<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.5730.11" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2>*************************************************************<BR>
THE TANACH STUDY CENTER
[http://www.tanach.org]<BR>
In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag<BR> Shiurim in
Chumash & Navi by Menachem
Leibtag<BR>*************************************************************</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> PARSHAT YITRO - Intro to 2nd half of Sefer
Shmot</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> In Parshat Yitro, Chumash
enters a new phase as its<BR>primary focus now shifts from its ongoing narrative
to the<BR>mitzvot that Bnei Yisrael receive at Har Sinai.
Nonetheless,<BR>the manner in which the Torah presents the mitzvot is far
more<BR>exciting than we would expect. Instead of a formal<BR>[organized]
'shulchan aruch' style of presentation, Chumash<BR>records the mitzvot in a very
special manner. In each of our<BR>shiurim from Parshat Yitro until Parshat
Pekudei, our study of<BR>the sequence and progression of the mitzvot will be no
less<BR>significant than the study of the mitzvot themselves!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>INTRODUCTION - STRUCTURE AND THEME IN
CHUMASH<BR> When we study Chumash, we encounter two
types of<BR>parshiot:<BR> (1) Narrative,
i.e. the ongoing story;<BR> (2) Mitzvot,
i.e. the commandments.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Until Parshat Yitro, i.e.
before Bnei Yisrael arrive at<BR>Har Sinai, Chumash consisted primarily of
narrative (e.g. the<BR>story of Creation, the Avot, Yetziat Mitzrayim
etc.). In<BR>contrast, beginning with Parshat Yitro, we find many
sections<BR>consisting primarily of 'mitzvot' (e.g. the Ten Commandments,<BR>the
'mishpatim' (chapters 21->23), laws of the mishkan<BR>(chapters 25->31),
etc.).<BR> The reason for this is quite simple.
Sefer Breishit<BR>explained why and how God chose Avraham Avinu to become
the<BR>forefather of His special nation. Sefer Shmot began
by<BR>describing how God fulfilled His covenant with the Avot, and<BR>redeemed
His nation from slavery in Egypt. Now, before this<BR>nation enters the
Promised Land where they are to live as<BR>God's nation, they must first receive
the set of laws [i.e.<BR>Matan Torah] that will facilitate their becoming God's
special<BR>nation.<BR> Assuming that Bnei Yisrael are to
receive ALL of the<BR>mitzvot at Har Sinai before they continue on their
journey, we<BR>would expect to find the following 'logical'
order:<BR> I.
NARRATIVE<BR> The story of the Exodus
from Egypt until Bnei Yisrael's<BR>
arrival at Har Sinai.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> II.
MITZVOT<BR> ALL of the mitzvot that
Bnei Yisrael receive at Sinai.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> III.
NARRATIVE<BR> The story of Bnei
Yisrael's journey from Har Sinai
to<BR> the Promised Land.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> However, instead of this
clear and structured order, we<BR>find a much more complicated
presentation. First, 'ten<BR>commandments' are given at a special
gathering (i.e. Ma'amad<BR>Har Sinai). After a short narrative, we find an
additional<BR>set of mitzvot - that comprise most of Parshat Mishpatim.
