‫בס"ד‬

Parshas Yisro:
Did Yisro Have an “Attitude Problem”?
Moreinu V’Rabeinu HaRav Michel Twerski, shlit”a; recorded on Jan 24, 2006

A Little Background forehead. After Hashem informed

Kayin of his punishment, namely
According to the majority of
wandering, he protested that he would
commentaries, Yisro was a ger tzedek,
be vulnerable to attacks of the animals
an authentic, righteous convert, in the
and Hashem put a letter vov on his
fullest sense.
forehead to protect him.
I saw a ksav yad of Medresh
Cheifetz quoted that Yisro was the How Did Yisro Contact Moshe
progenitor of three families, one of
which was righteous gentiles. For In the beginning of the parsha,
example, the Keinim that Shaul the verse (Shemos 18:5-6) says:
advised to separate from Amalek were “Yisro, the father-in-law of Moshe, his
not geirei tzedek but people who were children and his wife came to Moshe,
friendly to B’nai Yisroel and apparently to the desert where he was camped
had some status of Yisroel. One family near the mountain of G-d. He said to
was reshaim and the third was Moshe, ‘I, your father in law, Yisro
tzadikim who became members of the have come to you. Your wife and her
Sanhedrin. We see he did go back to two children are with her’”.
convert them but was only successful Now, Yisro couldn’t have been
in one part of the family. the one who told Moshe since Moshe
One of the motivational forces had not yet gone out to greet him. It
behind Kayin’s jealousy of his brother, must be that this message was
in addition to the rejection of his communicated indirectly.
korban, was that Kayin was born with The Medrashim (Rabba Shemos,
a twin sister while Hevel was born with 27:2 and others) bring two opinions,
two sisters. In essence, Hevel had two one of which Rashi mentions, as to
wives as opposed to Kayin since they what the medium was. The first, that
were intended to marry their sisters of R’ Yehoshua, is that Yisro sent a
for the sake of building the world. By messenger who conveyed “I, your
killing Hevel, he was denied his wives. father-in- law, Yisro”. The second
The Arizal tells us that Moshe opinion, that of R’ Eliezer, says that he
was a partial reincarnation of Hevel wrote him a letter informing Moshe of
and Yisro was the reincarnation of his arrival. When the pasuk says
Kayin. In order to somehow rectify his “vayomer el Moshe”, “and he said to
actions, Kayin/Yisro had to provide Moshe”, it was really by written
Moshe with Tziporah as his wife. There message.
are all kinds of gematrias that point to The question is: what difference
this reincarnation. does it make? Left to our own devices,
We find that Yisro’s name was we would come up with one of those
originally Yeser, without the letter vov. two things. “And he said to Moshe, ‘I,
The vov that was added was the letter your father in law, Yisro have come to
Hashem had placed on Kayin’s you with your wife and your children’”.
He was really saying, “I have come to

1
be converted and I wonder if you’ll G-d did not tell them to turn on their
accept it”. That really was his main pursuers because it would have been
objective. kofui tovah and one of the most
As Rashi (on pasuk 6) quotes important achievements in our middos
Chazal that Yisro was saying, “If you is that we should be makir tovah, that
won’t accept me for my sake, accept we should be appreciative and grateful
me for your wife’s sake and for the to recognize the good that people
sake of her children”. (It may be in the have done to us. The expression in
Medrash that what he was saying was Talmud is “the well from which you
“you had nothing to do with raising have drunk you shall not throw stones
these kids. They’re her children. She in”.
was there but you weren’t there. Inasmuch as he heard these two
They’re her children”.) things, had he not heard about Amalek
he would have said, “Well, the reason
Krias Yam Suf and Amalek that G-d had to drown the Egyptians
The parsha begins with was because Jews are incapable of
“vayishma Yisro” (18:1), “and Yisro fighting”. He would not have known
heard”. There are different opinions in anything about the concept of hakoras
the Gemora (Zevachim 116a), yet hatov. It’s only those two things
Rashi quotes only two of them, together, kriyas yam suf and the war
namely, the splitting of the sea and with Amalek. After hearing about
the war with Amalek. I have said in the Amalek, he said to himself, “they could
past that because of these two events, fight but they didn’t fight the
Yisro felt he had a very good chance of Egyptians. They didn’t fight out of
not being rejected for the following hakoras hatov. If there is this great
reason. appreciation for the kindness which
was extended to them, then I can
Interestingly, the splitting of the
safely come and not be rejected
sea and the war with Amalek stand in
because I was hospitable to Moshe”.
stark contrast to each other, in a very
significant way. At the sea, G-d did Yisro’s Understanding of Prophecy
everything. He split the waters, the
Egyptians came in and he brought the We see in this debate an
waters down and they drowned. By additional aspect. Ultimately, the
Amalek, G-d could have done some foundation that Torah is built on
pretty nifty little tricks, but he chose begins with the premise that man is
not to. Instead, he said, “you have to worthy of being the recipient of a
go out and take the sword and you divine connection to the point where
have to fight them”. The question is, if G-d communicates to man and
Klal Yisroel could fight, why didn’t they through man. The quintessential
fight the Egyptians? example of that is Moshe Rabeynu; he
is the one in whose voice people
They didn’t fight the Egyptians
discern G-d’s voice. Man can be worthy
because it would have been an act of
of being the bearer of the divine
ingratitude. After everything was said
message.
and done, Egypt had been their home
and a refuge in a time of famine. And An opposing view would say
for the first hundred and some years man is unworthy. Man can be virtuous
they were good hosts. It was only the and can achieve great distinction in
last eighty years that became rancid. the sight of G-d, but man cannot be,

