Yitro's Revolutionary Insight: What Truly Defines the Jewish People

In this week's portion, Yitro proposed an efficiency reform to the judicial system administered by Moshe. The Torah states (Shemot 18:21–23): “You shall select from all the people capable men, God-fearing, trustworthy, who hate unjust gain, and place them over the people as chiefs of thousands, chiefs of hundreds, chiefs of fifties, and chiefs of tens. They shall judge the people at all times. Every major matter they shall bring to you, but every minor matter they shall judge themselves. Thus it will be easier for you, and they will share the burden with you. If you do this, and God so commands you, you will be able to endure, and all this people too will come to their place in peace.”

What Was the Great Innovation in Yitro’s Advice, and Why Didn’t Moshe See It?

What, then, was the great novelty introduced by Yitro? On the one hand, if Moshe believed there was added value in judging the people personally in every matter, how could he accept Yitro’s advice? On the other hand, if authority could indeed be delegated to other judges without any loss, it is unclear why Yitro’s insight was needed at all. Surely it is obvious that this is the proper way to streamline a judicial system and prevent undue delay in justice.

Moreover, when Yitro later wished to return home, Moshe urged him to stay, saying (Bamidbar 10:31): “Please do not leave us, for you know where we encamp in the wilderness, and you have been as eyes for us.”

Rashbam explains: “You knew and took to heart our needs when we encamped in the wilderness, and you were as eyes for us by giving us good counsel, as stated in the portion of Yitro. You were like eyes to the blind.”

From this we learn that everyone else was, in a sense, blind, and only Yitro saw what others could not. Why?

The Essence of Yitro Reflected in His Advice

Furthermore, regarding this episode, the Sages say (Shemot Rabbah 27:8): “Yitro had seven names… ‘Yitro,’ because he added a section to the Torah, namely the passage ‘You shall select from all the people.’”

This Midrash raises a difficulty, for a person’s name reflects his essence. Can it really be that because Yitro once offered good advice, this defines his entire inner identity and is memorialized in his name for all generations?

Why Converts Are Described as ‘Like a Scab’

The Maharal, in his introduction to his Torah discourses, explains Yitro’s role through the broader concept of conversion, noting that “Yitro is called the first convert, for he is an addition and supplement to Israel.”

In this context, the Maharal cites the Gemara in Yevamot 47b: “Rabbi Chelbo said: Converts are as difficult for Israel as a scab.” On a simple level, a scab refers to a skin affliction, and the early commentators explain this harsh statement in several ways.

Rashi explains that converts are difficult for Israel because they are not fully expert in the fine details of the commandments, and Jews may learn improper practices from them.

Tosafot add that the Divine Presence rests only upon families of clear lineage, and they also cite another view: that Israel is especially warned not to mistreat converts, and there is concern they may fail to meet these demanding obligations.

However, the Maharal writes: “In my opinion, none of this is necessary.” He explains that scab here does not mean a skin disease, but rather something attached, an addition that was not originally part of the body. What, then, is problematic about an addition?

A ‘Scab’ as an Addition That Damages the Perfect Form

The Maharal explains that the human form, in its image and structure, is complete: “There is neither addition nor deficiency in it.”

A defect can arise in two ways. The first is when a person lacks an organ. The second is when a person has an extra, unnecessary organ, for the Sages taught that “anything extra is like something missing.”

Thus, the term scab expresses a defect, because any addition compromises the wholeness of the form.

Converts as a ‘Scab’: An Addition That Challenges Israel’s Form

The Maharal explains that “Israel is called by the designation ‘man,’ and the convert is an addition to them.”

“Therefore the convert is called a scab, an added appendage to the person, which diminishes the essential form, so that it is no longer considered a complete form.” Just as a bodily defect can be expressed either through a lack or through an excess, so too an added element can detract from the original form.

But on a deeper level, how is Israel’s form diminished by the addition of converts?

The Addition Forces a Redefinition of the Essence

The Maharal explains: “When converts are found among Israel, they are added to them, and it is as though Israel were lacking, for the form of Israel is diminished from what they ought to be by virtue of their essential form, chosen by God.”

How is Israel’s form diminished? The Maharal answers that one might think all of Israel’s merit derives either from being the biological descendants of Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov, or from being the nation that received the Torah at Sinai. However, converts undermine this assumption.

When a convert, who is not descended from Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov, and whose ancestors did not stand at Mount Sinai, nevertheless receives the full status of a Jew, indistinguishable from any Jew of prior generations, this demonstrates that Israel’s uniqueness does not depend on racial origin or national lineage. The national “form” is thus negated, and Israel’s defining essence must be reconsidered.

General Similarity Highlights the True Point of Difference

Rabbi Yitzchak Hutner explains in Pachad Yitzchak (Purim, Essay 6) that in order to distinguish between two things, one must isolate the precise point of difference and eliminate all other distinctions.

For example, when teaching a child to distinguish colors, one must use objects that differ only in color. If one shows a red tomato and a green cucumber and says, “This is red and this is green,” the child may think “tomato” means red and “cucumber” means green. Only when all other differences are removed does the child understand that the distinction lies solely in color.

Rabbi Hutner uses this principle to explain the Yom Kippur service of the two identical goats, chosen by lot: one for God and one for Azazel. Halachically, the two goats must be equal in height, appearance, and value. Precisely because they are identical in all external aspects, the absolute distinction between their destinies penetrates to the deepest level. The more external similarity there is, the more sharply the inner difference stands out.

The Difference Between Israel and the Nations Is Not External

Rabbi Hutner further explains that the prototype of these two Yom Kippur goats is the first “hairy man,” Esav. The distinction between Esav and his brother Yaakov must reach the deepest layer beneath all surface similarities.

Scripture declares (Malachi 1:2–3): “Is not Esav Yaakov’s brother? … Yet I loved Yaakov, and Esav I hated.” The profound distinction between Esav and Yaakov becomes clear specifically in light of their brotherhood and similarity.

God told Rivka (Bereishit 25:23): “Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples shall be separated from within you.” Rashi explains: “From the womb they are separated — one to wickedness and one to integrity.”

One might have expected Scripture to contrast Yaakov with someone like Haman or Titus. Yet it points instead to Antoninus, whom the Midrash describes as righteous and destined for the World to Come. Precisely here lies the lesson: the true difference between Esav and Yaakov is revealed when compared to someone otherwise so similar.

Rabbi Hutner therefore noted (Pachad Yitzchak, Chanukah, Essay 6:10) that the nations sought to translate the Torah into Greek, because “erasing the distinction between the wisdom of Torah and other wisdoms automatically erases the distinction between Israel and the nations.”

“Our Nation Is a Nation Only Through Its Torah”

Converts are called a scab because their presence undermines a national definition based on lineage and forces us to identify the single defining point of distinction.

What, then, is that point? If Israel is not defined as a nation by bloodline, and converts who are not descendants of Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov fully join it, what defines Israel?

The Maharal explains that the distinction parallels the two Yom Kippur goats. Both are identical; the difference lies not in their substance but in their purpose. Likewise, the difference between Israel and the nations is expressed in one thing alone: acceptance of the yoke of Heaven.

Yitro’s Innovation: Essence Is Not Dependent on Origin or External Form

With this, the Maharal explains Yitro’s innovation. One who received Torah directly from Moshe might assume that the Torah’s unique power lies in its vessel, in Moshe himself judging every case and teaching its application personally. But Yitro was a convert.

He saw what others could not: that Israel’s spiritual essence exists even in a convert who is not descended from the patriarchs and whose ancestors did not stand at Sinai. There is one law for the native and the convert, provided he accepts the Torah and its commandments.

This “addition” reveals the essence. The vessel does not determine the content. Authority can therefore be delegated, and the Torah remains divine truth, for, as the Sages taught, “Accept the truth from whoever says it.” Moshe received the Torah at Sinai and transmitted it onward. The law remains valid even when taught and applied by judges who do not approach Moshe’s own stature.

Thus, Yitro’s name and essence are reflected in his counsel. Precisely because he was the first convert after the giving of the Torah, he was able to reveal that the essence does not depend on origin or any external marker.

When two things are almost identical, the true point of difference becomes clear. Yitro, the first convert, identified the defining distinction between Israel and the nations. Judaism is neither nationality nor lineage. Therefore, the convert who joins Israel is fully equal to any Jew.

The distinction between Israel and the nations is one alone, as Rabbi Saadia Gaon wrote in Emunot VeDeot (Essay 3): “Our nation is a nation only through its Torah.”

Accordingly, the Torah of God does not depend on being learned exclusively from Moshe himself. The vessel does not shape the content, and from here comes Yitro’s advice: Torah law can be taught and applied by chiefs of thousands, hundreds, fifties, and tens.

From the book “Le’Ohr HaMaharal al HaParashah u’Moed”, by Adv. Avraham Weinrot.