At<BR>the end of Parshat Mishpatim, we find yet another short<BR>narrative
(chapter 24), followed by seven chapters of mitzvot<BR>that detail how to build
the Mishkan (Teruma / Tetzaveh).<BR>This lengthy set of mitzvot is followed by
yet another<BR>narrative, which describes 'chet ha-egel' (32:1-34:10),
which<BR>is then followed by yet another set of mitzvot (see
34:11-26),<BR>etc. In a similar manner, we find this pattern of a
'blend'<BR>of mitzvot and narrative in the rest of Chumash as
well.<BR> So why does the Torah present its mitzvot in
this complex<BR>manner? Would it not have made more sense to present all
of<BR>the mitzvot together in one organized unit (like
'shulchan<BR>aruch')?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> In the answer to this
question lies the basis for our<BR>approach to studying Chumash - for the
intricate manner in<BR>which the Torah presents the mitzvot 'begs' us to
pay<BR>attention not only to the mitzvot themselves, but also to the<BR>manner
of their presentation. Therefore, as we study, we<BR>search for thematic
significance in the order and sequence in<BR>which the Torah presents the
mitzvot.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> For example, the first
step in our study will be to<BR>identify the specific topic of each 'parshia'
and/or<BR>'paragraph'. Then we analyze the progression of topic
from<BR>one parshia to the next in search of a thematic reason for<BR>this
progression.<BR> [Following this methodology will also help us
better<BR> appreciate the underlying reason for the various<BR>
controversies among the classic commentators.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>CHRONOLOGY IN CHUMASH<BR> This introduction
leads us directly into one of the most<BR>intriguing exegetic aspects of Torah
study - the chronological<BR>progression of 'parshiot' [better known as the
sugya of 'ein<BR>mukdam u-me'uchar..'].<BR> In other words, as we study
Chumash, should we assume that<BR>it progresses according to the chronological
order by which<BR>the events took place, or, should we assume that
thematic<BR>considerations may allow the Torah to place certain parshiot<BR>next
to each other, even though each 'parshia' may have been<BR>given at different
times.<BR> In this respect, we must first differentiate
once again<BR>between 'narrative' and 'mitzvot'.<BR> It
would only be logical to assume that the ongoing<BR>narrative of Chumash follows
in chronological order, (i.e. the<BR>order in which the events took place/ e.g.
the story of<BR>Yitzchak will obviously follow the story of his
father<BR>Avraham).<BR> Nonetheless, we periodically may
find that a certain<BR>narrative may conclude with details that took place many
years<BR>later. For example, the story of the manna in
Parshat<BR>Beshalach concludes with God's commandment that Moshe place
a<BR>sample of the manna next to the Aron in the Mishkan.
This<BR>commandment could only have been given after the Mishkan
was<BR>completed, an event that does not occur until many months<BR>later.
Nevertheless, because that narrative deals with the<BR>manna, it includes a
related event, even though it took place<BR>at a later
time.<BR> The story of Yehuda and Tamar in Sefer
Breishit is<BR>another example. See chapter 38, note from 38:11-12
that<BR>since Tamar waited for Shela to grow up, the second part of<BR>that
story must have taken place at least thirteen years<BR>later, and hence after
Yosef becomes viceroy in Egypt! Recall<BR>that he was sold at age 17 and
solved Pharaoh's dream at age<BR>30.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> How about the 'mitzvot' in
Chumash? In what order are<BR>they presented? Do they follow the
chronological order by<BR>which they were first
given?<BR> Because the mitzvot are embedded within the
narrative of<BR>Chumash, and not presented in one unbroken unit (as
explained<BR>above), the answer is not so simple. On this specific
issue,<BR>a major controversy exists among the various
commentators;<BR>popularly known as: "ein mukdam u-me'uchar ba-Torah" (there
is<BR>no chronological order in the Torah).<BR> Rashi,
together with many other commentators (and<BR>numerous Midrashim), consistently
holds that 'ein mukdam u-<BR>me'uchar', i.e. Chumash does not necessarily follow
a<BR>chronological order, while Ramban, amongst others,<BR>consistently argues
that 'yesh mukdam u-me'uchar', i.e.<BR>Chumash does follow a chronological
order.<BR> However, Rashi's opinion, 'ein mukdam
u-me'uchar', should<BR>not be understood as some 'wildcard' answer that allows
one to<BR>totally disregard the order in which Chumash is written.<BR>Rashi
simply claims that a primary consideration for the order<BR>of the Torah's
presentation of the mitzvot is thematic, more<BR>so than chronological.
Therefore, whenever 'thematically<BR>convenient', we find that Rashi will
'change' the<BR>chronological order of mitzvot, and sometimes even
events.<BR> For example, Rashi claims that the mitzva to
build the<BR>Mishkan, as recorded in Parshat Teruma (chapters 25->31)
was<BR>first given only after the sin of the Golden Calf, even though<BR>that
narrative is only recorded afterward (in Parshat Ki Tisa<BR>/chapter 32).
