Yisro was so inspired when he heard of these events that he left Midyan to join Am Yisroel without even a moments hesitation.

The Bnei Yisaschar in Agra D’Prika, however, asks another question. The Passuk in last week’s Parsha tells us “Shamu Amim Yirgazun”—everyone heard about Krias Yam Suf and it caused them to tremble. If so, why does the Torah tell us “VaYishma Yisro”, would we not already know that Yisro heard, as he was among the “Amim” referred to by the Passuk in Shiras HaYam?

He answers that this is the reason that the Medrash tells us: “Esav Shama V’milcham Imahem, Yisro Shama B’Shvachan Shel Yisroel U’Ba V’Nidbak Imahem.” The Medrash provides a contrast: Esav—Amalek in this case—heard about Yitzias Mitzrayim and he came to fight with them, and Yisro heard and came to join them. What did Amalek hear that made him come to fight with Bnei Yisroel? They heard that Bnei Yisroel said “HaYesh Hashem B’Kirbenu Im Ayin”. When they heard that Bnei Yisroel had a lapse in their Emunah, that they had faltered for even a moment, the immediately pounced seeking to capitalize on the vulnerability of Klal Yisroel.

Taking all this into account, we can understand what spurred Yisro to come to join Klal yisroel, and just how impressive a feat this was.

As we noted, Yisro was accomplished in the world of Avodah Zarah—the epitomy of Sheker and the antithesis of everything that Klal Yisroel represents. He, as everyone else in the world, heard about Krias Yam Suf and then about Milchemes Amalek, which was the result of a lapse in Kedushas Yisroel. Given his background and outlook it would have been easy for him to use Milchemes Amalek to negate any inspiration provided by Krias Yam Suf. Even if the Nissim of Yetzias Mitzrayim and Krias Yam Suf had planted a seed in his mind—if Hashem was willing to create such Nissim for Klal Yisroel perhaps they were indeed special—the fact that they so quickly fell could have been used to prove that they were in fact not Yichidei Segulah.

This was the approach of Esav—they saw that Klal Yisroel slipped and they took advantage. Yisro, however, was “Shama B’Shvachan Shel Yisroel,” he did not allow the momentary lapse exhibited by Klal Yisroel to sway his view. He heard about Krias Yam Suf and was inspired, and when he heard about Milchemes Amalek, he focused on the fact that Klal Yisroel was not annihilated—that they clearly had a Zechus Kiyum. He was not at all affected by the negative image of Bnei Yisroel that so clearly spurred Amalek to war. He did not dwell on the “HaYesh Hashem B’Kirbenu Im Ayin”, he was focused on the “Shvachan Shel Yisroel”, and as the Sar Shalom explained, he wasted no time in joining them immediately.

Perhaps with this in mind we can understand why the Parsha of “V’Atah Sechezeh” is so significant. If one were to look at the beginning of this week’s Parsha in the abstract, it seems as though Yisro arrives at Machaneh Yisroel and immediately finds problems. He was there only one day before telling Moshe that he was managing the Tzibbur in the wrong way. Anyone else would be seen as a meddling father-in-law at best—but not Yisro. Yisro was one who was Shama B’Shvachan Shel Yisroel—he was not looking for ways to criticize but to help.

It would have been easy for Yisro to be put off by the sheer number of civil cases needing attention—surely it may have seemed that no one could get along with his neighbor—but this was not his way. Yisro’s solution may not have been elegant in its complexity or its Chachma, but it was the spirit with which he presented it that made the difference. Moshe Rabbeinu heard the words of Yisro and immediately took action because he knew that Yisro left his previous life and came to join Klal Yisroel because he understood the Kedusha of Am Yisroel and had an appreciation for the Am Hanivchar—he was the Shama B’Shvachan Shel Yisroel.

This is the significance of the Parsha of V’Atah Sechezeh—it teaches us how to give Eitzah. The Parsha was added because it shows us that when someone looks at others in a positive light, when he truly cares for them, and more importantly believes in them, he can give constructive criticism. Yisro heard the same thing as Amalek, he knew that Klal Yisroel said “HaYesh Hashem B’Kirbenu Im Ayin”, but he looked past that. He paid heed only to the Shvachan Shel Yisroel, and his advice of “V’Atah Sechezeh” was therefore welcome.

At various times in our lives we hope to influence others—be they family members, peers or even ourselves. In order to be effective in these endeavors we must take the lesson of Yisro, who was so called because he taught us how to offer advice. Only if we show that we truly believe in others, that we understand that their foibles are but momentary lapses and that they are inherently good people, members of the Mamleches Kohanim V’Goy Kadosh, will our attempts at constructive criticism be greeted with a positive reaction.