[Par-lite] for Parshat Yitro - shiur #1

[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 - Intro to 2nd half of Sefer
Shmot

 

     In Parshat Yitro, Chumash enters a new
phase as its

primary focus now shifts from its ongoing
narrative to the

mitzvot that Bnei Yisrael receive at Har
Sinai.  Nonetheless,

the manner in which the Torah presents the
mitzvot is far more

exciting than we would expect.  Instead of a
formal

[organized] 'shulchan aruch' style of
presentation, Chumash

records the mitzvot in a very special manner.
In each of our

shiurim from Parshat Yitro until Parshat
Pekudei, our study of

the sequence and progression of the mitzvot
will be no less

significant than the study of the mitzvot
themselves!

 

INTRODUCTION - STRUCTURE AND THEME IN CHUMASH

     When we study Chumash, we encounter two
types of

parshiot:

       (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, the first step in our study
will be 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 (AND GO)?

     Even though this controversy of 'mukdam
u-me'uchar'

relates primarily to 'parshiot' dealing with
mitzvot, there

are even instances when this controversy
relates to the

narrative itself.  A classic example is found
with regard to

when Yitro first came to join Bnei Yisrael in
the desert.

     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.

     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, the entire
'parshia' should be

understood as taking place BEFORE Matan Torah
(i.e. when it is

written - 'yesh mukdam u-me'uchar..'.).

     Rashi (see 18:13) suggests 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 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]

 

     The dispute concerning 'When Yitro came'
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'.]

 

     As we explained in our introduction,
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.

 

     In this week's regular Parsha shiur
(sent out yesterday),

we discuss in greater detail the events that
transpire in

chapter 19.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20130131/8b0aa276/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: yitro1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 56011 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20130131/8b0aa276/attachment-0001.pdf>