Make your own free website on


   The first euxp in this week's varp says "ur,h gnahu" and Yisro heard, "vank ohekt vag rat kf" all that ohekt had done to Moshe, "ktrah ,t oav thmuv hf", because HASHEM had brought out ktrah. On this the vru,v ,fubj asks: why in connection with van is the name ohekt used-which means ihsv ,sn, but in connection with ktrah the name oav -meaning ohnjrv ,sn-is used.

   He offers this .urh,. The arsn tells us that at Moshe's encounter with the vbo the ihsv ,sn was invoked against van, as it is written in the vru, "oav trhu" and HASHEM -the ohnjv ,sn- saw ",utrk rx hf" that van had turned to see the vbx ; "ohekt uhkt trehu" and ohekt -ihsv ,sn- called to him.

   The effect of x'van bringing the ihsv ,sn down upon himself was that the vbuvf which had been originally granted to van was taken away from him and given to irvt because of his reluctance to accept HASHEM's ,ujka .

   We find in the yuekh that on the second euxp in the varp which says "vhjuka rjt vrupm ,t ur,h jehu " Yisro took vrupm after van had sent her away, gauvh hcr says that vhjuka rjt means that van sent vrupm away with a yd, he divorced her.

   With this preface we can understand the opening euxp as follows: "ur,h gnahu" and Yisro heard "ohekt vag rat ,t" what the ihsv ,sn had done to van, that it had taken the vbuvf away from him, he realized that van was allowed to be u,aurd rhzjn and could remarry vrupm whom he had divorced. Therefore, "vrupm ,t jehu," he took vrupm the wife of van, "vhjuka rjt," after she was divorced, because although till now van had been a ivf and could not remarry vrupm, now he could remarry her.

   However, points out ihexhs chk gauvh hcr this explanation cannot work according to the opinion of hgsunv rzghkt hcr who says that vrupm was not given a yd by van; she was only sent away with rntn, a verbal command: "lhct ,hck hcua", "return to your father's house". Thus vrupm had never been divorced, and van was always free to take her back, whether or not he was a ivf.

   chk gauvh hcr offers a solution to this difficulty. We find in the ohjcz trnd: "tkug rnt" tkug said, ",ufkn van aec", van sought to be a lkn- "uk vb,b tku", but it wasn't granted to him, as it says by the vbx: "oukv cre, kt"- don't approach oukv, ",ufkn tkt oukv ihtu" and oukv means ,ufkn.

   We can therefore explain the euxp: "ue,h gnahu" and ur,h heard "ohekt vag rat ,t" what the ihsv ,sn had done at the vbx as referring to the ihsv ,sn having taken away ,ufkn from van. Therefore ur,h brought back vrupm, "vhjuka rjt", after she had been sent away- but not divorced. ur,h reasoned, if tuv lurc ausev had made van a lkn, there would be no point to returning vrupm to van, because after the rucs of HASHEM was sjhh,b to van, he separated from his wife and ur,h couldn't say to van, if you won't live with her, give her a divorce so she can marry someone else, because if van is a lkn, no one is allowed to marry a x'lkn divorced wife, so a divorce wouldn't help.

   But after ur,h heard that the ihsv ,sn had removed the ,ufkn from van, he realized that vrupm could benefit from a yd. So the vru, tells us that after ur,h realized what the ihsv ,sn had done to van, he took vrupm, after she had been sent away with rntn and brought her to van so that van would either take her back to live with her as a wife or would give her a yd so she could remarry, because he was not a lkn.

Last worked on October 1, 2001