YITRO, FATHER-IN-LAW OF MOSHE, hears about Hashem’s salvation of the Children of Israel and Egypt’s defeat.

And Yitro rejoiced (VA’YICHAD) over all the good that Hashem had done for Israel, Who saved them from the hand of Egypt. And Yitro said, “Blesed be Hashem, Who saved you from the hand of Egypt and from the hand of Pharaoh, Who saved the people from beneath the hand of Egypt. Now I know that Hashem is greater than all the gods, because the very thing they plotted came upon them” (Shemot 18:9-11).

LEARNING OF THE MANY miracles Hashem wrought convinces Yitro of Hashem’s preeminence. As Ramban explains, Yitro understands that, by punishing the Egyptians measure for measure, Hashem has demonstrated His existence, His absolute control over all nature and His justice.

THE WORD VA’YICHAD (and he rejoiced) is the focus of some discussion among the commentaries. It derives from the root CHET-DALED-HEH, and appears elsewhere in Tanach as a verb:

That night, let darkness take it, let it not rejoice (YICHAD) among the days of the year (Iyov 3:5). You have made him glad (TECHADEIHU) with joy by Your face (Tehillim 21:7).

It also appears as a noun:

Strength and joy (V’CHEDVA) are in His Place (Divrei HaYamim I 16:27). And do not be sad, for the joy of (CHEDVAT) Hashem, it is your strength (Nechemiah 8:10).

Still, it is an unusual word, not only in terms of its grammatical structure (see Ibn Ezra and Rashbam), but especially in usage: Why not employ a more familiar word for rejoicing, like VA’YISMACH?

HIRSCH (Rabbi Shimshon Raphael Hirsch, 1808-1888) says CHET- ALED-HEH means “to show joy,” rather than to feel joy. And Malbim (R. Meir Leib ben Yechiel Michael, 1809-1877) points out that Yitro’s joy was generated more by an appreciation of the good done for Israel than by the punishment meted out to Egypt [note the repetition of Who saved three times in two verses]. Accordingly, says Malbim, CHEDVA is “an inner spiritual joy that overcomes an external sadness.”

THIS IS THE CONCEPT BEHIND Rashi (based on Sanhedrin 94a):

His flesh became filled with bumps (chidudin) [gooseflesh]; he suffered because of the destruction of Egypt. This is the meaning of the saying, “Do not insult an Aramean in the presence of a proselyte until ten generations (ad asara darei).”

Yitro is a righteous convert to the belief in One G-d (Sanhedrin 94a). Our Sages detect a discrepancy, an inner turmoil, in Yitro’s words: He is personally connected both to Israel and Hashem, as well as to Egypt, so simultaneously he expresses joy (VA’YICHAD) over all the good that Hashem had done for Israel, and his skin goes cold (chidudin) at the thought of what befell the Egyptians.

THE SAGES, FOLLOWING the Torah’s oft-repeated injunction to care for the proselyte (e.g., Shemot 23:9), and generally to be attentive to the feelings of others, derive an important lesson from Yitro’s predicament: Be especially sensitive in all relations with a proselyte, even the tenthgeneration descendant of a proselyte. For the effect of this lesson on the Halacha, see Sefer HaChinuch (ascribed to either R. Aharon HaLevi or R. Pinchas HaLevi of Barcelona, mid-13th Century) § 64 and § 431 and Minchat Chinuch (R. Yoseph ben Moshe Babad of Tarnopol, 1800-1874) there.

BUT, A PROBLEM IS RAISED: in point of fact, Yitro is himself a first-generation proselyte, not a 10th-generation one. Rashi (on Sanhedrin 94a) dismisses the problem, saying that until ten generations is merely a figure of speech. Chizkuni (R. Chizkiya ben Manoach, mid-13th Century) says this expression is based on:

Even the tenth generation … (Devarim 23:4).

Torah Temimah (R. Baruch ben Yechiel Michel HaLevi Epstein, 1860-1942) explains (based on Kiddushin 75a; Rambam, Laws of Prohibited Sexual Relations 15:8 and Even HaEzer 4:22) that after ten generations the family history is forgotten.

OTHER SOLUTIONS ARE SUGGESTED. Rabbenu Bachya (ben Asher ben Hlava, 13th Century) points out that Yitro the Midianite suffers because he is the tenth generation from Mitzrayim son of Cham, ancestor of Egypt (this presents an interesting parallel to Avraham, who was the tenth generation from Shem). Chizkuni quotes a view (probably Rabbenu Tam, R. Yaakov ben-Meir, 1100-1171) that the extension of this sensitivity to the tenth generation is not learned from the case of Yitro, but rather from Yishmael ben-Netanya (Yirmiya 40:7-41:18), who was the tenth generation of an Egyptian proselyte (Yer. Sanhedrin 2:3), and who, because he felt resentment, assassinated Gedalia ben-Achikam. Sefer HaZikaron (R. Avraham ben-Shlomo Levy-Bacrat, late 15th-16th century) quotes a novel approach: In Aramaic, darei means “rows (of white hairs)” (cf. Berachot 28a), and the quote is “bar asara darei,” “one who has ten especially sensitive to one who became a proselyte later in life, as Yitro did. On the other hand, one who underwent conversion in childhood (and all the more so the descendant of proselytes) will not retain his strong attachment to his origins, so we do not have to watch our words as carefully.

PERHAPS THERE IS A CONNECTION between Yitro’s “mixed feelings” and his conception of G-d. Polytheism – which Yitro is on the road to renouncing – because it accepts many “gods,” also accepts multiple, even competing, definitions of truth. A conflict in this world – the coexistence of good and evil, for example – is a reflection of conflicts “among the gods,” among ideals, among different truths. Monotheism, on the other hand, asserts that there is only one Truth, G-d’s: Conflicts are only apparent from the human perspective, but from G-d’s perspective – which man is invited to assimilate – there is no conflict, there is only good.

YITRO IS GOING THROUGH a process of change. From his own words, Now I know that Hashem is greater than all the gods, Yitro demonstrates that he “isn’t there yet” (Mechilta). This is not yet monotheism; rather, it is “monolatry.” Yitro has yet to work out his conflicts. And the Jewish people need to be sensitive to the changes Yitro – and others like him – are experiencing.