Chamishoh Mi Yo'dei'a

subscribe.gif (2332 bytes)

by Zvi Akiva Fleisher

Back to This Week's Parsha | Previous Issues

Please send your answers and comments to: SHOLOM613@AOL.COM


1) Ch. 18, v. 2: "Achar shilu'chehoh" - What do these words mean?

2) Ch. 18, v. 3,4: "Sheim ho'echod Geirshome ki omar geir hoyisi b'eterz nochrioh, V'sheim ho'echod Eliezer ki Elokei ovi b'ezri va'yatzi'leini meicherev Paroh" - Wasn't Moshe first saved from the sword of Paroh when being judged for killing the Egyptian (2:12,15) before being a sojourner in the foreign land of Midyon where Yisro resided? If so, he should have named his first son Eliezer and his second son Geirshome.

3) Ch. 18, v. 9: "VA'YICHAD Yisro" - The simple translation of VA'YICHAD is that he rejoiced. Perhaps in a manner of drush, homiletics, it can be said that since Yisro came to convert to Judaism and had previously pursued every other form of religion in the world, as per the words in verse 11, "mikol elohim," Yisro now came to accept the one true Hashem, Creator and Master of the world. "VA'YICHAD Yisro," - And Yisro accepted the ONE Hashem, from the source word ECHOD.

However, the gemara Sanhedrin 94a brings two opinions for the translation of VA'YICHAD. Rav says that it means he took a SHARP sword and passed it over his flesh. CHAD means SHARP. This means that he had himself circumcised in the process of conversion to Judaism. Shmuel says that when he heard of all the punishments that befell Paroh and the rest of the Egyptians his flesh raised goose pimples, SHARP points, or possibly wrinkles which had SHARP ridges, as per Rashi on Sanhedrin 94a. Rashi explains that this was the result of Yisro's suffering greatly from the report.

Rav goes on to say, "This illustrates the common parlance, 'When in the company of the offspring of a convert, even up to ten generations later, do not speak about an Arami in a disparaging manner in front of him.'" There is an obvious problem in understanding the words of the gemara. It seems that Rav's parting words are a proof for Shmuel, and contrary to his own words.

4) Ch. 20, v. 2: "Onochi" - Why not the word "Ani?"

5) Ch. 20. v. 8: "Zochor" - In the Ten Commandments in our parsha, the word "zochor" is used, and in parshas Vo'es'chanan the word "shomor" is used. Which of these was etched into the tablets?



1) Rabbi Yehoshua says that this means after sending her away with a writ of divorce. (Mechilta)

2) Rabbi Elozor of Modiin says: After he verbally sent her away. Upon Aharon's meeting Moshe with his wife and children outside Mitzrayim, Aharon suggested that he not bring them into servitude and suffering. Moshe agreed and sent her and the children back to her parents for the meantime. (Mechilta brought by Rashi)

3) The Ibn Ezra offers that these words mean after her sending Moshe presents, as we find "shiluchim l'vito" (M'lochim 1:9:16).

4) The Sforno says that this means after Tziporoh originally sent Moshe an inquiry. She asked when it would be advisable to join him. He responded that he was in the desert and that the encampment was not settled in one place for an extended period of time. Once he sent her that they had come to rest at "har hoElokim" (verse 5), the area of Har Sinai, she and her children came.

5) The Rashbam says that this means "after Moshe sent his wife back the 'n'dunia,'" presents that were given him upon marrying her.


1) At the time of the birth of his first son Moshe was still a fugitive and on Paroh's most wanted list. He was not yet free of the sword of Paroh. However he was already in a foreign land, not being among his brethren. (Chizkuni)

2) At the time of the birth of his first som, Moshe was still relatively new to the community in Midyon. Had he named his first son Eliezer as a praise to Hashem for saving him from the sword of Paroh, he feared that the Midyanites and even his father-in-law would banish him from the community, or even have him turned over to Paroh, since he had killed an Egyptian. His second son was born after he had lived there for a while and at that point he felt confident that he had built up a reputation as an upright person and they would not evict him. (Abarbanel)

3) If one has experienced a number of experiences which have made a profound impression upon him, he should not name his child after a more distant happening, but rather after the most recent. (Ohr Hachaim Hakodosh and Imrei Noam)

4) "Geir hoyisi b'eterz nochrioh" refers not to Moshe's feeling as a foreigner in the land of Midyon, but rather to his sojourning in this ephemeral world. (Ohr Hachaim Hakodosh)

5) Moshe knew that a descendant of his firstborn son, Y'honoson ben Geirshome, would become a functionary for idol worship. He therefore did not want to give him a name that would incorporate the name of Hashem in it. (Meshech Chochmoh)

6) Along the lines of the previous answer, perhaps Moshe was reluctant to give a name to his first son which incorporated Hashem's name in it since he had agreed to Yisro's condition upon marrying Tziporoh, that he would allow his first son to be raised with the theological training of idol worship as per the Mechilta #67 and Yalkut Shimoni remez #268.