2
because he is inherently somehow it this way? Did he do it that way? Our
flawed, the beneficiary of G-d’s word. sages are telling us that we are to look
Accordingly, G-d’s word would have to at how Yisro delivered this message
appear in a form where it was clear, and understand something about
for example, the luchos. The first where he was philosophically. One saw
luchos were the writing of G-d on some him in a place where he says “I’m
celestial material. When anybody really impressed with what happened
looked at it there was no mistaking the over here. There were lots of miracles.
fact that it was G-d’s script; there was But if there’s going to be a Torah it’s
everything. This was miraculous only going to be trustworthy if it
writing. The inside of the letters mem comes in G-d’s script. It must be
and samech were suspended in midair. evident. Man is not worthy of being a
It was written in such a way that the bearer of prophesy”. Whereas, the
letters penetrated the luchos through other opinion is saying that Yisro was
and through, but nonetheless much further along and is saying, “I
whichever side you looked at the trust the fact that man can speak in G-
luchos from, the letters still read in d’s name”.
order.
You can argue from whatever A Lesson in Sensitivity
philosophical base, from original sin to The pasuk says (18:9),
whatever you want, that man is “vayichad Yisro”, “And Yisro rejoiced
somehow not worthy. Yisro believed over all of the good which Hashem had
you can only trust that which is done unto Israel that he had saved
written. He wrote Moshe a message, them from Egypt”. On the words
“ani”, “Moshe, I’m writing you this “vayichad Yisro”, Rashi quotes Chazal
message. “I, Yisro, your father-in-law, (Sanhedrin 94a): “‫נעשה בשרו חדודין‬
have come to you. I’m writing it. I’m ‫חדודין‬, naaseh b’saro chadudim
putting it in an envelope. I’m sealing it. chadudim, that his flesh became filled
When you get it, that’s how you’ll with goose-bumps because he was
know that it’s authentic, that it’s me”. distraught over the destruction of
Thereby implying that the only way in Egypt”. Even though he was happy on
which one can trust the divine one level, at the same time he was
communication would be if it arrives in distressed. Rashi continues, “This is
the clearly divine script. why we say not to insult a non-Jew in
The other opinion in the the company of one who has a convert
Medrash says that Yisro’s in his family, even ten generation
understanding was beyond that, that ago”. Don’t be insensitive to someone
Yisro sent him a messenger speaking who has been Jewish for ten
in his name saying, “I, your father-in- generations, but that far back there
law Yisro have come to you”. In that was a non-Jew. Despite the fact that
representation, he was really saying, “I Yisro recognizes that the Egyptians
understand that you could be such a persecuted Klal Yisroel mercilessly and
messenger in speaking in G-d’s name, he sees the hand of G-d in everything
‘that I G-d command you to such and that is taking place, but as much as he
such”. rejoices over the justice of the
I don’t think that our sages are destruction over Egypt and the
worried about such a technical thing appearance of the G-d of the universe
over here. How did he do it? Did he do in the affairs of man, it still troubles
him that Egypt was destroyed.

3
 Our sages are trying to draw our contemptuous of the non-Jewish
attention to the fact that conversion is background in this person’s life or at
not without some predicate from that least being respectful of it so as not to
person’s past. If we have somebody be offensive is because this person
that converts from, for example, does have somewhere, someplace,
Catholicism, and becomes Jewish, they some depth which begins in their past
recognize that as they were growing and one should not be dismissive or
up they were being fed a lot of stuff disrespectful of it.
that didn’t make any sense and which There are two messages here.
was absurd. Nonetheless, if they look One is, exceeding the extent to which
at the fact that their parents were faith we are required to be very, very alert
driven, they can separate that and sensitive to where people are
message out. coming from. There can be very
Similarly, sometimes parents of remote points of reference and
new Baalei Teshuva will come in and nonetheless, we have to be careful not
they’re very, very angry about the fact to trip over these sensitivities and be
that their children are acting in such offensive.
an obnoxious way, that they are so The second idea is that if
rigid and uncooperative. They contempt of an idolatrous family past
complain, “Why did they need todo were legitimate, then even though it
this anyway?” On many occasions I may offend the convert now, it still
have reminded them that their kids would not be viewed so critically by
became Ba’alei Teshuvah because of Chazal, because denouncing anything
them. There was something about the contrary to Torah may have merit.
way that they raised these kids, a
But I think that Chazal are
certain integrity and inquiry, a
telling us to be careful even of that
yearning. Something got transmitted.
because even though the background
I’ve said to the parents in many
may be one of idolatry or what have
instances, “I don’t know what you
you, nonetheless there was something
want. You know, you’re responsible for
in that background which contributed
this. You’re behind this.”
to the person getting there and
I think in part that even though therefore one should not be
there’s this sensitivity of not being contemptuous of it.

  

This D’var Torah was transcribed from a recording of an informal discussion

and edited for clarity of the written word only, leaving as much of the content, to
the best of our ability, exactly as the Rabbi/Rebbe, shlit”a, said it. Obviously, any
mistakes, be they from a linguistic standpoint or in the content itself, are only the
product of the editors’ own shortcomings and oversight.