Rashi prefers this explanation due to the<BR>thematic similarities between the
Mishkan and the story of<BR>'chet ha-egel'.<BR> In
contrast, Ramban argues time and time again that<BR>unless there is 'clear cut'
proof that a certain parshia is<BR>out of order, one must always assume that the
mitzvot in<BR>Chumash are recorded in the same order as they were
originally<BR>given. For example, Ramban maintains that the commandment
to<BR>build the Mishkan was given before 'chet ha-egel' despite its<BR>thematic
similarities to that event!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> It should be pointed out
that there is a very simple<BR>reason why the Torah is written in thematic
order, which is<BR>not necessarily chronological. Recall that the Torah
(in the<BR>form that we received it) was given to us by Moshe Rabeinu<BR>before
his death in the fortieth year in the desert. [See<BR>Devarim
31:24-25.] When Moshe Rabeinu first received the<BR>laws, he wrote them
down in 'megilot' [scrolls]. However,<BR>before his death, he organized
all of the laws that he<BR>received, and the various stories that transpired
into the<BR>Five Books.<BR> [See Masechet Megilla 60a, and Rashi on
"Megilla megilla<BR> nitna...". See also Chizkuni on Shmot
34:32! It's not<BR> clear from these commentators whether God told
Moshe<BR> concerning the order by which to put these 'megillot'<BR>
together, or if Moshe Rabeinu made those decisions himself.<BR> However,
it would only be logical to assume that God<BR> instructed Moshe Rabeinu
in this regard as well.]<BR> <BR> Considering that
Chumash, in its final form, was<BR>'composed' in the fortieth year - we can
readily understand<BR>why its mitzvot and narratives would be recorded in a
manner<BR>that is thematically significant. Therefore, almost all
of<BR>the commentators are in constant search of the deeper meaning<BR>of the
juxtaposition of 'parshiot' and the order of their<BR>presentation.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>WHEN DID YITRO COME (AND
GO)?<BR> Even though this controversy of 'mukdam
u-me'uchar'<BR>relates primarily to 'parshiot' dealing with mitzvot,
there<BR>are even instances when this controversy relates to the<BR>narrative
itself. A classic example is found with regard to<BR>when Yitro first came
to join Bnei Yisrael in the desert.<BR> Recall how
Parshat Yitro opens with Yitro's arrival at<BR>the campsite of Bnei Yisrael at
Har Sinai (see 18:5). The<BR>location of this 'parshia' in Sefer Shmot
clearly suggests<BR>that Yitro arrives before Matan Torah, yet certain
details<BR>found later in the 'parshia', (e.g. Moshe's daily routine
of<BR>judging the people and teaching them God's laws/ see 18:15-<BR>17),
suggests that this event may have taken place after
Matan<BR>Torah.<BR> Based on this and several other
strong proofs, Ibn Ezra<BR>claims that this entire parshia took place after
Matan Torah<BR>('ein mukdam u-me'uchar'). Ramban argues that since none
of<BR>those proofs are conclusive, the entire 'parshia' should be<BR>understood
as taking place BEFORE Matan Torah (i.e. when it is<BR>written - 'yesh mukdam
u-me'uchar..'.).<BR> Rashi (see 18:13) suggests an
interesting 'compromise' by<BR>'splitting' the parshia in half! His
opinion would agree with<BR>Ramban that Yitro first arrives before Matan Torah
(18:1-12);<BR>however, the details found later (in 18:13-27), e.g. how
Moshe<BR>taught the people etc. took place at a much later time.