7) Although chronologically being a sojourner in the foreign land of Midyon was experienced after being saved from the sword of Paroh, being away from his brethren who suffered inhuman servitude under Paroh was foremost in his mind, this in spite of human nature to first care about saving one's own skin, which was Moshe's being saved from the sword of Paroh. His extreme concern for his brethren is accentuated even more by virtue of his not having been brought up among them, as he was raised in the palace of Paroh. As well, his first experience of involvement with them was very short-lived as after smiting the Egyptian he was to be executed and escaped, leaving Egypt. In spite of his limited involvement with his brethren, he took to heart first and foremost their suffering, thus naming his first son after his situation of being away from them. This is the quality of a true and caring leader. (Meshech Chochmoh) 8) "Geir hoyisi b'eterz nochrioh" refers not to Moshe's feeling as a foreigner in the land of Midyon, but rather to his feeling as a foreigner in the land of Egypt. He yearned to live in Eretz Yisroel, in spite of never having been there, being born and having only lived in Egypt, and having ALL the bnei Yisroel living in Egypt. (Rabbi Uri Meir Kahanov in Mishmeres haKohanim)


This question is raised by the Maharsh"o on the gemara.

1) He answers that the proper text in the gemara is "Rav Poppo says, 'This illustrates the common etc.'", not Rav. He bolsters this text by saying that it is found in the Yalkut Shimoni remez #268. The GR"A also changes the text to Rav Poppo.

2) Rashi d.h. "giyuro" says that although this is a common folk expression, Yisro was actually not a tenth generation descendant of the person named Mitzrayim. Perhaps Rashi is forewarning the difficulty posed by the Maharsh"o and is answering that Rav is saying that the concept Shmuel brought out is correct for up to ten generations, but cannot be the explanation of our verse, as Yisro was beyond a tenth generation descendant from Mitzrayim.

3) Since it is common parlance there is no need for the Torah to teach us an already well known point. This therefore disproves Shmuel's position. (Likutei Shoshanim)

A difficulty with this answer is that possibly only AFTER the Torah tells us this has it become a popular folk expression.

4) Rav is saying that only until ten generations but not including the tenth does a descendant of a convert feel hurt. Although the word AD - up to, is inclusive of the matter mentioned when this word is used in the Torah, as is explained in the gemara Rosh Hashonoh 30b on the verse "AD etzem ha'yom ha'zeh" (Vayikroh 23:14), and also in the gemara Arochin 18a on the verse "AD yom hashvii" (Shmos 12:15), "bilshone Torah AD v'AD bichlal," but in common conversation, "bilshone bnei Odom AD v'LO AD bichlal," AD -up to, is NOT inclusive, as we see in Shulchan Oruch Ch.M. 43:27. So "Ad asoro dori" - up to ten generations, means up to ten, but not including the tenth.

Rabbeinu Bachyei and Chizkuni both say that Yisro was a tenth generation descendant of Mitzrayim, contrary to Rashi, and therefore he would not have felt pained upon hearing what had befallen Paroh and the rest of the Egyptians. (See Gilyone Hashas Sanhedrin 94a.) This disproves Shmuel. (Likutei Shoshanim) 5) Similar to #4 - Since it is well known, Moshe would never have done this to hurt Yisro, so again it disproves Shmuel. (Peninei Kedem)

This answer seems contrary to the words of verse 8, "Va'y'sa'peir Moshe l'chosno eis kol asher ossoh Hashem l'Faroh u'l'Mitzrayim."


1) The gemara Shabbos 88b uses the four letters of "Onochi" as an acronym for a few different four word phrases.

2) The Yalkut Shimoni #286 says that since the bnei Yisroel had just been in Egypt for a few generations they were very fluent in the Egyptian language. The word for "I - Ani" in Egyptian is "Onoch."

3) The Malbim says that "Ani" simply means "I." If one says "ani KOSEIV," it means that I am writing, but not erasing. The stress is on the action and not on the pronoun. If one says "ONOCHI koseiv," the stress is on "I" am writing, but someone else is not writing. Therefore, the Torah says "ONOCHI," only I am Hashem, to the exclusion of others.


1) The Ibn Ezra (Yisro) brings the opinion of one of his colleagues, that both appeared.

2) The Ibn Ezra brings another opinion, that since the letters were etched all the way through the stone, there was text appearing on both sides. Through a miracle, one side showed "zochor" and one side showed "shomor".

3) The Ibn Ezra himself disagrees with all the opinions he quotes, and says that only "zochor" was written. The Ramban (Yisro) also says that only "zochor" was written on both sets of tablets.

4) There is an opinion that the first tablets had "zochor" and the second had "shomor."

5) Another opinion is that the first had "shomor" and the second had "zochor."

It is possible to connect some of the above opinions with a Yerushalmi Sh'kolim 6:1. Rabbi Chaninoh ben Gamliel says that each set of tablets had the Ten Commandments, five on each side. The Rabonon disagree and say each set of tablets had twenty commandments, a full set of ten on each side. Possibly, according to the Rabonon, since the full text appeared twice on each set of luchos, one tablet may have had "zochor" and the other "shomor."

MVRHRH"G Rav Yaakov Kamenecki ztvkllh"h brought a proof that "shomor" appeared on the luchos, from the words in the "amidoh" of Shabbos Shacharis, "V'chosuv bo'hem SHMIRAS Shabbos." (Also in N'tzi"v)



See also Sedrah Selections, Oroh V'Simchoh - Meshech Chochmoh on the Weekly Parsha and Chasidic Insights

Back to This Week's Parsha | Previous Issues

This article is provided as part of Shema Yisrael Torah Network
Permission is granted to redistribute electronically or on paper,
provided that this notice is included intact.

For information on subscriptions, archives, and
other Shema Yisrael Classes,
send mail to
Jerusalem, Israel