<!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 - shiur
#2</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>YITRO - the 'father-in-law' or
'brother-in-law'</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> 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. <BR> What difference does it make, you
may ask?<BR> 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.<BR> <BR>INTRODUCTION<BR> To
our surprise, the first time that we meet Moshe Rabeinu's 'father-in-law' in
Chumash - his name is most definitely Reuel:<BR>"...Moshe fled from the face of
Pharaoh, and dwelt in the land of Midian; and he sat down by a well...
<BR> 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...<BR> When they came
to Reuel their father, he said: 'How is it that you have come so soon
to-day...<BR> And he said unto his daughters: 'And where is
he... and he [Reuel] gave Moshe - Zipporah his daughter.<BR>[See Shmot 2:15-22,
note however that the Hebrew word "choten" does not appear in this entire
section!]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> 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:<BR>"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)<BR> <BR> 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?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>HOW MANY YEARS HAVE PASSED?<BR> 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.<BR> 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)<BR>[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.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> 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.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>CHOVAV - A PRIEST or TOUR GUIDE?<BR> 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:<BR>"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)<BR>[note that the phrase "choten Moshe" must refer to
Chovav and not Reuel, based on Sefer Shoftim 4:11!]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> 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). </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> 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. <BR>[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.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>PILEGESH B'GIVAH<BR> 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).<BR> How
should we translate this phrase?<BR> 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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> 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"! </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> 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. <BR>[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.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>THE VERB L"HITCHATEN<BR> To appreciate why the
word "choten" could imply any relationship through marriage, let's note a pasuk
from Sefer Melachim:<BR>"VA'YITCHATEN Shlomo et PHARAOH - King of Egypt, and he
took the daughter of Pharaoh..." (see I Kings 3:1)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>
<DIV><BR> 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!]<BR> If so, then "choten"
could imply 'brother in law', just as it could also imply 'father in
law'.<BR> 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.]</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> 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!<BR>[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.]</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> 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. <BR>[Turns out that we must widen our definition
of either the Hebrew word "av" or "choten"!]</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> 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. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>HAR SINAI & YITRO<BR> In either case, we must also
ponder why the Torah dedicates so many details to Yitro (and his
family).<BR> Before discussing this question, let's discuss
another controversy between the commentators concerning when Yitro first came to
meet Moshe at Har Sinai.<BR> <BR> 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.<BR> 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..'.).<BR> 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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> 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:<BR>"...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]</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> 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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>YITRO'S FAMILY - Before & After<BR> 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. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> 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. <BR> 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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> However, more significant is the fact that the Torah 'surrounds' Bnei
Yisrael's encampment at Har Sinai with two stories considering Yitro (and
Chovav).<BR> 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. <BR> 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.<BR> 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.<BR></DIV>
<DIV> shabbat
shalom,<BR> menachem</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>===========<BR> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>