This<BR>interpretation forces Rashi to explain that the word 'mi-<BR>macharat'
in 18:13 does not mean the 'next day', but rather<BR>the day after Yom Kippur
(when Moshe came down from Har Sinai<BR>with the second Luchot), even though it
was several months<BR>later.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> But even Ibn Ezra, who
maintains that the entire<BR>'parshia' takes place after Matan Torah, must
explain why the<BR>Torah records this 'parshia' here instead. Therefore,
Ibn<BR>Ezra suggests a thematic explanation - based on the<BR>juxtaposition of
this 'parshia' and the story of Amalek:<BR> "...And now I will explain to
you why this parshia is<BR> written here [out of place]: Because the
preceding parshia<BR> discussed the terrible deeds of Amalek against
Israel, now<BR> in contrast the Torah tells us of the good deeds that
Yitro<BR> did for Am Yisrael..." [see Ibn Ezra 18:1]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> The dispute concerning
'When Yitro came' illustrates some<BR>of the various methodological approaches
we can take when<BR>confronted with apparent discrepancies. In general,
whenever<BR>we find a 'parshia' which appears to be 'out of order', we
can<BR>either:<BR> 1) Attempt to keep the chronological order, then
deal with<BR> each problematic detail individually.<BR> 2)
Keep the chronological order up until the first detail<BR> that is
problematic. At that point, explain why the<BR> narrative records
details that happen later.<BR> 3) Change the chronological order,
and then explain the<BR> thematic reason why the Torah places the
'parshia' in this<BR> specific location.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>MA'AMAD HAR SINAI<BR> Let's
bring another example in Parshat Yitro, from the<BR>most important event of our
history: 'Ma'amad Har Sinai' -<BR>God's revelation to Am Yisrael at Mount
Sinai.<BR> [Matan Torah - the giving of the Ten Commandments at
Har<BR> Sinai, together with the events which immediately
precede<BR> and follow it (chapters 19->24), are commonly referred to
as<BR> 'Ma'amad Har Sinai'.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> As we explained in our
introduction, this 'ma'amad' can<BR>be divided between its basic sections of
narrative and mitzva:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>19:1-25 [Narrative] - Preparation for the Ten
Commandments<BR>20:1-14 [Mitzvot] - The Ten Commandments<BR>20:15-18
[Narrative] - Bnei Yisrael's fear of God's revelation<BR>21:19-23:33 [Mitzvot] -
Additional mitzvot ('ha-mishpatim')<BR>24:1-11 [Narrative] - The ceremonial
covenant<BR>
(better known as 'brit na'aseh ve-nishma')</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Note that Bnei Yisrael's
declaration of 'na'aseh ve-<BR>nishma' takes place during the ceremonial
covenant recorded at<BR>the end of Parshat Mishpatim (see 24:7). In
Parshat Yitro,<BR>when Bnei Yisrael accept God's proposition to keep His
Torah,<BR>the people reply only with 'na'aseh' (see
19:8).<BR> If we would follow the simple order of these
parshiot<BR>(see above table), we would have to conclude that the
'na'aseh<BR>ve-nishma' ceremony took place after Matan Torah.<BR>Nevertheless,
Rashi [and most likely your first Chumash<BR>teacher] changes the order of the
'parshiot' and claims that<BR>this ceremony actually took place before Matan
Torah. Why?<BR> Rashi ('ein mukdam u-me'uchar')
anchors his<BR>interpretation in the numerous similarities between chapter
19<BR>and chapter 24. Therefore, he combines these two
narratives<BR>together. [However, one must still explain the reason
why<BR>they are presented separately.]<BR> Ramban ('yesh
mukdam u-me'uchar') prefers to accept the<BR>chronological order of the
'parshiot' as they are presented in<BR>Chumash, and explains that this ceremony
takes place after<BR>Matan Torah.<BR> This dispute
causes Rashi and Ramban to explain the<BR>details of chapter 24 quite
differently. For example, during<BR>that ceremony, recall how Moshe reads
the 'sefer ha-brit' in<BR>public (see 24:7).<BR> According to Rashi,
'sefer ha-brit' cannot refer to any of<BR>the mitzvot recorded in Yitro or
Mishpatim, as they had not<BR>been given yet - therefore Rashi explains that it
refers to<BR>all of Chumash from Breishit until Matan Torah!<BR> According
to Ramban, 'sefer ha-brit' refers to the Ten<BR>Commandments. This topic
will be discussed in greater detail<BR>in next week's shiur on Parshat
Mishpatim.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>