Rabbi Frand on Parshas Yisro
These divrei Torah were adapted from the hashkafa portion of Rabbi Yissocher
Frand's Commuter Chavrusah Tapes on the weekly portion: Tape # 448, Lo
Sachmod (Thou Shall Not Covet) Good Shabbos!
Eliezer -- The Son of Moshe Rabbeinu
The Medrash Rabbah teaches that when Moshe ascended to Heaven to receive
the Torah, he heard G-d expounding on the laws of the Parah Adumah [Red
Heifer]. G-d was quoting a Mishna, and was citing the teacher mentioned in
the Mishna by name. "Rabbi Eliezer says the decapitated calf (Eglah
Arufah) needs to be within its first year of life (bas sh'nasah) and the
Parah Adumah needs to come from a calf that has already entered its second
year of life (at which time it may be considered a 'Parah')" [Parah 1:1].
Upon hearing this, Moshe entreated G-d "May it be Your Will that this Rabbi
Eliezer be one of my descendants." G-d swore to Moshe that this wish would
be granted. This is alluded to by the verse, "And the name of one of them
was Eliezer" [by the birth of Moshe's son in this week's parsha - Shmos
18:4].
This Medrash begs for an explanation.
Another Medrash teaches that when Moshe asked Yisro to marry Yisro's
daughter Tzipporah, Yisro stipulated the following condition: Your first
born son from her will be dedicated to Avodah Zarah -- idol worship. All
subsequent children may be raised for the sake of Heaven. Moshe accepted the
condition and took an oath to abide by it.
This too is a mind-boggling teaching of our Sages. It is not only
mind-boggling that Moshe agreed to the condition, but even the fact that
Yisro asked for such a condition is mind-boggling! Even though Yisro's
career had been serving as a priest to Avodah Zarah, other Medrashim
indicate that by this stage in Yisro's life, he had already "seen the
light." He no longer believed in Avodah Zarah as a 'true religion'. Why
then would he want his first grandson to follow in the ways of his
original folly? It is incomprehensible that Yisro should have made such a
request, and it is incomprehensible that Moshe Rabbeinu should have
acquiesced to it.
Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz and Rav Shimon Schwab both explain this latter
Medrash as shedding light on an important dispute in terms of the best way
to raise children. Yisro did not want his first grandson to be an
idolater. Heaven Forbid. Yisro had seen the light, but Yisro was a person
who came to the Truth through experimentation. He did not just accept
revelation of the Torah on a silver platter. He was a searcher and a
seeker. He tried out other alternatives first. Our Sages say he had tried
out all the religions in the world and concluded that they were all
fraudulent.
Yisro's philosophy was "I found the truth on my own, and I feel that this
is the best way to raise children." Yisro felt that it is best for
children have to see for themselves, make their own mistakes, and come to
the proper conclusion on their own.
Moshe Rabbeinu did not favor this approach. He argued that it is only
necessary to learn through experience when one is still searching to find
out what the truth is. However, if one already knows the truth for
certain, there is no point in experimenting any further. Moshe knew that
the truth was "Hashem Elokeinu Hashem Echad" [our G-d is the One and only
G-d]. But to win Yisro's agreement to marry Tzipporah, Moshe compromised
and cut a deal with Yisro. His first-born son would follow Yisro's
approach of searching for truth and experimentation with other religious
beliefs. All subsequent children would follow Moshe's approach of
unquestioning faith and certainty that Hashem is One and His Name is One.
Both Yisro and Moshe fully contemplated and expected that even the first
son would conclude his religious search with the same realization that
Hashem is the only true G-d.
This explains the verses "And the name of the one (shem ha'echad) was
Gershom ... and the name of the one (v'shem ha'echad) Eliezer" [Shmos
18:3-4]. This is not the normal way to write a sentence. It should say,
the name of the one was Gershom and the name of the *second* was Eliezer.
Why is Eliezer called "ha'Echad", as if he were the first son?
The answer is they were both 'firsts'. Gershom was the first to follow
Yisro's curriculum, so to speak, and Eliezer was the first to follow
Moshe's curriculum.
