“Jethro priest of Midian, Moses’ father-in-law, heard all that God had done for Moses and for Israel His people, how the Lord had brought Israel out from Egypt” (Exodus 18:1). The verse seems quite straightforward, yet Rashi comments: “What news had he heard that made him come? The splitting of the Reed Sea and the war against Amalek.” In other words, according to Rashi, Jethro heard about the things that happened in the previous parasha. This would also seem to be what we are meant to understand from the verse “Moses then recounted to his father-in-law everything that the Lord had done to Pharaoh and to the Egyptians for Israel's sake, all the hardships that had befallen them on the way, and how the Lord had delivered them” (18:8). It would not appear that Rashi is telling us anything we didn’t already know, and so we should wonder what was troubling him. The problem becomes clear only in his commentary to verse 13, where we read: “Next day, Moses sat as magistrate among the people”. Rashi writes:

And to what does “next day” refer? The day following his descent from the mountain. You cannot suggest anything other than that it was the day after Yom Kippur, because before the giving of the Torah it would not have been possible to say “I make known the laws and teachings (Torah) of God” (18:16). And from the time that the Torah was given until Yom Kippur Moses did not sit and judge the people, for on the 17th of Tammuz he descended and broke the Tablets, and early the next day he ascended and remained eighty days and descended on Yom Kippur. This parasha is not written in its [chronological] order…

It would appear that Rashi was of the opinion that parashat Yitro begins with Jethro’s visit immediately after the events in parashat Beshallah, but before the theophany at Sinai. This accords with the fact that the events at Sinai are not mentioned among the things that Jethro heard or that Moses tells him. However, further on we read: “I make known the laws and teachings (Torah) of God”, which seems to indicate that the events took place only after the giving of the Torah. Rashi seems to be of the opinion that the parasha begins in its chronological place, but rather than interrupt the story of Jethro’s visit in order to present the events at Sinai in their proper chronological order and then return to the story of Jethro, the Torah chose to present the narrative as a single unit, and thus the chronology appears out of order.

Abraham Ibn Ezra was also troubled by the chronology but, as opposed to Rashi, he writes: “In my opinion, Jethro came to Moses after he built the Tabernacle.” Ibn Ezra rejects Rashi’s explanation, stating: “and we cannot say that Jethro stayed with Israel for a period of many months and only then offered his advice, because the text states ‘next day’”. In other words, the same words that, according to Rashi, divide the early, pre-Sinai part of the story from the later, post-Sinai part indicate to Ibn Ezra that the entire story is a single unit that occurred after Sinai. But if that is the case, then Ibn Ezra is faced with explaining why the story was shifted from its chronological place. He explains: “This parasha was joined to the parash of Amalek in order to distinguish between the acts”. In his longer commentary, Ibn Ezra further explains: “Because the evil that Amalek did to Israel was mentioned earlier, the good that Jethro did for Israel is placed in opposition”.

Nahmanides explicitly rejects Ibn Ezra’s approach, and attempts to show that the narrative can adequately be explained in a way that places the entire story of Jethro’s visit prior to the events at Sinai.

1. In the Talmud, and in many places in the Midrash, the Sages resolve problems in Biblical chronology by referring to the principle “there is no early or late in the Torah” (i.e., the Torah is not set out in strict chronological order). If that is the rule, why did Rashi and Nahmanides feel a need to explain the chronology?

2. If the chronology can be explained as suggested by Rashi and Nahmanides, why did Ibn Ezra feel a need to suggest a later date when such an answer raises a more difficult question than it solves? Is Ibn Ezra’s answer intended to explain the “plain meaning” of the text? Is Ibn Ezra simply using the text as the basis for an ethical homily according to which parashat Yitro was placed immediately after the story of Amalek because the Torah intended to teach us that we should not  generalize from the stories of Egypt and Amalek that all non-Jews mean us harm?

3. Might there be other reasons for inserting the story of Jethro and his teachings before the story of the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai?