[Par-lite] Yitro - additional shiur -

[Menachem Leibtag]

*********************************************
****************

        THE TANACH STUDY CENTER
[http://www.tanach.org]

            In Memory of Rabbi Abraham
Leibtag

      Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem
Leibtag

*********************************************
****************

 

    PARSHAT YITRO -  shiur #2

 

YITRO - the 'father-in-law' or
'brother-in-law'

 

    Many of us are so familiar with Rashi's
commentary on the first pasuk of the Parsha
that Yitro had seven names (see 18:1) - that
we don't even consider any other possibility.
However, the classical commentators offer
several other very interesting
interpretations.  

    What difference does it make, you may
ask?

    If only to fulfill the mitzvah of
"la'asok b'divrei Torah" - would surely be
reason enough.  In the following shiur, we
attempt to explain the underlying reasons for
this controversy, and hopefully will also
gain a deeper understanding of why the Torah
dedicates so many details to this topic.

    

INTRODUCTION

    To our surprise, the first time that we
meet Moshe Rabeinu's 'father-in-law' in
Chumash - his name is most definitely Reuel:

"...Moshe fled from the face of Pharaoh, and
dwelt in the land of Midian; and he sat down
by a well... 

    Now the priest of Midian - KOHEN MIDYAN -
had seven daughters; and they came and drew
water... and the shepherds came and drove
them away; but Moshe stood up and helped
them...

    When they came to Reuel their father, he
said: 'How is it that you have come so soon
to-day...

    And he said unto his daughters: 'And
where is he... and he [Reuel] gave Moshe -
Zipporah his daughter.

[See Shmot 2:15-22, note however that the
Hebrew word "choten" does not appear in this
entire section!]

 

      Clearly, if we follow the simple
meaning of the word "avihem" [their father]
in Hebrew, then Reuel is definitely Moshe's
father in law!  However, only a few psukim
later, we find that Moshe is tending Yitro's
sheep:

"Moshe was keeping the flock of Yitro -
CHOTNO [his father-in-law?], KOHEN MIDYAN -
the priest of Midian ; and he led the flock
to the farthest end of the wilderness, and
came to the mountain of God, unto Horeb."
(see 3:1)

    

      Everyone's immediate impression is that
Yitro must be the same person as Reuel, since
he is called KOHEN MIDYAN - as was Reuel in
2:16, and he is referred to now as "choten
Moshe" - which almost everyone translates as
'father-in-law' (see any English
translation).  So why the 'name-change' from
Reuel to Yitro?

 

HOW MANY YEARS HAVE PASSED?

      Even though only several psukim
separate between these two stories in Shmot
2:16-22 and 3:1, it could be that many
decades have passed in the interim.  Let's
explain why.

      When Moshe first fled from Egypt (see
2:11-15), the impression is that he was
rather young.  Hence, when he first meets
Zipporah, it could be that was only in his
twenties (or thirties).  However, in chapter
three - when God appears to Moshe at the
burning bush, he is definitely 80 years old
(see Shmot 7:7)

[Our assumption is that Moshe went back to
Egypt immediately after God appeared to him
at the burning bush, and shortly after went
to Pharaoh and performed the miracles etc.]

 

      If indeed several decades have passed
since Moshe first married Zipporah, then it
could be that her father Reuel - the previous
KOHEN MIDYAN - had passed away - and in the
meantime, Reuel's son - Yitro - had become
the new KOHEN MIDYAN.  If so, then we would
have to interpret "choten Moshe" in 3:1- as
Moshe's brother in law.   

 

CHOVAV - A PRIEST or TOUR GUIDE?

      To verify if this interpretation is
possible, it would logical to check other
times In Chumash where the word "choten" is
used.  Indeed we find this word used numerous
times in regard to Yitro (in Shmot chapter
18), but to our surprise, it is used only one
other time in Chumash - in describing Chovav
ben Reuel in Sefer Bamdibar.  Let's take a
look:

"And Moshe said unto Chovav, the son of Reuel
the Midianite, CHOTEN MOSHE - 'We are
journeying unto the place of which the LORD
said: I will give it you; come with us, and
we will do you good..." (see Bamidbar
10:29-30)

[note that the phrase "choten Moshe" must
refer to Chovav and not Reuel, based on Sefer
Shoftim 4:11!]

 

      If we follow the simple meaning of the
text, that Chovav is NOT Yitro - then we find
additional proof that "choten" implies
'brother in law'.  In other words, Zipporah
had at least two brothers, Yitro and Chovav -
and they were all children of Reuel.  When
Reuel died, Yitro took over as KOHEN MIDYAN,
while Chovav seems to have become a
'professional scout' - who joined Bnei
Yisrael in the desert to help them with their
travels (see again Bamidbar 10:29-33).  

 

      Furthermore, note how Chovav is not
referred to as KOHEN MIDYAN, rather only as
"choten Moshe".  It also appears that Chovav
accepted Moshe Rabeinu's offer to join their
journey and receive a portion in the land, as
supported by Sefer Shoftim 4:11 (read
carefully).  On the one hand, Yitro himself
returned to Midyan after his short visit, as
described in Parshat Yitro (to bring back his
'sister' Zipporah), as verified by Shmot
18:26.  After all, he was the KOHEN of MIDYAN
- and hence he needed to return to fulfill
his duties in his own country.  

[Note that even though Shmot 2:16 states that
Reuel had seven daughters, this does not
preclude the possibility that he also had
sons.  The pasuk mentions only the daughters,
as they were tending to the sheep, and they
were the 'pool' from whom Moshe would receive
his wife from Reuel, their father.]

 

PILEGESH B'GIVAH

      In Tanach, we do find one additional
use of the word "choten", and finally in
regard to someone other than Moshe Rabeinu.
In the story of the Levite who travels to
Bet-lechem to bring back his "pilegesh"
[concubine], the father of this "pilegesh" is
referred to three times as "chotno avi
ha'naara" (see Shoftim 19:4-9).

      How should we translate this phrase?

      At first glance, this seems to be a
perfect proof that "choten" implies a father
in law.  In fact, this pasuk could almost
serve as the definition of this word - to
mean specifically a father in law.  If so,
then in Chumash, it must also imply father in
law - and hence Yitro and Chovav must be the
same person, as well as Reuel (unless we
explain that Reuel was the grandfather / see
Rashi Shmot 18:1) - and hence the conclusion
that we are all familiar with, quoted by
Rashi on 18:1.

 

      However, this phrase could prove
exactly the opposite.  If the word "choten"
implies 'father-in-law' - and only
'father-in-law' - then why the redundancy?
Would not the word "chotno" be enough,
without the additional phrase "avi ha'naara"!


 

      On the other hand, if "chotno" implies
any relationship through marriage, be it
'brother in law', or 'father in law'; then
the extra phrase is informative, as it tells
us that he was specifically her father, and
not her brother. 

[Why that chapter in Sefer Shoftim emphasizes
this point of "chotno" is beyond the scope of
this shiur, but can be explained when
considering the numerous ironies in that
entire event.]

 

THE VERB L"HITCHATEN

      To appreciate why the word "choten"
could imply any relationship through
marriage, let's note a pasuk from Sefer
Melachim:

"VA'YITCHATEN Shlomo et PHARAOH - King of
Egypt, and he took the daughter of
Pharaoh..."  (see I Kings 3:1)

 

 

      Note, that Shlomo 'marries' Pharaoh
["va'yitchaten"], and then takes his daughter
as a wife.  In other words, the verb
"l'hitchaten" can imply entering into a
family relationship.  [As we all know, you
don't only marry the wife - you marry her
entire family!]

      If so, then "choten" could imply
'brother in law', just as it could also imply
'father in law'.

      See Ibn Ezra on Bamdibar 10:29, where
he states this explicitly. Note also his
commentary on Shmot 3:1, where he claims that
Yitro is Zipporah's brother (as we did).
[However, he concludes that Chovav and Yitro
are the same person.  In our shiur, we
entertained the possibility that they are
different brothers.]

 

    If you've followed the shiur, it would
seem that if "choten Moshe" could imply
'brother in law', then it could be that
Yitro, Chovav, and Reuel, are all different
people!

[I haven't researched this topic as much as I
would have liked, so if you are familiar with
any other sources, that would either support
or contradict these conclusions, please let
me know.]

 

      On the other hand, if "choten" in
Hebrew implies only a 'father in law', then
we are forced to conclude that Chovav and
Yitro are the same person, while Reuel is yet
another name for Yitro; or alternatively, the
grandfather of Zipporah, which would force us
to conclude that Hebrew word "aviha" could
imply grandfather as well as father. 

[Turns out that we must widen our definition
of either the Hebrew word "av" or "choten"!]

 

      If so, we must ask ourselves - what is
the meaning of these various names for the
same person?  See Ramban on 2:16 for a
beautiful explanation, as well as Rashi on
3:1.  On the other hand, if they are
different people, we must also search for
meaning. 

 

HAR SINAI & YITRO

    In either case, we must also ponder why
the Torah dedicates so many details to Yitro
(and his family).

    Before discussing this question, let's
discuss another controversy between the
commentators concerning when Yitro first came
to meet Moshe at Har Sinai.

    

      Recall how Parshat Yitro opens with
Yitro's arrival at the campsite of Bnei
Yisrael at Har Sinai (see 18:5).  The
location of this 'parshia' in Sefer Shmot
clearly suggests that Yitro arrives before
Matan Torah, yet certain details found later
in the 'parshia', (e.g. Moshe's daily routine
of judging the people and teaching them God's
laws/ see 18:15-17), suggests that this event
may have taken place after Matan Torah.
After all, what 'laws of God' was Moshe
teaching if the Torah had not yet been given?
Furthermore, it seems (from chapter 19)  that
as soon as Bnei Yisrael arrived at Har Sinai
- that Moshe went up to God immediately, and
the events of Maamad Har Sinai began (see
19:1-8); thus not leaving any time for the
story in chapter 18 to transpire.

     Based on this and several other strong
proofs, Ibn Ezra claims that this entire
parshia took place after Matan Torah ('ein
mukdam u-me'uchar').  Ramban argues that
since none of those proofs are conclusive,
this entire 'parshia' (i.e. Shmot chapter 18)
should be understood as taking place BEFORE
Matan Torah (i.e. when it is written - 'yesh
mukdam u-me'uchar..'.).

      Rashi (see 18:13) offers an interesting
'compromise' by 'splitting' the parshia in
half!  His opinion would agree with Ramban
that Yitro first arrives before Matan Torah
(18:1-12); however, the details found later
(in 18:13-27), e.g. how Moshe taught the
people God's laws etc. took place at a much
later time.  This interpretation forces Rashi
to explain that the word 'mi-macharat' in
18:13 does not mean the 'next day', but
rather the day after Yom Kippur (when Moshe
came down from Har Sinai with the second
Luchot), even though it was several months
later.

 

      But even Ibn Ezra, who maintains that
the entire 'parshia' takes place after Matan
Torah, must explain why the Torah records
this 'parshia' here instead.  Therefore, Ibn
Ezra suggests a thematic explanation - based
on the juxtaposition of this 'parshia' and
the story of Amalek:

"...And now I will explain to you why this
parshia is written here [out of place]:
Because the preceding parshia discussed the
terrible deeds of Amalek against Israel, now
in contrast the Torah tells us of the good
deeds that Yitro did for Am Yisrael..."  [see
Ibn Ezra 18:1]

 

      Ibn Ezra claims that the Torah wants to
teach us that not all 'goyim' are bad.
Certainly, we encounter enemies such as
Amalek, but we may also encounter righteous
non-jews, such as Yitro - from whom we can
gain important advice.

 

YITRO'S FAMILY - Before & After

      To conclude our shiur, we follow the
'lead' of Ibn Ezra, by noting how we find
Yitro's family mentioned at key points in
Jewish history.  

 

      First, Moshe grows up in Pharaoh's
house; yet afterward, spends a significant
amount of time in Midyan, living with Reuel
and Yitro, the family of KOHEN MIDYAN.  It's
not clear precisely what God Yitro believed
in, nonetheless - he definitely comes to
recognize the God of Israel after these
events, and it would only be logical to
assume that Moshe acquired some of his
leadership traits during his stay in Midyan.


      Just as we later find a contrast
between Amalek Yitro, we find an earlier
contrast between growing up in Pharaoh's home
vs. Yitro's home.

 

      However, more significant is the fact
that the Torah 'surrounds' Bnei Yisrael's
encampment at Har Sinai with two stories
considering Yitro (and Chovav).

      Immediately upon our arrival at Sinai,
and right before the story of Matan Torah,
the Torah records the story of Yitro's
important advice to Moshe concerning how
establish an organized court system.  Then,
in Sefer Bamdibar, immediately before Bnei
Yisrael leave Har Sinai, as they embark on
their journey to the land of Israel - we find
Moshe Rabeinu's offer that Chovav join the
people on their journey, to provide
assistance. 

      On the one hand, Matan Torah was a
singular event, intended only for the people
of Israel - to enter a special covenant - and
receive God's special laws that will make
them His nation.  However, the deeper purpose
of that covenant (and those laws) was for
Bnei Yisrael to become God's 'model nation'
that would help bring the Name of God to all
mankind - should we keep His laws in the
proper manner.

      For that reason, it may be quite
significant that this key event in our
national history is surrounded by events that
relate to our relationship with the outside
world.  While there are times when we find
ourselves isolated from the outside world, we
must always remember that we were chosen to
have a positive impact upon it.  There may
also be times that we can improve ourselves
by taking wise advice from other nations
(Yitro before Matan Torah), and there may
also be times when they can even provide us
with guidance should we become a bit 'lost in
a desert' (Chovav after Matan Torah).
However, foremost, we must be dedicated to
keeping the special laws that God gave us at
Matan Torah - so that our symbiotic
relationship with other nations can remain
fruitful - for the betterment of all mankind.

                              shabbat shalom,

                              menachem

 

===========

    

 

    

PARSHAT YITRO - FOR FURTHER IYUN

 

STRUCTURE AND THEME IN CHUMASH

      When we study Chumash, we encounter two
basic styles:

            (1) Narrative, i.e. the ongoing
story;

            (2) Mitzvot, i.e. the
commandments.

 

      Until Parshat Yitro, i.e. before Bnei
Yisrael arrive at Har Sinai, Chumash
consisted primarily of narrative (e.g. the
story of Creation, the Avot, Yetziat
Mitzrayim etc.).  In contrast, beginning with
Parshat Yitro, we find many sections
consisting primarily of 'mitzvot' (e.g. the
Ten Commandments, the 'mishpatim' (chapters
21->23), laws of the mishkan (chapters
25->31), etc.). 

      The reason for this is quite simple.
Sefer Breishit explained why and how God
chose Avraham Avinu to become the forefather
of His special nation.  Sefer Shmot began by
describing how God fulfilled His covenant
with the Avot, and redeemed His nation from
slavery in Egypt.  Now, before this nation
enters the Promised Land where they are to
live as God's nation, they must first receive
the set of laws [i.e. Matan Torah] that will
facilitate their becoming God's special
nation.

      Assuming that Bnei Yisrael are to
receive ALL of the mitzvot at Har Sinai
before they continue on their journey, we
would expect to find the following 'logical'
order:

    I.  NARRATIVE

The story of the Exodus from Egypt until Bnei
Yisrael's arrival at Har Sinai.

      II.  MITZVOT

    ALL of the mitzvot that Bnei Yisrael
receive at Sinai.

      III.  NARRATIVE

The story of Bnei Yisrael's journey from Har
Sinai to the Promised Land.

      

      However, instead of this clear and
structured order, we find a much more
complicated presentation.  First, 'ten
commandments' are given at a special
gathering (i.e. Ma'amad Har Sinai).  After a
short narrative, we find an additional set of
mitzvot - that comprise most of Parshat
Mishpatim.  At the end of Parshat Mishpatim,
we find yet another short narrative (chapter
24), followed by seven chapters of mitzvot
that detail how to build the Mishkan (Teruma
/ Tetzaveh).  This lengthy set of mitzvot is
followed by yet another narrative, which
describes 'chet ha-egel' (32:1-34:10), which
is then followed by yet another set of
mitzvot (see 34:11-26), etc.  In a similar
manner, we find this pattern of a 'blend' of
mitzvot and narrative in the rest of Chumash
as well. 

      So why does the Torah present its
mitzvot in this complex manner?  Would it not
have made more sense to present all of the
mitzvot together in one organized unit (like
'shulchan aruch')?

 

      In the answer to this question lies the
basis for our approach to studying Chumash -
for the intricate manner in which the Torah
presents the mitzvot 'begs' us to pay
attention not only to the mitzvot themselves,
but also to the manner of their presentation.
Therefore, as we study, we search for
thematic significance in the order and
sequence in which the Torah presents the
mitzvot.

      For example, we usually will begin our
study with an attempt to identify the
specific topic of each 'parshia' and/or
'paragraph'.  Then we analyze the progression
of topic from one parshia to the next in
search of a thematic reason for this
progression.

[Following this methodology will also help us
better appreciate the underlying reason for
the various controversies among the classic
commentators.]

 

CHRONOLOGY IN CHUMASH

    This introduction leads us directly into
one of the most intriguing exegetic aspects
of Torah study - the chronological
progression of 'parshiot' [better known as
the sugya of 'ein mukdam u-me'uchar..']. 

    In other words, as we study Chumash,
should we assume that it progresses according
to the chronological order by which the
events took place, or, should we assume that
thematic considerations may allow the Torah
to place certain parshiot next to each other,
even though each 'parshia' may have been
given at different times.

      In this respect, we must first
differentiate once again between 'narrative'
and 'mitzvot'. 

      It would only be logical to assume that
the ongoing narrative of Chumash follows in
chronological order, (i.e. the order in which
the events took place/ e.g. the story of
Yitzchak will obviously follow the story of
his father Avraham). 

      Nonetheless, we periodically may find
that a certain narrative may conclude with
details that took place many years later.
For example, the story of the manna in
Parshat Beshalach concludes with God's
commandment that Moshe place a sample of the
manna next to the Aron in the Mishkan.  This
commandment could only have been given after
the Mishkan was completed, an event that does
not occur until many months later.
Nevertheless, because that narrative deals
with the manna, it includes a related event,
even though it took place at a later time.

      The story of Yehuda and Tamar in Sefer
Breishit is another example.  See chapter 38,
note from 38:11-12 that since Tamar waited
for Shela to grow up, the second part of that
story must have taken place at least thirteen
years later, and hence after Yosef becomes
viceroy in Egypt!  Recall that he was sold at
age 17 and solved Pharaoh's dream at age 30.

 

      How about the 'mitzvot' in Chumash?  In
what order are they presented?  Do they
follow the chronological order by which they
were first given?

      Because the mitzvot are embedded within
the narrative of Chumash, and not presented
in one unbroken unit (as explained above),
the answer is not so simple.  On this
specific issue, a major controversy exists
among the various commentators; popularly
known as: "ein mukdam u-me'uchar ba-Torah"
(there is no chronological order in the
Torah).

      Rashi, together with many other
commentators (and numerous Midrashim),
consistently holds that 'ein mukdam
u-me'uchar', i.e. Chumash does not
necessarily follow a chronological order,
while Ramban, amongst others, consistently
argues that 'yesh mukdam u-me'uchar', i.e.
Chumash does follow a chronological order.

     However, Rashi's opinion, 'ein mukdam
u-me'uchar', should not be understood as some
'wildcard' answer that allows one to totally
disregard the order in which Chumash is
written.  Rashi simply claims that a primary
consideration for the order of the Torah's
presentation of the mitzvot is thematic, more
so than chronological.  Therefore, whenever
'thematically convenient', we find that Rashi
will 'change' the chronological order of
mitzvot, and sometimes even events. 

      For example, Rashi claims that the
mitzva to build the Mishkan, as recorded in
Parshat Teruma (chapters 25->31) was first
given only after the sin of the Golden Calf,
even though that narrative is only recorded
afterward (in Parshat Ki Tisa /chapter 32).
Rashi prefers this explanation due to the
thematic similarities between the Mishkan and
the story of 'chet ha-egel'. 

      In contrast, Ramban argues time and
time again that unless there is 'clear cut'
proof that a certain parshia is out of order,
one must always assume that the mitzvot in
Chumash are recorded in the same order as
they were originally given.  For example,
Ramban maintains that the commandment to
build the Mishkan was given before 'chet
ha-egel' despite its thematic similarities to
that event! 

 

      It should be pointed out that there is
a very simple reason why the Torah is written
in thematic order, which is not necessarily
chronological.  Recall that the Torah (in the
form that we received it) was given to us by
Moshe Rabeinu before his death in the
fortieth year in the desert.  [See Devarim
31:24-25.]  When Moshe Rabeinu first received
the laws, he wrote them down in 'megilot'
[scrolls].  However, before his death, he
organized all of the laws that he received,
and the various stories that transpired into
the Five Books. 

[See Masechet Megilla 60a, and Rashi on
"Megilla megilla nitna...".  See also
Chizkuni on Shmot 34:32!  It's not clear from
these commentators whether God told Moshe
concerning the order by which to put these
'megillot' together, or if Moshe Rabeinu made
those decisions himself.  However, it would
only be logical to assume that God instructed
Moshe Rabeinu in this regard as well.]

 

      Considering that Chumash, in its final
form, was 'composed' in the fortieth year -
we can readily understand why its mitzvot and
narratives would be recorded in a manner that
is thematically significant.   Therefore,
almost all of the commentators are in
constant search of the deeper meaning of the
juxtaposition of 'parshiot' and the order of
their presentation.

 

WHEN DID YITRO COME

      The dispute concerning 'When Yitro
came', which we discussed in the shiur above,
illustrates some of the various
methodological approaches we can take when
confronted with apparent discrepancies.  In
general, whenever we find a 'parshia' which
appears to be 'out of order', we can either:

1)  Attempt to keep the chronological order,
then deal with each problematic detail
individually. 

2)  Keep the chronological order up until the
first detail that is problematic.  At that
point, explain why the narrative records
details that happen later. 

3)  Change the chronological order, and then
explain the thematic reason why the Torah
places the 'parshia' in this specific
location. 

 

MA'AMAD HAR SINAI

      Let's bring another example in Parshat
Yitro, from the most important event of our
history: 'Ma'amad Har Sinai' - God's
revelation to Am Yisrael at Mount Sinai.

[Matan Torah - the giving of the Ten
Commandments at Har Sinai, together with the
events which immediately precede and follow
it (chapters 19->24), are commonly referred
to as 'Ma'amad Har Sinai'.]

 

      This 'ma'amad' can be divided between
its basic sections of narrative and mitzva:

19:1-25  [Narrative] - Preparation for the
Ten Commandments

20:1-14  [Mitzvot] - The Ten Commandments

20:15-18 [Narrative] - Bnei Yisrael's fear of
God's revelation

21:19-23:33 [Mitzvot] - Additional mitzvot
('ha-mishpatim')

24:1-11 [Narrative] - The ceremonial covenant


                  (better known as 'brit
na'aseh ve-nishma')

 

      Note that Bnei Yisrael's declaration of
'na'aseh ve-nishma' takes place during the
ceremonial covenant recorded at the end of
Parshat Mishpatim (see 24:7).  In Parshat
Yitro, when Bnei Yisrael accept God's
proposition to keep His Torah, the people
reply only with 'na'aseh' (see 19:8). 

      If we would follow the simple order of
these parshiot (see above table), we would
have to conclude that the 'na'aseh ve-nishma'
ceremony took place after Matan Torah.
Nevertheless, Rashi [and most likely your
first Chumash teacher] changes the order of
the 'parshiot' and claims that this ceremony
actually took place before Matan Torah.  Why?

      Rashi ('ein mukdam u-me'uchar') anchors
his interpretation in the numerous
similarities between chapter 19 and chapter
24.  Therefore, he combines these two
narratives together.  [However, one must
still explain the reason why they are
presented separately.]

      Ramban ('yesh mukdam u-me'uchar')
prefers to accept the chronological order of
the 'parshiot' as they are presented in
Chumash, and explains that this ceremony
takes place after Matan Torah.

      This dispute causes Rashi and Ramban to
explain the details of chapter 24 quite
differently.  For example, during that
ceremony, recall how Moshe reads the 'sefer
ha-brit' in public (see 24:7). 

    According to Rashi, 'sefer ha-brit'
cannot refer to any of the mitzvot recorded
in Yitro or Mishpatim, as they had not been
given yet - therefore Rashi explains that it
refers to all of Chumash from Breishit until
Matan Torah! 

    According to Ramban, 'sefer ha-brit'
refers to the Ten Commandments.  This topic
will be discussed in greater detail in next
week's shiur on Parshat Mishpatim.

 

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20120209/8cc9dd17/attachment-0003.htm 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: yitro3.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 34353 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20120209/8cc9dd17/attachment-0003.pdf