If Yisro's approach of logically searching and coming to understand the
basis of a true religion makes sense at all, it only makes sense when one
is approaching mitzvos that themselves have logic and rationale behind
them. But what will such a searcher do about a 'chok'? What will the
seeker do when he approaches a mitzvah that makes no sense? He will not
accept it!
We can find some rationale or reason for virtually all the mitzvos in the
Torah, even those categorized as 'chok'. Parah Adumah is the exception to
this rule. It is the quintessential 'chok'. Shlomo Hamelech [King Solomon]
said, "I will be wise, but it is distant yet from me" [Koheles 7:23]. What
will happen when the searcher and experimenter encounters the Parah
Adumah?
The answer is that here too, the Rabbis do attempt to find some type of
rationale. They explain that the Parah Adumah is an atonement for the sin of
the Golden Calf. "Let the mother come and clean up the mess of the child."
Rav Shimon Schwab makes the following brilliant insight which sheds light
on the first Medrash quoted above. The rationale given for Parah Adumah
only makes sense according to the opinion that a Parah Adumah must be
three years old. If it is three years old, then it can have a child. (A
cow cannot give birth until it is three years old.) The reasoning that a
Parah Adumah is the mother of the calf that cleans up for her child does
not make sense according to the opinion that a Parah Adumah can be made
from a "two year old" calf, because a two year old calf cannot be a
mother. But that is exactly is the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer in the Mishna.
So according to Rabbi Eliezer, Parah Adumah is a chok through and through
-- there is absolutely no rationale for it!
Clearly, then, it was necessary for Rabbi Eliezer's philosophy to be that
the way to accept Torah is through Emunah -- pure belief, not through
experimentation and finding rationales and reasons that appeal to us
logically.
When Moshe Rabbeinu heard G-d quoting the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, he
said "I want this individual to be from my children" -- meaning, may he
follow my philosophy of education in life, namely that one accepts based
on belief rather than on experimentation and understanding." G-d assured
Moshe that this was the case and brought the fact that the name of Moshe's
son was in fact Eliezer as a supporting allusion.
An Antidote for Coveting -- You Wouldn't Want To Trade Places
I once heard the following homiletic insight (drush) on the tenth of the
Ten Commandments.
There are differences in the vocabulary used in the Torah's two
enumerations of the Ten Commandments regarding the prohibition of coveting
(Lo Sachmod). However, both versions end with the same expression: "nor
all that belongs to your fellow man" (v'chol asher l'rei-echa).
One may ask, after the Torah spells out that the prohibition of coveting
applies to a neighbor's wife, and house, and male servants and female
servants, his oxen, his cows, his donkeys -- what is the summation "and all
that belongs to your fellow-man" really adding?
I once heard that it is coming to teach us how to prevent jealousy towards
a friend. One might look at a neighbor's wife and see how wonderful she
is. One might look at his house and see how well he lives. One can look at
his job and his children and think "boy -- he has it so good!"
The Torah is telling us to consider "kol asher l'rei-echa" -- look at the
whole picture. Everyone has their own pack of problems in life. No one's
life is perfect. As apparent as it may seem that this person has it
'made', we do not know the whole story. What happens in the privacy of our
neighbor's innermost chambers? We can never know for certain. It is always
necessary to take into account "kol asher l'rei-echa" [all that is doing
with your neighbor].
Many times, if not most times, if not all the time, when we learn about
"all that is doing with our neighbor," we will not want to trade places.
I recently heard an insightful reality. If everyone were to place
everything on the table -- all the good and all the bad -- (and they are
asked to pick any person's complete package) everybody would wind up
This write-up was adapted from the hashkafa portion of Rabbi Yissocher
Frand's Commuter Chavrusah Torah Tape series on the weekly Torah portion.
The complete list of halachic topics covered in this series for Parshas
Yisro are provided below:
Also Available: Mesorah / Artscroll has published a collection
of Rabbi Frand's essays. The book is entitled:
