From tsc at bezeqint.net  Thu Feb  9 11:18:55 2006
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Thu Feb  9 11:19:24 2006
Subject: [Par-new] Parshat Beshalach - shiur
Message-ID: <20060209161906.276F333C1F@sa3.bezeqint.net>

This week's TSC shiurim are dedciated in memory of:
Clara Tanner - Kayla Necha bat Yerucham Fishel - 
my beloved aunt who passed away last week.
May her memory be a blessing for the people of Israel.

*************************************************************
        THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
		In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
	Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
*************************************************************

		PARSHAT BESHALACH - A Desert Seminar

		        ALL ON THE WAY TO HAR SINAI

	Bnei Yisrael's journey from Egypt to Har Sinai was
certainly not easy.  Instead of the anticipated cheerful
'three day journey', Bnei Yisrael endured several weeks of
life-threatening situations - including lack of food & water,
and military attacks by both Egypt and Amalek.
	Did something go wrong, or were all of these events
part of God's original 'plan'?
	Furthermore, if these 'tests of faith' were indeed
part of a divine 'plan' - did God really expect for Bnei
Yisrael not to complain?
	To answer these questions, this week's shiur analyzes
the progressive nature of the events that occur from the time
that Bnei Yisrael leave Egypt until they reach Har Sinai,
while considering their relationship to the overall theme of
Sefer Shmot.  
		
INTRODUCTION - THREE DAYS OR SEVEN WEEKS?
	Prior to the actual Exodus, God had made several
specific promises that He would take Bnei Yisrael from Egypt
to the Promised Land (see Shmot 3:16-17 and 6:5-8, as well as
Breishit 15:13-18); yet we never found even a hint that God
wanted Bnei Yisrael to dwell for any length of time in the
desert (other than to cross it).  True, Moshe had told Pharaoh
that Bnei Yisrael requested a three day journey to worship God
in the desert; however, Moshe was never instructed to convey
that message to his own people. 
    Hence, it only makes sense that Bnei Yisrael would expect
to travel directly from Egypt to Eretz Canaan.  
    Furthermore, the opening pasuk of Parshat Beshalach
implies that traveling directly to Eretz Canaan remained the
primary goal of the Exodus, while the 're-routing' of that
journey (to the southeast) was simply a 'maneuver' taken due
to 'military considerations' (see 13:17, and 14:1-3).
	However, in Parshat Beshalach, a very different set of
events unfold.  Instead of leading Bnei Yisrael directly to
Israel (or to stop at Har Sinai on the way to Israel), God
reroutes their journey towards the Red Sea.  Then, after
crossing the Red Sea, Bnei Yisrael do embark on a 'three-day
journey' into the desert, but only to arrive at Mara, rather
than Har Sinai.  Then, over the course of their five-week
excursion from Mara to Har Sinai, they run out of food at
Midbar Sin, run out of water at Refidim and then face Amalek's
unprovoked attack.  Only after some seven weeks do they
finally arrive at Har Sinai. 
	In the following shiur we will attempt to find the
purpose of this sequence of events - by considering the
underlying reason for Bnei Yisrael's redemption from Egypt.

A SECOND CHANCE
	In our study thus far of Sefer Shmot, we have shown
how the Exodus served as a fulfillment of God's covenant with
Avraham Avinu (at "brit bein ha'btarim").  However, the
purpose of that covenant was not merely to provide Avraham's
offspring with salvation from a future oppressor; rather, God
entered that covenant  towards the purpose that Avraham's
offspring would become His model nation, acting in an
exemplary manner -to make God's Name known to all nations.  
    From this perspective, the redemption that God promised in
"brit bein ha'btarim" was only the first stage in a long
historical process.  After their redemption from Egypt, Bnei
Yisrael would first need to receive the special set of laws
and guidelines (better known as 'Matan Torah') - that would
facilitate their becoming that nation.  After receiving and
studying those laws, the nation would be 'spiritually' ready
to inherit the Promised Land.
	For this very reason, God found it necessary to first
call upon Bnei Yisrael to perform 'teshuva' [repentance] even
before the Exodus began.  [See Yechezkel 20:4-10, and our
shiur on Parshat Va'era.]  Presumably, had Bnei Yisrael indeed
obeyed that original call, the redemption process could have
proceeded as originally planned, i.e. the nation would have
traveled directly to Har Sinai (in three days) - to thank God
and receive the Torah.  (See Seforno's introduction to Sefer
Shmot; see also Ibn Ezra, Rashbam, Ramban and Seforno on
2:23-25.)
	Unfortunately, the nation did not repent in the manner
that God had expected.  As we explained in last week's shiur,
the offering of the 'korban Pesach' may have rendered them
worthy 'just enough' to survive the Tenth Plague;
nevertheless, at the time of the Exodus Bnei Yisrael were far
from being 'spiritually ready' for Matan Torah.   Therefore,
we posit that God found it necessary to first challenge His
people with a series of 'tests' (as described in Parshat
Beshalach) - to help prepare them for Matan Torah!

THE NEW PLAN
	The following table lists the key events that take
place during Bnei Yisrael's journey from Egypt to Har Sinai:

	LOCATION			EVENT
1)	Yam Suf (14:11)		Am Yisrael is attacked by
Mitzraim;
2)	Mara (15:24)			the water is bitter;
3)	Midbar Sin (15:2)		there is no food to
eat;
4)	Refidim I (17:3)		there is no water to
drink;
5)	Refidim II (17:8)		Am Yisrael is attacked
by Amalek.
		  [Note the chiastic structure:
war-water-food-water-war.] 

	Despite the distinctive nature of each of these
events, we will show how and why God intentionally initiates
these incidents in order to catalyze Bnei Yisrael's spiritual
growth, to 'train' them to become His Nation!
	To appreciate the specific purpose of each individual
event, we must first consider WHY Bnei Yisrael had not
performed proper 'teshuva' in Egypt.

BREAKING SLAVE MENTALITY
	It is extremely difficult for a slave, even after
having gained his freedom, to act or think like a free man.
As we explained in Parshat Va'era, Bnei Yisrael do not listen
to God's original call because of their 'crushed spirits and
hard labor': "v'e-lo sham'u el Moshe, mi-kotzer ruach
u-meavoda kasha" (see 6:9). 
	The strain of their prolonged bondage and the fatigue
of their daily routine had drained them of all spirituality. 
	Specifically because of this bondage - Bnei Yisrael
had grown instinctively dependent upon their Egyptian masters.
Therefore, to facilitate their transformation - from Pharaoh's
slaves to God's servants - they must change their instinctive
physical dependence on Egypt to a cognitive spiritual
dependence on God.  [See an amazing Ibn Ezra on Shmot 14:10
which discusses this topic.]
 
	We all know how difficult it is for an individual to
change his character, all the more so for an entire nation.
Therefore, the rebuilding of Am Yisrael's character becomes a
very complex process.  This background can help us understand
the need for the variety of events that transpire from the
time that Bnei Yisrael leave Egypt.  To explain how, we will
show how that a change of character occurs in one of two
patterns - via:
  1)  A traumatic experience - which may facilitate a sudden
change.
  2)  A change of daily routine - which affects instinctive
behavior. 
	As we will see, God employs both approaches.
	
1)  KRIYAT YAM SUF - SPLITTING OLD TIES
	Kriyat Yam Suf [the splitting of the Red Sea] may be
understood as the traumatic experience that helps Bnei Yisrael
break away from their instinctive dependence upon Egypt.
	Recall that, at Kriyat Yam Suf, God inflicted His
final punishment upon Pharaoh and his army (14:4).  Were God's
sole intention merely to punish the Egyptians, He could have
done so during the Ten Plagues.  The fact that Bnei Yisrael
must witness this Egyptian defeat suggests that these events
occur for the sake of Bnei Yisrael as well.
    This purpose becomes clearer in light of Bnei Yisrael's
reaction to the imminent threat of the approaching Egyptian
army:
"And they complained to Moshe saying... What have you done to
us by taking us out of Egypt?  Is this not the very thing we
told you in Egypt: Let us be and we will serve the Egyptians,
for it is better for us to serve the Egyptians than die in the
desert?!"   (14:11-12)
[See Ibn Ezra on 14:13 where he explains why Bnei Yisrael did
not even consider confronting the Egyptians in battle.]

	God responds to Bnei Yisrael's complaint by commanding
them to break away from this instinctive dependence:
"Do not fear, stand upright and watch God's salvation... for
the manner in which you see Mitzraim today - you will never
see them again" ["lo tosifu lir'otam od ad olam"] (14:13).

	Although God's reassurance appears to be a promise,
for some reason Chazal interpret this statement as a
commandment!  According to Ramban (14:13), Chazal interpret
this pasuk as follows:
"In the manner by which you look at Mitzraim today - do not
look at them this way ever again" (14:13).

	God here does not promise His nation that they will
never face an Egyptian army again.  Rather, He commands them
to 'never again' look to Egypt for their salvation. 
	Although this interpretation of "lo tosifu lir'otam"
does not appear to be the simple 'pshat' of this pasuk, it
does find support in a parallel reference in the 'tochacha' in
Parshat Ki Tavo (see Devarim 28:1-69).  At the conclusion of
that lengthy rebuke, God warns Bnei Yisrael that - should they
disobey Him - they will be exiled and sold into slavery (see
Devarim 28:62-67 / note "ki lo shama'ta be-kol Hashem...").
Their condition will deteriorate to such an extent, the Torah
warns, that they will actually hope that someone will
'purchase them as slaves'.  
	To emphasize this point, note how the end of the
Tochacha uses a phrase very similar to the phrase used to
describe God's command before "kriyat Yam Suf":
"And God will return you to Egypt in ships, in the manner that
I told you: 'lo tosif od lir'otah" [do not look at them this
way again], and you will offer yourselves to your enemies for
sale as slaves and maidservants, but no one will purchase you"
(28:68).  
[The word 'ba-derech' - 'in the manner' - should not be
understood as a description of the ship-route to Egypt, but
rather as a description of the crisis Am Yisrael will face as
they are exiled to Egypt in those ships.]

	Ironically, the last stage of the 'tochacha' has Am
Yisrael returning to the same state they were in before they
left Egypt, where they yearn for total dependence on their
human masters!  Their only hope for survival is for an
Egyptian to buy them to become his slave.  [See also Devarim
17:16 & Yeshayahu 31:1-3 to support this interpretation of "lo
tosifu li'rotam...".]

	Thus, after the miracle of "kriyat Yam Suf", it
appears as though God's plan had succeeded.  Upon seeing the
drowning of the Egyptians, Bnei Yisrael reach the 'proper'
conclusion:
"...and Yisrael recognized His great Hand.. and the people
feared God and believed in God and Moshe His servant" 
	
(Shmot 14:30-31).
Then,
	They instinctively respond with a song of praise to
God:
		 "Az yashir Moshe u-vnei Yisrael..." (see
15:1).

2)  MARA - A DESERT SEMINAR
	 After crossing the Red Sea, Bnei Yisrael set out on
their 'three-day journey' into the desert.  However, instead
of arriving at Har Sinai, they arrive at Mara, where the only
water they could find is bitter and hence undrinkable (see
15:22-23).  As we'd expect, the people complain to Moshe,
their leader; who in turns complains to God.  As their
complaints appear to be justified, God provides Moshe with a
solution to 'sweeten' the water (see 15:24-25).
	Certainly God realized that the people could not
survive without water, nonetheless He led them to a location
without water - in order that the people would complain.  In
this manner, God teaches the nation not to take their water
supply for granted; rather - it now becomes clear to them that
their physical survival is dependent upon God - who now tends
to their water supply.  [Recall that in Egypt, the Nile River
supplied drinking water for the entire country, and hence it
became like a God to Egypt - and Pharaoh considered himself as
the god-like master over the Nile / see Yechezkel 29:1-3.]
    Now, after these two traumatic events have shown the
nation who their real 'master' is, Chumash informs us how God
gives the people another chance to show their readiness to
accept His laws:
"And He said - im shamoa tishma le-kol Hashem Elokecha -
Should you listen to the voice of God, and do what is proper
in His eyes, and listen to His commandments, then the
affliction that I put on the Egyptians I will not put on you,
for I am God your Healer"  (15:26 / see shiur on Parshat
Va'era.).

	Note how Bnei Yisrael's acceptance of this offer can
'cure' their original 'attitude problem' reflected by "ve-lo
sham'u el Moshe..." (see 6:9, and our shiur on Parshat
Va'era).  
    Furthermore, by linking the sweetness of the water to
their readiness to obey His laws, God teaches Bnei Yisrael an
important lesson of spiritual dependence.  This connection
between 'water' and 'following God' will emerge numerous times
in Chumash, and forms the basis of the famous Midrash Chazal
of 'ein mayim ela Torah' - that the term 'water' in Tanach
symbolically refers to Torah.
[The 'message' of the 'eitz' which God instructs Moshe to cast
into the water (see 15:23-25) may also relate back to Gan
Eden, itself a motif of an environment that demands obedience
to God.  See also Mishlei 3:18 and its context ("etz chayim hi
la-machazikim bah...").]

	At their next camp-site, at Eilim (see15:27), God
gives them a short 'rest' - as there is plenty of water and
food.  However, as soon as Bnei Yisrael arrive in Midbar Sin,
God creates yet another crisis.

3)  MIDBAR SIN - BASIC TRAINING
	After arriving in Midbar Sin, the food supply runs
out, triggering yet another round of complaints (16:2-3).
Even though Bnei Yisrael have the right to ask for food, the
way in which they ask is inexcusable:
"If only we had died by the Hand of God in Egypt, when we had
plenty of meat and bread to eat!  Now you have brought us out
into this desert to die of famine" (16:3).

	The very tone of their complaint (and its content),
indicate that Bnei Yisrael had retained their instinctive
dependence upon Mitzraim.  Their instinctive reaction to this
terrible hunger includes reminiscing about the 'good old days'
in Egypt.  The trauma they had experienced heretofore was not
sufficient to totally change their character.  To rectify
this, God will force them into a daily routine that hopefully
will slowly change their instinctive behavior.
	The manna served this very purpose, as it provided a
daily routine that transformed what was once their physical
dependence on Mitzraim into a physical dependence on God.  As
explained in Sefer Devarim:
"And He tormented you and starved you, then gave you 'manna'
to eat... in order to teach you that man does not live on
bread alone, rather, man lives by whatever God commands"
(Devarim 8:3).

	By allowing only enough food for one day at a time,
Bnei Yisrael learn to become dependent solely on God.  To
emphasize this point, their food falls directly from heaven.
Note how the Torah uses a key word - 'nisayon' (a test) in its
description of the purpose of the manna: 
"Behold I will rain down bread for you from the heavens, and
the people shall go out and gather each day that day's portion
- lema'an anasenu (= 'nisayon') - in order that I may test
them, to see whether or not they will follow my
instructions..." (16:4).

	The word "nisayon" here should not be understood
simply as a 'test' that will help God assess Bnei Yisrael's
obedience.   The purpose of this "nisayon" was to raise the
nation to a higher level in their relationship with God.  In a
similar manner, we find that the Torah uses this same root in
the story of the Akeida where God 'tests' Avraham ["ve-Hashem
nisa et Avraham..." /see Breishit 22:1] - not to find out if
he is worthy, but rather to make him worthy.
	The manna served a similar purpose. God is not testing
Bnei Yisrael to find out IF they will obey Him, rather He is
training them in order that they learn HOW to obey Him.

4)  REFIDIM - PREPARING FOR HAR SINAI
	The next stop on their journey (and the last stop
before arriving at Har Sinai) is Refidim - where they can't
find any water to drink (17:1-3).  But why does God lead them
to such a location?  Certainly He realizes that Bnei Yisrael
cannot survive without water.
	Once again, God wants Bnei Yisrael to complain! 
	However, this time God's plan is more complex, as His
scheme at Refidim will prepare Bnei Yisrael both physically
and spiritually for Har Sinai.  As you review the details of
that story (see 17:1-6), note how God solves their water
shortage.  
    As you probably remember, God instructs Moshe to hit the
rock - and it would supply water.  But we would expect that
rock (and hence the water source) to be in Refidim - where the
people are suffering from thirst.  Instead, God instructs
Moshe to gather some elders (see 17:5-6) and travel from
Refidim to the rock at "Chorev " - the same site where God
first appeared to him at the burning bush (see 3:1)  - the
same site that later becomes Har Sinai! [See Shmot 3:12 &
Devarim 5:2.] 
    But would it not have made more sense for God to supply
this dearly needed water at Refidim, where the people are
encamped!
    
    One could suggest that God is providing water purposely
only at Har Sinai, for He wants the nation to first encounter
Har Sinai as a source for their physical salvation - that will
quench their terrible thirst.  By providing water at Har
Sinai, the nation will now eagerly travel from Refidim
directly to Har Sinai. 
    Note the wording 17:5, where God instructs Moshe to take
his staff with which 'he hit the Nile' - to hit the rock at
Chorev.  Even though Moshe's staff also turned into a
"nachash", and had also split the sea, etc. - yet God
specifically refers to it here as the one with which he 'hit
the Nile' - for Har Sinai will now become the new source of
water for Bnei Yisrael, replacing their old source of water -
the mighty Nile River of Egypt. 
     
    Let's consider the reality of this situation.  After Moshe
hits the rock, the water would gush forth from Chorev and flow
into the desert.  But to drink that water, Bnei Yisrael will
need to travel from Refidim to Har Sinai, to their new source
of water.  [For proof that hitting the rock created a gushing
river flowing down the mountain - see Devarim 9:21.]
	After this initial encounter with Sinai as their
source for physical existence, Har Sinai will later become the
site of Matan Torah - the source for their spiritual
existence.  Not only has heaven replaced earth as the source
of bread (the manna food), but also Har Sinai has replaced the
Nile as the constant source of water.  
    In this manner, Bnei Yisrael's total dependence on
Mitzraim has now been replaced by their total dependence on
God. 
	
5)  THE WAR WITH AMALEK - LOOKING UP TO HAR SINAI
	As Bnei Yisrael begin their journey from Refidim to
Har Sinai (to their new source of water), Amalek attacks. War
breaks out, and God orders that Yehoshua lead Bnei Yisrael in
battle.  
    In contrast to the level of Bnei Yisrael's participation
in battle at the splitting of the Red Sea, here Bnei Yisrael
do the fighting themselves.  But in order for the people to
recognize that God Himself brings them victory - despite their
own military efforts - God instructs Moshe to climb the hill
and raise his staff heavenward.  Upon which hill does Moshe
stand?
	Based on the juxtaposition between this narrative and
the incident at 'masa u-meriva', Ibn Ezra explains that Moshe
stands with his hands raised high - on Har Sinai!  Just as Har
Sinai has become their source of water, it now becomes their
source of military salvation, as well.  
    For Yisrael to become victorious, Moshe must raise his
hands (see 17:11) to show and teach the people to look to
Hashem, to Har Sinai, for their salvation.
    [See Midrash in Rashi (17:11) & Rosh Hashana 29:1.]

FROM PESACH TO SHAVUOT
	We have shown that during the seven weeks from the
Exodus to Har Sinai, Bnei Yisrael encounter several traumatic
experiences and changes in their daily routine that helped
prepare them for Matan Torah.  During this 'training period'
they have also become more active in the process of their
redemption - they are now ready to take on the next stage of
the redemption process: to receive the Torah in order to
become God's special Nation in His land.
	Not only was this seven week time period significant
for Bnei Yisrael at the time of Exodus, this same time period
of the year remains no less significant for future generations
as well.  It is not by chance that Chazal identify a similar
purpose in the seven weeks of the Sefirat ha-Omer, where we
count the seven weeks from the celebration of our freedom from
Egypt [on Pesach] in preparation for our commemoration of
Matan Torah on Shavuot.  
	Each year, after we thank God for our freedom from
slavery, we prepare ourselves for seven weeks - to be worthy
of, and to be thankful for - our receiving of the Torah.

						shabbat
shalom,
						menachem

=================
FOR FURTHER IYUN
	Many traditional sources indicate that Bnei Yisrael
required an educational process of one sort or another upon
their departure from Egypt in order to recover from the
effects of the lengthy period of bondage.  The type of process
required comes in two forms: PHYSICAL & SPIRITUAL 
PHYSICAL
	Military training and the development of confidence.
Several mefarshim emphasize that, as they leave Egypt, Bnei
Yisrael are in no position to conduct a war - the implication
of the opening pasuk of Parshat Beshalach ("pen yinachem ha-am
bir'otam milchama. ").  The Ibn Ezra stresses this point at
least twice in his commentary (peirush ha-katzar - 13:17;
peirush ha-aroch - 14:13).  
	The Ibn Ezra (in the second source mentioned) goes so
far as to say that Hashem had to see to it that this
generation would die in the wilderness rather than enter the
land, because the period of bondage had crushed their spirits
to the point where they would never be able to fight for the
land.  (This comment obviously has ramifications with regards
to the sin of the spies and other related topics.)
    The Malbim (commenting on the parsha's opening pasuk)
likewise writes that Benei Yisrael needed time to develop the
courage necessary to wage war.  Hashem therefore decided not
to lead them along the shortest route to Canaan.  
    The Abarbanel comments that the second pasuk of the parsha
mentions Bnei Yisrael's being equipped with arms to emphasize
that their resources were useless as they had no heart for
battle.  
    The Rambam (Moreh Nevuchim 3:24, 32) writes that the
grueling experience of the wilderness travel was necessary to
physically prepare Bnei Yisrael for the conquest.

SPIRITUAL
    Spiritual rehabilitation - the approach we take in the
shiur.  Within this approach, however, we find two versions:
Bnei Yisrael's spiritual growth is necessary as preparation
for Matan Torah, or for their entry into Eretz Canaan.  
    In the shiur we adopt the former view, which appears
explicitly in Rabbenu Bechaye's comments to the opening pasuk
of the parsha.  He writes that all the travails that Bnei
Yisrael experienced constituted a 'nisayon' - "in order that
their inner intellect would grow in the levels of trust [in
Hashem], which forms the root of faith, in order that they are
worthy to receive the Torah."  This approach may have a much
earlier source, as well.  The Midrash Tanchuma (Yitro 10)
writes that Hashem did not give Bnei Yisrael the Torah
immediately upon their departure from Egypt because they had
'blemishes'.  A recovery period was therefore necessary before
they could receive the Torah.  The Abarbanel (Yitro 19)
interprets these 'blemishes' as the spiritual influence of
Egypt.  As we claim in the shiur, he explains that the
miracles at sea and in the wilderness cured these spiritual
ills by reinforcing Bnei Yisrael's trust in Hashem.  
    In a similar vein, the Alshich (14:10) writes that the Yam
Suf experience was necessary in order to prevent any arrogance
on Bnei Yisrael's part.  The threat posed at the sea humbled
them in preparation for Matan Torah.  Later, in his comments
to 19:1, the Alshich compares the process that Bnei Yisrael
undergo during this period to the period of purification
required after the onset of certain forms of tum'a.  Yetziat
Mitzraim constituted the cessation of tum'a; the following
seven weeks correspond to the 'shiv'a nekiyim' - the seven
'clean days' - that spiritually prepared them for Matan Torah.

    On a more kabbalistic level, the Ramchal (Choker U-mekubal
18) writes that after Bnei Yisrael had sunken to the
forty-nine 'levels of impurity' in Egypt, over the next 49
days Hashem shone upon them the forty-nine 'levels of
sanctity' to render them worthy of Matan Torah.  All this
relates to the point made in the shiur, that the events that
occurred in between yetziat Mitzraim and Matan Torah served to
spiritually prepare Bnei Yisrael for Matan Torah.  
    By contrast, Rav Meir Simcha Hakohen of Dvinsk (Meshech
Chochma) and the Netziv (in He-amek Davar) maintain that
Hashem led the people into the wilderness in order to
spiritually prepare them for their entry into the land.  
    Rav Meir Simcha focuses specifically on the need for Bnei
Yisrael to rid themselves of Egyptian paganism; the Netziv
speaks more generally about the need for Bnei Yisrael to
establish their individual character, which necessitated a
journey through the wilderness, far away from other societies
and cultures.  
    We should perhaps note in this context a passage in Pirkei
De-Rabbi Eliezer 42, which states that, as Bnei Yisrael saw
the Egyptians closing in on them at sea, they repented and
discarded their Egyptian idols.  Apparently, they had not
adequately repented from their avoda zara while in Egypt.
	There are also indications of the fact that Bnei
Yisrael had not yet broken their sense of dependence on Egypt,
for one reason or another.  The Mechilta (on the first pasuk
of the parsha) writes that Pharaoh had sent escorts to
accompany Bnei Yisrael as they departed from Egypt.  
    Rav Baruch Epstein (Torah Temima) and Rav Dov Rabinowitz
(Da'at Sofrim) use this Midrash to explain how Bnei Yisrael
could have considered returning to Egypt (as Hashem was
concerned about - "ve-shavu Mitzrayma").  As the Egyptians had
begun treating Bnei Yisrael with dignity, they felt that all
the plagues and miracles had brought about a change of heart
on the part of the Egyptians.  Thus, Bnei Yisrael had yet to
turn their backs entirely on Egypt. 
    Furthermore, the Da'at Sofrim notes that the parsha's
opening pasuk describes yetziat Mitzraim as "be-shalach Par'o
et ha-am" - Pharaoh letting the people go, rather than Hashem
taking them out.  (This was noted already by the Abarbanel,
who explains differently; see also Oznayim La-Torah and
Nechama Leibowitz's Studies on this parsha, 1.) 
    Da'at Sofrim explains that Bnei Yisrael still felt
dependent on Pharaoh's decision to set them free, rather than
guided by Hashem's providence.  An extreme expression of Bnei
Yisrael's continued sense of dependence on Egypt appears in
the Akeidat Yitzchak, in his comments to 14:11.  He claims
that Bnei Yisrael had thought that Hashem intended for them to
live permanently in Ramses (as they had when Yaakov and his
family first resettled in Egypt).  It was Moshe, they felt,
who forced them to leave Ramses and continue into the
wilderness.  This clearly reflects that they had not yet seen
themselves as an independent nation.  They were content to
live as free people under Egyptian rule; they had not resigned
themselves to the fact that they would establish  their own
society in Canaan.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: bshal1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 54099 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-new/attachments/20060209/620daa75/bshal1-0001.pdf
From tsc at bezeqint.net  Tue Feb 14 04:19:37 2006
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Tue Feb 14 04:20:12 2006
Subject: [Par-new] Parshat Yitro - questions for self study
Message-ID: <20060214091707.974A433E23@sa9.bezeqint.net>

*************************************************************
        THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
		In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
	Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
*************************************************************

			PARSHAT YITRO 

PART I - QUESTIONS FOR THE 'SHABBOS TABLE'

LOTS OF NAMES, or LOTS OF RELATIVES?
1. When one reads the beginning of Parshat Yitro, there seems
to be no doubt that Yitro is Moshe Rabeinu's father in law, as
he is consistently referred to as "cho'ten Moshe".
	However, when one reads the story of how Moshe first
met his wife (see Shmot 2:15-22, read carefully), it seems as
though Moshe's father in law's name was Reuel.  Before you see
how the commentators solve this problem, review the following
other sources that discuss Yitro's family, noting the phrases
"kohen Midyan" as well as "choten Moshe", and see if you can
figure out the 'family tree' - assuming that each name refers
to a separate person:
	See Shmot 3:1, noting how Moshe is taking care of
Yitro's sheep.  In your opinion, approximately how many years
have passed between Shmot 2:15 and 3:1?  How does your answer
to this question affect how you understand the identify of
"kohen Midyan"?
	See also Shmot 4:18.  According to this pasuk, why is
it almost certain that "Yeter" is the same person as "Yitro"?
Note how both Rashi & Ibn Ezra solve this problem, but each in
a very different manner.

2.  After reviewing Shmot chapter 18, see also Bamidbar
10:29-32.  Does it seem as though "Chovav" is the same person
as Yitro?  In your opinion, does "choten Moshe" in this pasuk
describe Chovav or Reuel?  According to this pasuk, does
Chovav have the title of "kohen Midyan".   If Chovav is not
Yitro, can you explain why he doesn't have this title, and why
he has been with Bnei Yisrael for at least some time in the
desert?
 	Then, see Sefer Shoftim 4:11.  Based on this pasuk,
does it seem as though Chovav accepted Moshe's offer in
Bamidbar 10:31-32?  If Chovav was the "kohen" of Midyan, would
it make sense that he would have accepted this offer?

3.  If one assumes that the phrase "choten" implies
specifically a 'father in law' - explain why Chovav and Yitro
must be the same person.  Similarly, explain why Reuel must
either be Yitro himself, or Yitro's father (and hence 'father'
in Shmot 2:18 - could imply grandfather as well).
	What is problematic about all of these explanations?
	If one assumes that the Hebrew word "choten" can refer
to any relative through marriage, including a
'brother-in-law'; how can this solve all of the problems
mentioned above regarding the specific identity of Reuel,
Yitro, and Chovav?
	See Breishit 19:12-14, Melachim Aleph 3:1, and
especially Melachim Bet 8:27.   Can these sources support an
understanding that the word "choten" can refer to any
relationship through marriage?  See also the phrase "chotno
avi ha'haarah" in Shoftim 19:4.  In your opinion, does this
define "choten" as a father in law, or does it specify what
type of "choten" he was - i.e. 'father in law', in contrast to
'brother in law' (otherwise, the phrase would be redundant).

4.  With this background, see (and enjoy) the commentary of
Ibn Ezra on Shmot 2: 18, 3:1, 4:18 and Bamidbar 10:29 !  
	See also Rashi on 4:18 and Bamidbar 10:29; and Ramban
on Shmot 2:16, noting how he solves all of the above problems
by claiming that Reuel is the grandfather, while "kohen
Midyan" consistently refers to Yitro, and Chovav is Yitro's
new name after he becomes Jewish!

THE TEN 'COMMANDMENTS'
1.  For some reason, what we call in Hebrew 'aseret
ha-dibrot', we refer to in English as 'the ten commandments'.
Is this translation correct?  Explain why (yes or no)?
	How many 'dibrot' are there in the 'Ten Commandments'?
	Accordingly, how would you translate 'dibrot'- as:
		statements? 
		commandments?  
		parshiot?
	Explain each possibility. 
		Are there ten according to each?
	What is the difference between 'mitzvot' & 'dibrot'?

2.  What are the first TWO 'dibrot'?  [In other words, what
precisely is the first one, and what is the second one?]
Relate your answer to the question above. 
	How does your answer relate to the division of the
'dibrot' into 'parshiot'?
	Are the first two 'dibrot' included in the first
'parshia'?  From a grammar perspective, what else is special
about the first two 'dibrot' (i.e. the first 'parshia')?
	Now, see Ibn Ezra on 20:2.  See also Rambam Sefer
ha-Mitzvot Asei #1, and Hasagot ha-Ramban Lo Ta'aseh #5.  How
do these opinions relate to the above questions?

3.  Note in your Chumash that there are two versions for how
to read the 'dibrot' - 'ta'am elyon' and 'ta'am tachton'. 
	Note how each method divides the psukim in a very
different manner!  See if you can determine the underlying
logic of each division and how it relates to the above
questions.

4.  How do we know that there were TEN 'dibrot'?
	Does it say anywhere in Chumash that there were TEN?
	[In case you give up, see Shmot 34:28 & Devarim
4:11-13.]
Relate this as well to your answer to the above questions.]

5.  You probably also remember that God gave the 'dibrot' to
Moshe Rabeinu written on TWO 'luchot' [tablets].  Can you
recall how we know that there were indeed TWO 'luchot'? 
	[When you give up, try Shmot 31:18 and 32:15; compare
with Shmot 24:12 and 25:21!]
	In your opinion, what does this mean? 
		[i.e. two copies, or half written on each?]
	If 'half & half', how would they be divided, and would
this relate to their content?
	[If 'two copies'; why would one set not have been
sufficient?]
See the concluding paragraph of Ramban's commentary on the
'dibrot' (on 20:12-13) where he discusses this topic.

6.  In your opinion, are the mitzvot of the DIBROT
'qualitatively' different than the remaining mitzvot of the
Torah?
	If yes, what is special about them?
	If not, why were these specific mitzvot given at
Ma'amad Har Sinai, in contrast to all the other mitzvot that
were given at a different setting?
[See an amazing Rashbam on 20:15-16 /"daber ata imanu..."]
	See also Ramban on 20:6 - from "et Hashem Elokecha" in
regard to the difference between the first two dibrot and the
final eight.

7.  In your opinion, do any of the 'Ten Commandments' apply to
gentiles as well?  If so, which laws apply only to Am Yisrael,
and which laws apply to all mankind?  Can you explain why?
	Relate your answer to Shmot 19:5-6!
	See also Rashbam on Breishit 26:5 - "chukotei
v'toratei".

8.  Review 20:14-19.  In your opinion, had Bnei Yisrael not
become fearful during Ma'amad Har Sinai, when they requested
that Moshe receive them instead (see 20:15-18 and/or Devarim
5:20-28), would Bnei Yisrael have received more than ten (or
two) commandments directly from God at Ma'amad Har Sinai?  If
so, how many more mitzvot?  [All 613,or only a certain group?]

9.  How does the first mitzva that Bnei Yisrael receive after
the dibrot - "lo ta'asun iti elohei kesef..." (see 20:19-20)
relate to their request to hear the remaining mitzvot via
Moshe and not directly from God? 	How is this mitzva
different than the commandment not to worship 'avoda zara' in
the second dibur?
	Can you explain how this relates to the next mitzva:
"mizbeiach adama ta'aseh li" (20:21-22) as well? 

PART II - QUESTIONS FOR PREPARATION (for weekly shiur)

* MA'AMAD HAR SINAI *
 	Ma'amad Har Sinai was one of the most important events
(if not the most important) in our history.  Therefore, our
shiurim will deal with this topic in detail.  The following
questions will treat Shmot chapter 19 as the beginning of a
new 'unit' that will continue until the end of Parshat
Mishpatim.  This unit of Ma'amad Har Sinai includes chapter 19
- the story that leads up to the 'dibrot'; chapter 20 - the
dibrot followed by a short story; chapters 21 thru23 - a unit
of misc. laws; & chapters 24 - the concluding story.
    The following questions will help you appreciate the
content of these chapters (19->24) and understand why there is
such a major controversy among the commentators concerning
when these events took place. 

FINDING 'PARAGRAPHS' & 'UNITS'
    As you will soon realize on your own, it is very difficult
to follow the progression of topic in chapter 19.  To help you
study that chapter (and the rest of this unit), we suggest
that you use the following methodology:
    As you study each chapter in this unit, attempt to divide
each chapter into paragraphs.  In other words, as you read a
group of psukim, attempt to identify when a certain
'sub-topic' is complete, and then group together all of those
psukim that deal with that sub-topic.  [In general, there
should usually be between three and eight psukim in each
paragraph, but there can be exceptions.]
    Try to give a short title for each paragraph.  Then, try
to understand the logic of the flow of topic from one
paragraph to the next.  After analyzing several chapters in
this manner, attempt to turn you paragraph topics into an
outline.  [Technically speaking, you could follow this
methodology to compose an outline for the entire book - which
would help you identify is primary topics, units, and theme -
but for now, we'll focus on chapters 19 thru 24.]
    
    Let's start with chapter 19, and following this
methodology.  
After identifying its paragraphs, construct an outline that
divides this chapter into its most basic topics. Try to give a
precise title for each section, and explain the logic behind
its flow of topic.  Most probably, you'll notice several
psukim that are very difficult to understand.  When you
encounter such a pasuk, be sure to see if (and how) Rashi, Ibn
Ezra Rashbam & Ramban (etc.) deal with those questions that
bothered you.
	When you finish your outline (or if you give up) see
if your outline matches our outline below (note the titles
that we have given to each section).  See if you agree with
those titles, and then answer the questions that follow:

A.  19:1-8 /	The 'PROPOSAL'
1.  Note how 19:1-2 'sets the stage', while the actual topic
of this paragraph begins to unfold in 19:3.  As you read these
psukim, note how Moshe's job is to act as God's 'messenger' to
offer a certain 'proposal' to Am Yisrael.  Try to explain what
this 'proposal' [or 'deal'] is all about, and its purpose.  
    Be sure that you understand the 'two sides' of this
proposal as detailed in 19:5-6.  Are there 'conditions',
'rewards' and/or 'consequences'?  If so, explain what they are
and why.
	Be sure you understand why the 'divrei Hashem'
detailed in 19:4-6 should be considered a 'proposition' and
not as a 'commandment' (or information)!

2.  Note the word 'brit' in 19:5.  In your opinion, does it
refer to something 'old' or something 'new'?  According to
each possibility, what 'brit' is being referred to?  How does
this 'brit' relate to the proposal?  [See Ramban on this
pasuk, noting the different possibilities that he raises!]

3.  Explain the phrases 'mamlechet kohanim' & 'goy kadosh' (in
19:6)?  In your opinion, do they describe two different
concepts or the same concept?  If possible, relate your answer
to the theme of 'bechira' in Sefer Breishit, and its purpose.
Relate to Breishit 12:1-3 and 18:18-19.

4. Based on the simple 'pshat' of 19:3-6, what would have
happened had Bnei Yisrael answered 'no' to this proposal?
[You are probably familiar with a Midrash that entertains this
possibility. Explain how this "pshat" explains this drash.]  
	Once Bnei Yisrael do answer 'yes' to this proposal
(see 19:7-8), what should happen next?  In other words, how
will Bnei Yisrael find out the more specific details of this
'brit'?  Relate your answer to what does happen in chapters 19
& 20.

B.  19:9-15 / PREPARATION for Matan Torah
1.  Carefully read 19:9, try to translate this pasuk (and to
understand what the words mean).  How does the first half of
this pasuk relate to the 'proposition' discussed in 19:4-6,
and agreed upon in 19:7-8.  Once Bnei Yisrael accepted this
proposal, what would you expect to happen next?
	Does this pasuk include any type of a 'plan' for how
Matan Torah will take place?  If so, explain what this plan
is, and the relationship between Moshe and the rest of the
nation.
	How did you understand the phrase ' so that they will
believe in you [Moshe] forever'?  Is there a mitzvah to
believe in Moshe? If not, what does this pasuk imply?

2.  Review now the final phrase of 19:9: "and Moshe told the
people's answer to God".  How does this final phrase relate to
the first half of the pasuk?  What is the obvious problem with
this part of the pasuk?  Or in other words, what 'answer' of
the people is this pasuk talking about? 
    See Rashi on 19:9 - "et divrei ha-am...".  How does Rashi
answer this obvious question?  [Note that Rashi is quoting the
Mechilta.]  How do the other commentators answer this
question?
	Review 19:10-11.  How do these psukim relate to 19:9?
Does 19:11 provide support to Rashi's explanation of 'divrei
ha-am' in 19:9?  [Could you say that it is the 'source' for
this interpretation?]
	Does 19:11 include a 'plan' as well for Ma'amad Har
Sinai?  Is it the same or different as the plan in 19:9?
Relate the apparent contradiction between 19:9 & 19:11 to
explain Rashi's interpretation of what the "divrei Hashem"
were in 19:9.

3.  Note the three-day preparation described in 19:11.  In
your opinion, why was this necessary?
	Attempt to relate this to Rashi's peirush to 19:9.
	List the different types of preparation that are
described in 19:10-15.  What is the purpose of each? 

4.  When you study 19:13, pay careful attention to the phrase
"bi-meshoch ha-yovel heima ya'alu ba-har...".  In your
opinion, is this long blow of the shofar supposed to be a sign
that Matan Torah is OVER, or that it is about to BEGIN?
[Relate to 19:19! / see also Devarim 5:4-5 and Yehoshua
6:4-6.]

C.  19:16-19 / the 'HITGALUT' [REVELATION]
1.  Based on 19:10-15, where should the people have been on
the third day in the morning - at Har Sinai, or in the camp?
	Relate this to what transpires in 19:16-17!
	Why does Moshe have to 'take them out' from the camp
and bring them to Har Sinai?  Would they not have come on
their own?

2.  Based on 19:18-19, according to which 'plan' (discussed
above re: 19:9-11) does Matan Torah take place? [ i.e. do the
people 'hear' or 'see' God directly, or does Moshe act as
God's intermediary? 
	Where is Moshe supposed to be during Matan Torah, on
the mountain, or with the people?  [Why is it difficult to
answer this question?]

3.  Review 19:19 and the phrase: "Moshe yedaber, ve-haElokim
ya'anenu be-kol", in its context.
	Who is Moshe speaking to - to the people, or to God?
	According to either possibility, what was Moshe
'saying'? 
    [See Parshanut section for complete discussion.]
	[Note how Rashi (on 19:19) answers this question.  Did
you ever realize before that this pasuk may be describing what
transpires during the dibrot?]
	Where are Bnei Yisrael standing at this time?

4.  Review Devarim 5:1-6, especially 5:4-5 (in regard to the
two plans). Relate those psukim to the questions above!  

D.  19:20-25 / LIMITATION
1.  First of all, be sure that you can explain why these
psukim form a distinct unit?  What happens in these psukim,
and when does this all take place? 
    How do these psukim relate to the psukim that precede
them?  [According to those commentators who explain that 19:19
describes the dibrot, when did psukim 19:20-25 take place?] 

2. Note the use of 'rosh ha-har' (the top of the mountain) in
these psukim, as opposed to the use of only "Har Sinai" up
until this point.  What is the significance of this?  Has
something changed?  [Be sure to explain 19:24.]

3.  Why does God (at this time) repeat his warning 'not to
approach the mountain'?  Does Moshe himself understand why? 
	Relate this warning to the two different 'plans' for
how the 'dibrot' would be transmitted (19:9 & 11/ as discussed
above) 

4.  Who are the 'kohanim' described in 19:21-24?  How are they
'different' than the rest of the nation, and where are they
standing?  Then review Shmot 24:1-11, noting especially 24:1 &
24:9-11. [Can 19:22 be understood without 24:1?]

5.  Review 19:25, noting the final phrase 'va-yomer aleihem'.
What specifically does Moshe 'say to them' when he came down
from the mountain: the 'dibrot' or the 'mitzvat hagbala' in
19:21-22?  See the commentators!  [What did you think that
this phrase meant the first time you read this pasuk!]
	
E.  20:1-14 / The DIBROT
1.  Note the difference in 'person' between the first two
dibrot and the last eight.  What famous Midrash regarding how
the dibrot were given relates to this 'change in person'?
	Can there be any other explanation?
	[See Ramban on 20:6, in the middle of his peirush.]

2.  Relate this change in 'person' to the two 'plans'
discussed in the questions above.  Which 'plan' for the manner
of transmission of the 'dibrot' is reflected (respectively) by
the 'first person' and 'third person' tense in these two
sections of the dibrot?
	Relate this once again to Devarim 5:4-5, noting how
(and why) these psukim precede the dibrot in Sefer Devarim.
Note as well how that story continues in 5:20-30!

F.  20:15-18 / TREPIDATION
1.  Read these psukim carefully, and attempt to relate their
content to our discussion above of the two possible 'plans'
for Matan Torah; i.e. Plan A (19:9) and Plan B (19:11).
	Even though this story is recorded after the dibrot,
in your opinion is it possible to explain that this story took
place at an earlier time?  If so, when: i.e. before or during
the dibrot?
	To answer this question, carefully compare the details
of this story (19:20-25) to the details in 19:16-19.
Similarly, attempt to relate this story to the 'change in
person' found between the first two dibrot and the last eight.
[See Ramban & Chizkuni on 20:15.]

2.  In 20:15 we are told how Bnei Yisrael are so fearful that
they 'stand at a distance'.  Then, in 20:16 Moshe urges them
'not to fear'.  Finally, at the end of the story, we are told
how Bnei Yisrael 'stand at a distance' while Moshe enters the
cloud (20:17-18).  In your opinion, did Bnei Yisrael listen to
Moshe's encouragement or not?  [In other words, was Moshe
encouraging them to stand even closer, or was he insisting
that they not move farther away?]
	See how the various commentators dealt with this
question.

3.  Next, read [what appears to be] the parallel account of
this story in Devarim 5:20-30.  In your opinion, is this
account an expanded version the same story as described in
Shmot 20:15-18, or is it a different story.
	If these stories are the same, how did you reconcile
the apparent discrepancies? 
	If Shmot 20:15-18 describes a different event, then
which event took place first (and when)? 
	If indeed the events in Shmot 20:15-18 took place
earlier (i.e. either 'before' or 'during' Matan Torah),
attempt to explain why the Torah may have recorded it here
instead? 
	See Ramban on 20:15 (in some Chumashim it's 20:14),
where he first quotes Ibn Ezra's interpretation, and then
rejects it. [Ibn Ezra claims that these events took place
AFTER Matan Torah, while Ramban claims that they took place
BEFORE Matan Torah (& Chizkuni quotes Chazal's opinion that
they happened DURING Matan Torah!).  Relate this controversy
to your answers to the above question. 

4.  Read Shmot 20:19 ["ko tomar..."], and then quickly scan
the psukim that follow.  In your opinion, is this a
continuation from 20:18?  If yes, how do these mitzvot relate
to 20:15-18.  If not, when was this commandment (in 20:19)
given to Moshe? 
	[Note Rashi on 31:18 - 'ledaber ito', and Ramban on
24:1.]

G.  The MITZVOT & THE MISHPATIM (20:19>21:1 & onward)
1.  Note how all of the mitzvot that follow God's command to
Moshe of "ko tomar..." (that he must tell to Bnei Yisrael /
see 20:19) form a distinct unit of mitzvot.  Quickly scan this
unit of mitzvot, noting how they continue all the way until
the end of chapter 23.   
    This unit will be discussed in greater detail in our
questions on Parshat Mishpatim; however, for the purpose of
our shiur on Parshat Yitro, answer the following:
	Based on 20:19, when, where, and to whom are these
mitzvot being given?
	Why didn't the people hear these mitzvot directly from
God, (like the dibrot)?  When did they hear them from Moshe? 
    Relate your answer to 24:3 (in its context). 
[In your opinion, why are specifically these mitzvot given at
this time?  In other words, how are these mitzvot distinct
from the remaining mitzvot that will be given later on in the
Torah?  In your answer, relate to 24:3-7! ]

H.  THE BRIT AT HAR SINAI (24:1-11)
1.  Review 24:1-11, and try to determine when these events
took place.  [Be sure that you understand how 24:1-2 is
distinct.]
    Even though these psukim are in Parshat Mishpatim, many
commentators claim that this event took place before Matan
Torah.  [See Rashi 24:1.] 
	Compare these psukim to chapter 19 and see if you can
find any similarities.  Do any of these psukim help explain
any of the difficulties that you encountered when you studied
chapter 19?
[Note that anyone who claims that Bnei Yisrael proclaimed
'na'aseh ve-nishma' before Matan Torah must understand that
this covenant took place at the same time as chapter 19.  Note
machloket Rashi / Ramban on 24:1!

2.  According to Rashi's opinion, where in chapter 19 do the
events in chapter 24:1-10 take place?  How does this affect
how Rashi explains 'divrei Hashem' & the 'mishpatim' in
24:3-4?
	How does this explain who the 'kohanim' are in
19:21-24, and how does it explain the need for the warning in
19:20-25? 
=============

   PART III - PARSHANUT
TWO GROUPS OR JUST 'STYLE'
1.  Review 19:3, noting how God instructs Moshe to relay his
'proposal' to both 'beit Yaakov' and 'bnei Yisrael'?
	What is the obvious difficulty in this pasuk?
	Are these two different groups, or two names for the
same group?  According to each possibility, explain who each
group is and why the respective verb ['tomar' & 'tageid'] is
used.
	Then, see how Rashi understands these two groups, and
the use of the respective verbs.  [You probably have heard of
a famous name for a girl's school based on this Rashi!]
	Next, see Ibn Ezra [first the 'aroch'].  Note how he
answers the above questions, and how his answer is quite
different than Rashi's.  Note also how explains the respective
use of the verbs.
	Then see Ibn Ezra 'ha-katzar', noting how he first
quotes Rashi, and one other opinion, and then 'smashes' them!
	Note the psukim in Tehillim that he quotes to prove
his point!  Notice also how this commentary reflects Ibn
Ezra's approach to 'pshat'.
	Finally, see Chizkuni.  Note how his peirush is quite
different, and how he relates the two verbs to 19:4-6, i.e.
one relating to a command, and the other to telling over a
story.  [Note how he uses the meaning of the verb to explain
the noun!]

WHO'S SPEAKING TO WHOM?
1.  Review 19:19 once again, and the phrase: "Moshe yedaber,
ve-haElokim ya'anenu be-kol", in its context.  Who is Moshe
speaking to: to the people or to God, and what is Moshe
'saying'? 	First, see how Rashbam and Ibn Ezra answer
this question.
	Then, see Chizkuni.  In what manner is Chizkuni
similar, and how is it different, than Rashbam?  [Note how
'creative' Chizkuni's peirush is!]
	Then, see Rashi's interpretation.  How and why is his
approach different than Rashbam, Chizkuni, and Ibn Ezra?
Based on Part II above, what leads Rashi to his conclusion
that this pasuk describes the last eight dibrot  (given by God
via Moshe to Bnei Yisrael)?
	Finally, see Ramban, noting how he first quotes Rashi,
and then disagrees.  Again, based on the questions in Part II
above, what leads Ramban to his conclusion.  Explain how his
peirush to 19:19 may be based on his understanding of
19:20-25.

2.  See Rambam's explanation of Ma'amad Har Sinai in Moreh
Nevuchim: Section II/ chapter 33!  [See also the end of
chapter 32 where he introduces chapter 33.]
	Relate this to the above questions on Shmot chapter
19. 

WHEN DID YITRO COME?
1.  A 'machloket' [controversy] exists concerning when Yitro
actually came to Har Sinai, BEFORE or AFTER Matan Torah.
	Before seeing the commentators inside, as you study
chapter 18 attempt to identify which psukim support the view
that this event happened at a later time.

2.  Next, review the story about Yitro at the end of Bamidbar
chapter 10, as well as the story of how Moshe appointed judges
when Bnei Yisrael prepared to leave Har Sinai, as recorded in
Devarim 1:6-13.  Do these appear to be the same story as
recorded in Shmot chapter 18, or different events?

3.  Then, see Ibn Ezra and Ramban (on 18:1), noting how they
explain when Yitro came.  How does each commentator relate to
the psukim that you had noted in your original analysis?
	Now, see Rashi on 18:13 - "vayehi mi-macharat".  How
does this interpretation form a compromise between these two
opinions?  Would you consider this the 'best' solution?
	If so - why yes; & if not - why not?
	How does Ibn Ezra explain why this story is written
out of chronological order?
	How does Rashi explain why part of this story is
written out of chronological order?
	What underlying assumptions form the basis for this
three way 'machloket"?

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: yitroq.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 45696 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-new/attachments/20060214/dc3440a5/yitroq-0001.pdf
From tsc at bezeqint.net  Fri Feb 17 07:29:10 2006
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Fri Feb 17 07:29:42 2006
Subject: [Par-new] YITRO - additional shiur
Message-ID: <20060217122501.6CC4F33DDE@sa4.bezeqint.net>

*************************************************************
        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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: yitro3.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 53046 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-new/attachments/20060217/547860d1/yitro3-0001.pdf
From tsc at bezeqint.net  Tue Feb 21 08:59:52 2006
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Tue Feb 21 09:00:19 2006
Subject: [Par-new] MISHPATIM - Questions for self study
Message-ID: <20060221135744.0F72633E22@sa10.bezeqint.net>

*************************************************************
        THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
		In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
	Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
*************************************************************

            PARSHAT MISHPATIM 

PART I - QUESTIONS FOR THE 'SHABBOS TABLE'

FROM SUFFERING TO SENSITIVITY
1. As you review the numerous mitzvot in Parshat Mishpatim,
note how often the topic of "eved" [servant / slave] appears
in relation to either the law itself or the reason to keep it.

[If you need assistance, be sure to note 21:1-11; 21:20-21;
21:26-27; 21:32; and especially 22:20 and 23:9!]

	Considering that this is the first set of detailed
laws that Bnei Yisrael receive after the Ten Commandments (and
the Exodus), can you suggest a logical reason why this topic
would appear so often?  	In your opinion, do these laws
appear to 'encourage' Bnei Yisrael that they should take
slaves, or do these laws come to 'protect' the basic rights of
slaves/servants?  
	[See Chizkuni on 21:2!]

2.  Based on 22:20 and 23:9, what lesson does God expect Bnei
Yisrael to learn from their experience as slaves in Egypt?
How will [should] their experience in Egypt affect the type of
society that they now plan to create in the Promised Land (and
hence the laws that God gives them in Parshat Mishpatim)? 
    Relate your answer to the concept of an "am kadosh" - a
nation designated to represent God - as discussed in Bnei
Yisrael's covenant with God, which they accepted at Har Sinai
(see 19:5-6)?
	Note as well also the reason for why Bnei Yisrael must
keep Shabbat according to Devarim 5:13-15.  Similarly, note
this similar refrain of "v'zacharta ki eved ha'yita..." in
Devarim 24:17-22 (and 16:12); explain how these commandments
(and this refrain) reflect a similar theme with the laws of
Mishpatim!
	In your opinion, how do the laws of Parshat Mishpatim
relate to the laws in Sefer Devarim?  Can you explain why?

3.  Finally, review Vayikra 19:33-37, while looking for a
theme similar to Shmot 22:20 & 23:9.  Can you explain why
these laws are found in Parshat Kedoshim as well as Parshat
Mishpatim?
	Relate your answers to all the above questions to the
process of redemption that takes place in the first half of
Sefer Shmot, and to God's original 'forecast' to Avraham Avinu
that his offspring will suffer 'bondage in a foreign land' at
"brit bein ha'btarim" (see Breishit 15:13-18).

WHAT HAPPENED TO CHUR?
1.  In 24:14, Moshe Rabeinu leaves instructions to the elders
concerning who they should turn to while he is gone should any
problems arise.   Review Shmot 17:10-12, noting how Chur seems
to have been in a leadership position (at the time of Yetziat
Mitzraim). How does this explain why Moshe left both Aharon
and Chur in charge?
    To the best of your recollection, is Chur ever mentioned
again, i.e. after 24:14?  Does Chumash ever explain what
happened to him?
    In what manner does his 'mysterious disappearance relate
to the famous Midrash that Chur was killed when he refused
Bnei Yisrael's request to make an 'egel'?
[In your opinion, is this pasuk the 'source' for this Midrash,
or does it simply provide support for a historical tradition
that had been passed down?]

'ORDER' IN THE COURTROOM
1.  More specifically, as your study the laws of damages in
chapter 21 (i.e. 21:12-36), see if you can identify a pattern
that explains the internal order of this wide range of cases. 
    As you attempt to determine the underlying logic of its
progression, relate to who [or what] is doing the damage; the
severity of the damage; and the severity of the punishment.

PART II - QUESTIONS FOR PREPARATION (for weekly shiur)

THE PROGRESSION OF MITZVOT IN MISHPATIM
1.  As you may have noticed, not all of the mitzvot in Chumash
are given at the same time.  Instead, there are different
groups of mitzvot, some in Sefer Shmot, some in Vayikra, etc.
	Note how the Ten Commandments are the first 'set' of
mitzvot that we find in Chumash.  Afterward, Parshat Mishpatim
forms yet another set.  Later on, we find other set of laws,
e.g. how to build the Mishkan (chapters 25 thru 31), laws
about "korbanot" in Sefer Vayikra, etc., and numerous other
sets of laws in Bamidbar & Devarim.
	The following battery of questions will help you
understand what is special about the set of laws in Parshat
Mishpatim:
 	To begin, undertake a quick review the general topics
of the various laws in Parshat Mishpatim, attempt to identify
a common theme, and suggest a reason why specifically this set
of laws was given immediately after the Ten Commandments, and
before all the other laws. 
	Now, we will take a 'closer look'.

A.  IDENTIFYING THE UNITS OF MA'AMAD HAR SINAI
1.  Recall how chapters 19->24 form a distinct unit - which we
refer to as Ma'amad Har Sinai.  Carefully review the events
that take place within this unit, i.e. from the time that Bnei
Yisrael arrive at Har Sinai (see 19:1) until Moshe Rabeinu
ascends Har Sinai to receive the 'luchot' (at the end of
Parshat Mishpatim / see 24:12-18).  Note as well how 20:19
introduces a very lengthy unit (the 'ko tomar' unit), which
includes a series of mitzvot.
	Make a list of each of the major units and topics
within this entire Ma'amad Har Sinai section.  Then, analyze
your list and attempt to organize it into an outline.
[Carefully define the headers for each sub-section.]
	Make sure that you can follow the flow of events.
	Attempt to determine where the topics flow in a
logical manner, and where they may be some 'sticky' points.

2.  Parshat Mishpatim includes a lengthy list of mitzvot.
Based on your outline, when were these mitzvot given to Moshe
Rabeinu, and when did Moshe teach them to Bnei Yisrael?
  	As you answer this question, answer the following
questions as well:
a)  Where do the set of laws that begins with "ve-eileh
ha-mishpatim" end?
b)  Are these "mishpatim" part of a larger set of laws?  If so
identify this 'larger set' (i.e. where does it begin and end,
etc.)

	Is there any time in Chumash when a set of mitzvot are
presented which are not first introduced by either "va-yomer
Hashem el..." or "va-yedaber Hashem el..." or a similar type
of introduction?  If not, explain why not.  If yes, bring an
example.
    Does Parshat Misphatim have such an introduction?  If so,
where do we find a similar short narrative introducing how
these laws were given to Moshe?
	Based on your answer, where does the set of mitzvot
which include Ve-eileh ha-mishpatim" really begin?!
		Where does this unit end?
[In other words, how does the first pasuk of Parshat Mishpatim
(21:1) connect to the last set of psukim in Parshat Yitro
(20:19-23)?]
	Does this unit contain only mitzvot?  If not, what
else is included?  Can you explain why?
	Are the mitzvot in this unit only 'mishpatim'?  Is
there a difference between the word 'mishpat' and 'mitzva'?
	Based on this parsha, attempt to define a 'mishpat'.
	Who is responsible to execute these 'mishpatim'?
    [See Ramban on "asher tasim llfneihem" (21:1).

3.  Does the Torah ever tell us when Moshe told over the
mitzvot in Parshat Mishpatim to Bnei Yisrael?  If so, where is
this story located?
	In your answer, relate to 24:3-4 in relation to the
entire story in 24:1-11 (and in relation to God's commandment
back in 20:19)
		[See also Rashbam on 24:1!]
	Based on your analysis of the content of 20:19 thru
23:33, what do the phrases "divrei Hashem" and the "mishpatim"
(mentioned in 24:3) refer to?  Similarly, what does the phrase
"divrei Hashem" in 24:4 refer to?

4.  Next, review the entire story in 24:1-11, noting how it
describes a very important national gathering and ceremony.
	In your opinion, in what manner does this gathering
and ceremony relate to the mitzvot of Parshat Mishpatim
(and/or the Ten Commandments).  Why are the elders of Israel
instructed to ascend the mountain to bow down to God, and what
is the significance of sprinkling the blood on everyone who
proclaimed "na'aseh v'nishma"?

B. BRIT NA'ASEH VE-NISHMA - BEFORE or AFTER?
5.  Read 24:1-11 once again, and see if you can find any
reason that might lead you to the conclusion that this entire
story took place at an earlier time (i.e. before Matan Torah).
If so, explain those reasons.
	Are there any details in this story that appear to be
similar to the events that transpire in chapter 19?
	For example, who are the 'kohanim' mentioned in 19:22,
and how do they relate to the leadership group mentioned in
24:1 and 24:9-11?
	In what manner is 24:3 similar to 19:3-8?  Similarly,
in what manner is 24:7 similar to 19:3-8?
    How does God's commandment to Moshe in 19:20-25 seem to
relate to what transpires in 24:9-11, and the group mentioned
in 24:1-2?

6.  See Rashbam on 24:1.  How does he relate to the above
questions?  See also Ibn Ezra, Seforno, & Chizkuni on this
pasuk, who follow a similar direction.

7. Then see Rashi on 24:1.  Can you explain what leads Rashi
to this rather amazing conclusion (that these events took
place before Matan Torah)?
	[For a more detailed discussion, see Parshanut
section.]
	Then see Ramban on 24:1, noting how and why he
disagrees (and explains why it makes more sense to keep these
events in chronological order).

8. According to this Rashi, why can't the 'divrei Hashem' and
'ha-mishpatim' (in 24:3-4) refer to the laws in Parshat
Mishpatim?  Based on chapter 19, what most likely are these
two phrases referring to?  [See Rashi on 24:3-4.]
	In your opinion, are the 'divrei Hashem' which are
'written down' (in 24:4) the same 'divrei Hashem' which Moshe
conveyed to them in 24:3?
	In either case, why are they being written down?
	In your answer, relate to 24:7!

9.  What seems to be the purpose of the covenantal ceremony
that is described in 24:4-8, according to both Rashi & Ramban?
	In what manner is 24:9-11 connected to this 'brit'?
	In what manner is 24:12-13 connected to this 'brit'?

C. A SIGNIFICANT PROGRESSION
10.  Scan the mitzvot from 20:20 until 23:33 [noting how and
why these psukim constitute a complete unit] and attempt to
organize them in an outline.
	Can you detect any sort of a logical progression or
any special order - or do the mitzvot appear to be random?
	In your answer, relate to the types of mitzvot, such
as:
  a) 'bein adam le-chavero' / 'bein adam la-Makom';
  b) Laws written in the 'causative' style (if... then...)
		 and/or 'absolute' style (do.../ don't...);
  c)  Laws that 'beit din' (a Jewish court) must enforce
  d)  Laws that 'beit din' does not or cannot enforce
  e)  Psukim which are not laws (explain what they are!).

11. As you probably noticed, most (but not all) of the mitzvot
in Parshat Mishpatim are 'bein adam le-chavero' [between man
and his fellow man]. 
	Did you notice how 22:17-19 appear to 'not belong'
within this unit?  Explain why they don't belong, and attempt
to suggest a reason why they may have been included
nonetheless.

12.  Hopefully, you also noticed how 22:20 (and the laws that
follow) are written in a very different style than the laws in
21:1 thru 22:16.  Be sure that you can identify and define the
different style of presentation in these two sets of laws.
	Attempt to relate the content of these laws that begin
with 22:20 to the manner in which they are presented.

13. As you review the laws from 22:20 thru 23:9, can you
identify any laws that seem to be addressed to the members of
the court system? 
    Do the laws of this section need to be enforced by the
court system (like the laws in 21:1-22:19), or do they seem to
be simply guidelines for the individual?  Explain your answer.
	In general, which section of the laws found in Parshat
Mishpatim belong in "choshen mishpat", and which laws belong
in "yore deya"?  [The question assumes that you are familiar
with the four sections of SHULCHAN ARUCH.  If you are not,
then please ask your 'local rabbi' for a quick explanation.

14.  Do any laws in the this section seem to fall under the
category of 'between man & God'? If so, can you identify which
ones, and can you explain why they are included in this
section?

15. Note how the mitzvot in 23:10-19 appear to 'break' this
pattern overall pattern of 'bein adam la'chaveiro', as they
are primarily 'bein adam la-Makom'. 
	Can you suggest a logical reason for this progression?
	Can you identify a certain aspect of 'bein adam
le-chavero' in the mitzvot of 23:10-19 as well?  If so,
explain what that is.
[Note the REASON given for shabbat & shmitta!  Compare this to
other reasons for these mitzvot found elsewhere in Chumash.]

16.  Attempt to connect the content of these different
sections of laws to both "brit Sinai", as detailed in Shmot
19:5-6, as well as to its purpose - based on Breishit
18:18-19!

D. THE FINAL UNIT - A 'CONDITIONAL PROMISE'
17.  Read 23:20-33 carefully, especially 23:20-23!
	Is this still part of the unit which began in 20:19?
[In other words, is it still the "ko tomar" unit, that Moshe
must realy to Bnei Yisrael on behalf of God?]
Explain your answer.
	Do these psukim constitute a promise or a 'deal' of
sorts?
	If so, who is this deal between, and what is its
purpose?
	How do these psukim relate to the primary themes of
Sefer Breishit and Sefer Shmot, i.e. to the purpose of Yetziat
Mitzraim?

18. Had it not been for the events of the sin of the Golden
Calf, what should have happened immediately after Moshe came
down from Har Sinai, and taught Bnei Yisrael the laws that God
gave him?
	Relate this to the content of 23:20-33.
	Relate as well God's promise in 23:20-24, to Bnei
Yisrael's request from Aharon to make them an "elokim" - when
they reach the conclusion that Moshe is not going to return,
as described in Shmot 32:1-4.

===========

PART III - PARSHANUT

SMICHUT PARSHIOT in Parshat Mishpatim
1.  In addition to the laws regarding damages, Parshat
Mishpatim also discusses many other categories of mitzvot.
As you review chapters 21 thru 23, attempt to find the logic
behind the progression from one topic to the next.  [Can you
identify one unifying topic for all [or most] of these
mitzvot; or do they appear to be a random collection?]
	When you finish, compare your conclusions to those of
Ibn Ezra  [which can be found in the Torat Chaim edition - Ibn
Ezra ha'katzar - on the first pasuk of the Parsha (21:1).]
Note how Ibn Ezra attempts to identify a unifying theme for
all of these mitzvot.  Relate that theme to the underlying
theme of Sefer Breishit in regard to why God chose the Jewish
nation.

2.  Other commentators find a similarity between the
progression of these laws and the Ten Commandments.  First,
attempt to do this on your own (beginning with where this unit
technically began in 20:19 - until chapter 23).  Then see
Ramban in his commentary to 21:1 and 21:2, where he deals with
this parallel in detail!
	[Note as well Rashi on 24:12!]

A REASON, or AN INCENTIVE?
1. Review 22:20, noting the apparent 'reason' for this law,
that follow the word "ki" - i.e. "ki gerim ha'yitem b'eretz
mitzraim".
	Compare this phrase to the parallel law in 23:9.
    In your opinion, should this phrase be understood as the
reason why one cannot oppress a stranger?  If not, then what
is the purpose of this phrase.  [In your answer, relate as
well to what follows in 22:21-26.]
    Then see how Rashi on 23:20 ["ki gerim...".  Would you say
that Rashi understands this phrase as 'good advice' or as a
reason for the prohibition?
    Next, see Ramban - noting how he first relates to both
Rashi and Ibn Ezra's commentary to this pasuk.  Be sure you
understand why he rejects both approaches.  Then, study
Ramban's interpretation of this pasuk, noting how it is based
on 22:21-26!
     
EVED IVRI - Jewish or Ivrish?
1.  In your opinion, does the phrase "eved ivri" mentioned in
21:2 refer to a Jewish slave, or does it include any
descendant of Ever (grandson of Shem/ see Breishit 10:24-30)?
In your answer, relate to Breishit 14:13, 40:15 & 41:12 and
Shmot 5:3.
	In either case, is the "eved" referred to in 21:20,
26, & 32 a Jewish slave or a non-Jewish slave?  On what do you
base your answer?
	For a fascinating discussion of this topic, see Ibn
Ezra on 21:2 [pirush ha'aroch], noting how he beautifully
defends Chazal's interpretation.  Note as well how he explains
his overall approach to "parshanut" in the opening paragraph
of that commentary!

WHEN DID BNEI YISRAEL SAY Na'asse v'Nishma?
1.  Review once again 24:1-11.  How does this parshia relate
to the unit that was discussed above (i.e. 20:19->23:33)?
[Re: the questions that follow, first try to answer them on
your own.  Afterward see the commentators, especially Ramban,
Ibn Ezra, Rashi, Rashbam, Sforno & Chizkuni.

24:1 - What is difficult about this pasuk?
	Who is speaking to Moshe?
	Where is Moshe speaking when this is told to him?
	Does Moshe fulfill this commandment immediately?
		Where does Chumash tell us when it was
fulfilled?
	What is the purpose of this commandment?

24:2 - Does 24:2 contradict 24:1? 
	In your opinion, is 24:2 an additional instruction to
Moshe (i.e. in addition to the instruction in 24:1) or it is a
narrative that explains what Moshe did after God's command in
24:1.
 		How do 24:1-2 relate to 24:9 and 24:12?
		Could these psukim relate to 20:18 as well?

24:3 - How does this pasuk relate to 20:19?
	What does "Va-yavo Moshe" mean?  Where was he coming
from?  What are 'divrei Hashem' and the 'mishpatim'?
		See Ramban and Rashi!

24:4-6 -	What specifically do you think are the "divrei
Hashem" that Moshe writes down in 24:4?  How does this relate
to the 'sefer ha-brit' described in 24:7? 
		How do these psukim relate to 20:21!

24:7 - Should Bnei Yisrael's reply of 'na'aseh ve-nishma'
relate to the content of what is written in this 'sefer
ha-brit'?  If so, how does it?  [If 'sefer ha-brit' includes
23:20-22, how would that help you answer this question!]

24:8 - What is the significance of this ceremony?  How does it
relate to the proclamation in 24:7?

24:9-10	How does this relate to 24:1?  In your opinion, what
is the purpose of this joint 'ascent' up the mountain?

24:11 -	Was it proper or improper for this group to 'see God'?
- See the two different approaches suggested by the
commentators.

24:12 -	What is the purpose of this 'aliya' of Moshe to Har
Sinai?  According to pshat, what is the 'torah' & and what is
the 'mitzva'?
	What has Hashem 'written' for Moshe, only the
'luchot', or also the torah & mitzva?

24:16 - When did these six days transpire?
In other words, does Moshe ascend Har Siani to receive the
'luchot' on the first of these six days, or does he ascend on
the seventh day and enter the 'anan' immediately? 
[See mefarshim!  How does this relate to our calculation of
the date of Matan Torah?]

WHAT TORAH DID MOSHE RECEIVE?
1.  Read 24:12.  In your opinion, what specifically do the
words 'torah' and 'mitzva' in this pasuk refer to?
	Note the phrase "asher katavti" [which I wrote].  What
does this phrase relate to - the 'luchot ha-even', or also the
'torah' & 'mitzva'?
	Now, read Ramban very carefully.
	How does he answer the above questions?
		[i.e. how does he explain this pasuk?]
	How does Ramban understand Rashi?
	Why does Ramban disagree with Ibn Ezra.
		[See Ibn Ezra inside, what is his main point?]
	Why does Ramban conclude with "al da'at Raboteinu"
concerning when the Torah was first given!?

2.	Now, see Seforno.  How does he answer the above
questions? 	How is his approach different than Ramban's?
	Finally see Ibn Ezra, "yeish omrim...", concerning
'Torah she-bichtav' and 'Torah she-ba'al peh'.
	What is the significance of this Midrash?
	Would you consider this 'pshat' or 'drash'?

3.  Recall how in 20:19, God commands Moshe to tell Bnei
Yisrael a set of mitzvot.  How does this commandment appear to
relate to the story that is recorded in 20:15-18?
	According to most commentators (Rashi, Ramban etc., or
just about everyone except Ibn Ezra) - the story in 20:15-18
took place at an earlier time.  Relate those opinions as you
answer this question. 
	Relate also to the parallel (or similar) story that is
recorded Devarim 5:20-28.  [Take into consideration the
machloket Ramban - Ibn Ezra concerning when 20:15-18 took
place!]
	
						be-hatzlacha,
						menachem

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: mishq.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 40136 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-new/attachments/20060221/ab718fd1/mishq-0001.pdf
From tsc at bezeqint.net  Thu Feb 23 12:59:32 2006
From: tsc at bezeqint.net (Menachem Leibtag)
Date: Thu Feb 23 13:00:29 2006
Subject: [Par-new] Parshat Mishpatim - shiur #1
Message-ID: <20060223175548.8804B34089@sa5.bezeqint.net>

*************************************************************
        THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
		In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
	Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
*************************************************************

             PARSHAT MISHPATIM - shiur #1 
 
 A SPECIAL UNIT / AN EDUCATIONAL PROGRESSION

	What's better - Chumash or Shulchan Aruch?  
    The question really isn't fair, but anyone who has studied
both books realizes how different they are.  
    As Parshat Mishpatim contains a set of laws that sounds a
bit like Shulchan Aruch [the Jewish Code of Law], this week's
shiur will analyze their progression, to show how the Torah
delivers its message through the manner of their presentation.
    
INTRODUCTION
    In last week's shiur, we began our discussion of how the
laws in Chumash are presented in groups (or 'units').  For
example, in Parshat Yitro, we saw how the first 'ten'
Commandments were given as part of Ma'amad Har Sinai.
Afterward, we identified the next 'unit' of mitzvot - which we
referred to as the 'ko tomar' unit, beginning in 20:19, and
continuing until the end of chapter 23 (which comprises most
of Parshat Mishpatim).  Later on in Chumash we will find many
additional 'units' of mitzvot, embedded within its various
narratives.
	Because Chumash presents its mitzvot in 'units', we
would certainly expect that the first 'unit', i.e. the one
that follows the Ten Commandments, to be special.  In our
shiur, we undertake an analysis of the internal structure of
this "ko tomar" unit, in an attempt to understand why
specifically these mitzvot are recorded at this point, and in
this manner.

SUB-DIVIDING THE UNIT
	At first glance, these three chapters appear to
contain simply a random set of laws, from all types of
categories - as it jumps back and forth from "bein adam
la'makom" [laws between man & God] to "bein adam l'chaveiro"
[laws between man and his fellow man (or society)].  On the
other hand, there does seem to be some very logical internal
structure within certain groups of these laws, such as the
civil laws in chapter 21. 
	To help make sense out of the overall structure of
this unit, we begin by noting how the laws that both open and
close this unit fall under the category of "bein adam
la'makom".
    Let's explain.
	Recall how this "ko tomar" unit began (at the end of
Parshat Yitro) with four psukim that discuss various laws
concerning idol worship and building a mizbeiach [altar] (see
20:20-23).  Clearly, this short 'parshia' deals with laws
between man & God, and more specifically - how to worship (or
not worship) Him.
	Similarly, at the end of this unit, we find another
set of laws that are "bein adam la'makom" - explaining how we
are expected to worship God on the three pilgrimage
agricultural holidays (the "shalosh regalim" / see 23:13-19).

[We consider these psukim the last set of laws, for
immediately afterward (i.e. from 23:20 till the end of chapter
23) we find several conditional promises that God makes
concerning how He will help Bnei Yisrael conquer the land, but
the law section of this unit definitely ends with 23:19. ]

	In this manner, we find that this lengthy set of laws
in Parshat Mishpatim is enveloped by a matching set of laws
(20:20-23 & 23:13-19) that discuss how to properly worship
God.
	Inside this 'sandwich' we will find numerous laws
(i.e. from 21:1 thru 23:12), however almost all of them will
fall under the category of "bein adam la'chaveiro" - between
man and his fellow man (or society).

	The following table summarizes this very basic
sub-division of this "ko tomar" unit, which will set the
framework for our next discussion:

PSUKIM			TOPIC
20:19-20:23		How to worship God via the 'mizbeiach'
21:01-23:12 	 	  A misc. assortment of civil laws
23:13-23:19		Worshiping God on the 3 pilgrimage
holidays
23:20-23:33		 --- God's promises re: entering the
land

	With this in mind, lets examine the internal structure
of the "bein adam la'chaveiro" laws, that begin with the
Mishpatim in 23:1 thru 23:12.  As we will now show, this
'middle section' of civil laws will divide very neatly into
two basic categories.
	1) Case laws  - that go before the "bet-din" [a Jewish
court]
	2) Absolute laws - that guide the behavior of the
individual

THE MISHPATIM - CASE LAWS
    Parshat Mishpatim begins with the laws of a Hebrew slave
(see 21:2-11) and are followed by numerous 'case-type' civil
laws dealing primarily with damages ["nezikin'"] that continue
thru the middle of chapter 22.  Their presentation develops in
an organized, structured manner, progressing as follows:
21:12-27 - a person killing or injuring another [assault]
21:28-32 - a person's property killing or injuring another
person 
21:33-36 - a person's property damaging property of others
21:37-22:3 - a person stealing from another
22:4-5     -  property damage to others caused by grazing or
fire
22:6-14  - responsibility of "shomrim" watching property of
others
22:15-16 -  financial responsibility for a 'seducer'

    Note how these various cases range from capital offense to
accidental property damage.

THE 'KEY' WORD
	As you most probably noticed, the 'key word' in this
section is 'ki' [pun intended], which implies if or when.
Note how most of the parshiot from 21:122:18 begin with the
word 'ki' [or 'im' / if/ when] and even when it is not
written, it is implicit.  In other words, each of these
'mishpatim' begins with a certain case [if...] and is followed
by the ruling [then...].  For example:
	If a man hits his servant then... (see 21:20);
	If an ox gores a man... then the ox must be stoned
(21:28).

	Basically, this section contains numerous examples of
'case-law,' upon which the Jewish court (bet din) arrives at
its rulings.  This is the basic meaning of a "mishpat" - a
case where two people come to court - one person claiming
damages from another - and the shofet (judge) must render a
decision.
In fact, these cases can only be judged by a court, and not by
a private individual.
[As you review these cases, note how most of them fall under
the category of "choshen mishpat" in the shulchan aruch.]

	As our above table shows, this section of 'case-laws'
(beginning with the word "ki") continues all the way until
22:16; after which we find an interesting transition.  Note,
that beginning with 22:17, we find three laws, written in a
more imperative form, that do not begin with a specific
'case':
"A sorceress shall not be left alive.  Anyone lying with an
animal shall be killed, and one who sacrifices to [other] gods
shall be excommunicated..."  (see 22:17-19).

    These laws don't begin with the word 'ki' for a very
simple reason - there is no plaintiff coming to court to press
charges!  In all the cases until this point, the process of
'mishpat' is usually initiated because the plaintiff comes
before the court.  In these three cases, it is the court's
responsibility to initiate the process (see Rashi & Rashbam &
Ramban on 22:17!), i.e. to find the sorceress, or the person
'lying with the animal', etc.  Therefore, even though these
laws are presented in the 'imperative' format, they remain the
responsibility of "bet-din".
    These three cases are also quite different from the
case-laws above, for they also fall under the category of
"bein adam la'makom" [between God & man].    
    Most significant is the third instruction - "zoveyach
la'elokim yo'cho'ram - bilti l'Hashem l'vado" - one who
sacrifices to [other] gods shall be excommunicated..." - where
once again we find a law concerning 'how to (or not to)
worship God' - just as we find in the opening and closing
sections that envelope these civil laws.
    In this sense, these three laws will serve as a 'buffer'
that leads us to the next category, where the laws will
continue in the 'imperative' format, however, they will leave
the realm of "bet-din" and enter the realm of ethical
behavior.  Let's explain:
    
THE ETHICAL LAWS
	Note the abrupt change of format that takes place in
the next law: 
"You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you
yourselves were strangers in the land of Egypt" (22:20).

	Not only is this law written in the imperative format,
it contains no punishment by "bet-din".  Instead, it includes
an incentive for why every Jew should keep this law - for we
ourselves were also once strangers in the land of Egypt!
	Note as well how this imperative format continues all
the way until 23:10.  In contrast to what we have found thus
far, we now find a collection of imperative-style laws [i.e.
do... or don't...], which appear to be beyond the realm of
enforcement by bet-din.  This section focuses on laws of
individual behavior that serve as guidelines that will shape
the type of society which God hopes to create within His
special nation.
	Towards the conclusion of this 'ethical' unit, we find
a pasuk that seems to simply repeat the same verse that opened
this unit: 
"You shall not oppress a stranger, whereas you know the
feelings of a stranger, for you yourselves were once strangers
in the land of Egypt" (see 23:9).
[and compare it to the opening statement of this unit: "You
shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you were
strangers in the land of Egypt" (see 22:20).

    As your review the numerous laws that are 'enveloped' by
these two 'matching' psukim, note how they are all written in
the imperative form, and share a common theme of living by a
higher ethical standard.
    To prove this assertion, let's study the progression of
topic from 22:20 thru 23:9:
*	"You shall not mistreat any widow or orphan.  If you
do mistreat them, I will heed their outcry...."
*	"When you lend money... if you take his garment as a
pledge, you must return it by sunset... for if you don't, when
he calls out to me, surely, I will hear his cry..." (see
22:20-26).

	In contrast to the previous section (see 20:12 thru
22:16), where the court enforced the punishment - this section
begins with a set of laws where God Himself threatens to enact
punishment!  As the court system cannot 'force' every member
of society to treat the poor and needy with kindness, God
Himself promises to 'intervene' should the 'less privileged'
be mistreated.
	Furthermore, it is specifically the stranger, the
orphan, and widow who would least likely know how to take
their case to court.  As it is so easy to take advantage of
these lower social classes, God Himself will punish those who
take advantage.

BEING A 'GOOD CITIZEN'
	The next four psukim (22:27-30) form a 'parshia', and
at first glance appear to fall under the category of 'bein
adam la'makom".  However, in their context, it is also
possible to understand them as laws dealing with the behavior
of the individual within society, or stated more simply -
being a good citizen.  Let's explain how.
"Do not curse Elokim [either God or a judge / see 22:7]:, nor
curse a leader of your people"  (see 22:27).

    This instruction 'not to curse your leaders' can be
understood as a nice way of saying - respect your leadership.
It would be difficult to develop a just society, should the
people consistently curse and show no respect for their judges
and political leaders.  
    The next law - "Do not delay to bring of the fullness of
thy harvest, and the outflow of thy presses"  (see 22:28) -
could also fall under this category, as it refers to the
obligation of every individual to tithe his produce.  As this
tithe is used to cover the salaries of civil servants (for
example see Bamidbar 18:21 re: the salary of the Levi'im),
this law could be paraphrased as a demand that everyone must
'pay their taxes' - and on time; yet another example of 'good
citizenship'.
    Similarly, the next law:
"Your shall give Me your first-born sons.  Likewise, [the
first born] of your oxen & sheep..." (see 22:28-29) - was
first given when Bnei Yisrael left Egypt (see Shmot
13:1-2,11-14).  

    Obviously, this commandment does not imply that we
actually sacrifice our first born children; but rather it
relates to the obligation of each family to dedicate their
first-born son to the service of God.  The purpose of this law
was to assure that there would be an 'educator' (or 'civil
servant') in each family - to teach the laws of the Torah.
    Even though this 'family responsibility' was later
transferred to the entire tribe of Levi (after chet ha-egel /
see Devarim 10:8-9); at the time when the laws of Parshat
Mishpatim were given - this was supposed to be the job of the
first-born son.  Similarly, the value of the 'first born'
animals would also be dedicated to the Temple treasury (or to
feed the workers).  
    If this understanding is correct, then this command serves
as a reminder to each family to fulfill its responsibility to
provide its share of 'civil servants' to officiate in the
Mishkan and to serve as judges and educators (see Devarim
33:10).  
[Re: viewing the first-born animals as a tax to compensate
those civil servants  - see Bamidbar 18:15-20!]
    
ACTING LIKE A 'MENSCH'
    In the final pasuk of this 'parshia' we find a very
general commandment to be not only a good citizen, but also to
act like a 'mensch':
"And you shall be holy men unto Me; [an example] should you
find the flesh that is torn of beasts in the field - do not
eat it -feed it instead to the dogs" (22:30).

	Even though the opening statement - to be holy men- is
quite vague; the fuller meaning of this commandment is
detailed in Parshat Kedoshim (see Vayikra chapter19).  A quick
glance of that chapter immediately points once again to the
need to act in an ethical manner in all walks of life.  [Note
the numerous parallels between Vayikra chapter 19 and Shmot
22:20-33:10!]
	The commandment 'not to eat the flesh of a torn
animal' can be understood as an application of how to 'be
holy', implying to act like a 'mensch', and not like gluten
who would devour (like a dog) the meat of animal found dead in
field. 
	In summary, we claim that this short section focuses
on the need to be a 'good citizen', consonant with the general
theme of ethical behavior - and incumbent upon a member of a
society who claims to be representing God. 

A HIGHER ETHIC
	In chapter 23, this unit 'progresses' one step
further, with several mitzvot that emphasize an even higher
level of moral and ethical behavior.  
    The first three psukim discuss laws to ensure that the
judicial system will not be misused - For example, not to plot
false witness; to follow majority rule; and not to 'play
favorites' in judgment (see 23:1-3).  
[These laws could also be viewed as guidelines for the
'judges'	 who decide the laws in the first section,
i.e. the civil 'case-laws' in 21:12-22:16.]

    Next, we find two interesting laws that reflect the
highest level of ethical behavior, which worded in a special
manner.  
*	Returning a lost animal, even that of your enemy, to
its owner ('hashavat aveida') (see 23:4);
*	Helping your neighbor's animal (again, even your
enemy) with its load ('azov ta'azov imo') (see 23:5); 

    The Torah does not simply command us to return a lost
item, it describes an extreme case, where one must go out of
his way to be 'extra nice' to a person whom he despises.  What
may be considered 'exemplary behavior' in a regular society -
becomes required behavior for a nation who represents God.
    Finally, this special section concludes with the famous
dictum "mi-dvar sheker tirchak" - keeping one's distance from
any form of dishonesty (see 23:7), followed by a warning not
to take bribes - 've-shochad lo tikach' - (see 23:8).
	As mentioned earlier, this section, describing the
mitzvot of a higher ethical standard, closes with the verse
"ve-ger lo tilchatz..." (see 23:9) - almost identical to its
opening statement  (see 22:20).
    Despite the difficulty of their slavery in Egypt, Bnei
Yisrael are expected to learn from that experience and create
a society that shows extra sensitivity to the needs of the
less fortunate.  Specifically the Jewish nation - because we
were once slaves - are commanded to learn from that
experience, in order to become even more sensitive to the
needs of others!
 
SHABBAT & THE HOLIDAYS
	As we explained earlier, this 'ethical' section is
followed by yet another set of mitzvot (see 23:10-19), which
appears to focus on 'mitzvot bein adam la-Makom'.  It includes
the following mitzvot:
	'Shmitta' - leaving the fields fallow every seven
years;
	'Shabbat' - resting one day out of every seven days;
	'Shalosh regalim' - the three agricultural holidays:
	 	'chag ha-matzot' - seven days eating matza
	 	'chag ha-katzir' - wheat harvest (seven weeks
later)
	 	'chag ha-asif' - produce harvest (seven days).
	
(23:10-19)

	Nonetheless, it should be noted how the laws of
shmitta and shabbat are actually presented from the
perspective of 'bein adam le-chavero'.  The 'shmitta' cycle
provides extra food for the poor and needy (see 23:11), while
'shabbat' provides a day of rest for the 'bondsman and
stranger' (see 23:12).  In this sense, these two laws form a
beautiful transition from "bein adam la'chaveiro" section to
the concluding "bein adam la'makom" section that 'closes' this
entire unit.
	At this point, we find a short summary pasuk that
introduces the last section describing the pilgrimage
'holidays' (see 23:13-19).  These 'shalosh regalim' are
described as three times during the year when the entire
nation gathers together 'in front of God' (i.e. at the Bet
Ha-Mikdash) to thank Him for their harvest.  
[One could suggest that this mitzvah of 'aliya la-regel' also
influences the social development of the nation, for it
provides the poor and needy with an opportunity to celebrate
together with the more fortunate (see Devarim 16:11,14-16.) ]

A 'DOUBLE' SANDWICH - TZEDAKA & MISHPAT
	Let's return now to note the beautiful structure of
this entire unit by studying the following table, where a *
denotes laws "bein adam la'makom" and a # denotes laws "bein
adam la'chaveiro".
	To clarify this layered nature of this internal
structure, in the following table we compare it to a
'sandwich' with two layers of 'meat', enveloped by 'bread', 

* TOP - Laws re: idol worship and the 'mizbeiach'
(20:19-20:23)
			[i.e. how to worship God]

LAYER 1 - # The civil laws - 'case' laws for "bet-din"
(21:1-22:16)
			- i.e.  laws that relate to MISHPAT -
judgement

* BUFFER - short set of laws "bein adam la'makom" (22:17-19)

LAYER 2 - # The ethical laws -individual behavior
(22:20-23:12)			- i.e. laws that relate to
TZEDAKA - righteousness

* BOTTOM - Laws of the three pilgrimage holidays (23:13-19)
		[again, how to properly worship God]

	In other words, the few mitzvot that relate to how we
are supposed to worship God (*) 'envelope' the numerous
mitzvot that explain how God expects that we act (#).
However, those mitzvot that govern our behavior also divide
into two distinct groups.  The first group (or layer) focuses
on laws of justice that must be enforced by the court system -
i.e. MISHPAT; while the second group focuses on ethical
behavior - i.e. TZEDKA or righteous behavior. 

BACK TO AVRAHAM AVINU!
	If your remember our shiurim on Sefer Breishit, this
double layered structure - highlighting elements of both
TZEDAKA & MISHPAT - should not surprise us.  After all, God
had chosen Avraham Avinu for this very purpose:
"For Avraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation,
and a blessing for all the nations of the earth.  For I have
known him IN ORDER that he may command his children and his
household after him, that they may keep the way of God to do
TZEDAKA & MISHPAT [righteousness and justice]..." (see
Breishit 18:18-19, compare Breishit 12:1-3)

	Now that Avraham Avinu's offspring have finally become
a nation, and now prepare to enter the land - they enter a
covenant at Har Sinai.  Therefore, the very first set of
detailed laws received at Sinai focus on how the nation of
Israel is expected to keep and apply the values of "tzedaka &
mishpat" - in order that this nation can accomplish its divine
destiny.

AN EDUCATIONAL PROGRESSION
	Before we conclude, we should note yet another
sequence that takes place within these various subsections of
laws.  As you review these various sections, note how they
follow a very meaningful educational progression:

I.  THE FEAR OF MAN 
	The first section (21:122:19) contains civil laws
regarding compensatory obligations, common to any civilized
society (not unique to Am Yisrael).  These case-type laws are
enforced by bet-din.  The fear of punishment by the courts
ensures the compliance of the citizenry.

II.  THE FEAR OF GOD
	The next section (22:2026) contains imperatives
related to ethical behavior, emphasizing specifically
consideration for the less fortunate members of society.
Given the difficulty of enforcing this standard by the
bet-din, God Himself assumes the responsibility of punishing
violators in this regard.

III.  LOVE FOR ONE'S FELLOW MAN
	The final section of imperative civil laws (23:19)
contains mitzvot relating to an even higher moral and ethical
standard.  In this section, the Torah does not mention any
punishment.  These mitzvot are preceded by the pasuk
"ve-anshei kodesh tihiyun li" (22:30) and reflect the behavior
of a "mamlechet kohanim ve-goy kadosh" (see 19:5-6).  When the
civil behavior of God's special nation is motivated not only
by the fear of punishment, but also by a high ethical standard
and a sense of subservience to God, the nation truly becomes a
'goy kadosh' - the purpose of Matan Torah (see 19:5-6!).
 
IV.  THE LOVE OF GOD
	After creating an ethical society, the nation is
worthy of a special relationship with God, as reflected in the
laws of shabbat, shmitta, and 'aliya la-regel' - 'being seen
by God' on the three pilgrimage holidays (see 23:10-17).

	This progression highlights the fact that a high
standard of ethical behavior (II & III) alone does not
suffice.  A society must first anchor itself by assuring
justice by establishing a court system that will enforce these
most basic civil laws (I).  Once this standard has been
established, society can then strive to achieve a higher
ethical level (II & III).  Then, man is worthy to encounter
and 'visit' God (IV).


ONE LAST PROMISE
	Even though the 'mishpatim' and mitzvot end in 23:19,
this lengthy section (that began back with 'ko tomar...' in
20:19) contains one last section - 23:20->33 - which appears
as more of a promise than a set of laws.  God tells Moshe to
tell Bnei Yisrael that:
"Behold, I am sending a mal'ach before you, to guide you and
bring you to ... (the Promised Land).  ... for if you obey him
[God's 'mal'ach'] and do all that I say, I will be an enemy to
your enemies and a foe to your foes.  For My mal'ach will lead
you and bring you to [the land of] the Amorites, Hittites,
etc."  (23:20-23).  [See also 23:27-31!]

	This conclusion points to the purpose of the entire
unit.  By accepting these laws, Bnei Yisrael will shape their
character as God's special nation.  Hence, if they obey these
rules, then God will assist them in the conquest of the Land.
	Considering that Bnei Yisrael are on their way to
conquer and inherit the Land, this section (23:20-33) forms an
appropriate conclusion for this entire unit.  Should they
follow these laws, He will help them conquer that land, where
these laws will help facilitate their becoming God's special
nation. 

BACK TO BRIT SINAI
	This interpretation can provide us with a beautiful
explanation for why Bnei Yisrael receive specifically this set
of mitzvot immediately after the Ten Commandments.  
	Recall God's original proposal to Bnei Yisrael before
Ma'amad Har Sinai - "should they obey Me and keep My
covenant... then they will become a - mamlechet kohanim ve-goy
kadosh"   (see Shmot 19:5-6).  After the people accept this
proposal (see 19:8), they receive the Ten Commandments,
followed by the laws of the "ko tomar" unit.  

    This can explain why Bnei Yisrael receive specifically
these laws (of the "ko tomar unit") at this time.  As these
laws will govern the ethical behavior of every individual in
Am Yisrael and build the moral fabric of its society, they
become the 'recipe' that will transform this nation into a
"mamlechet kohanim ve-goy kadosh". 
    Furthermore, they emphasize how laws that focus on our
special relationship with God, especially in relation to how
we worship him - such as the laws of the holidays, are only
meaningful when rooted in a society that acts in an exemplary
fashion.
    Because these guidelines for individual behavior are
'enveloped' by details of how to properly worship God, we can
essentially conclude that this entire unit discusses how the
nation of Israel is expected to worship God - for the manner
by which we treat our fellow man stands at the center of our
relationship with God. 
						shabbat
shalom,
						menachem

=================
FOR FURTHER IYUN

A.  NISHMA VE-NA'ASEH!
	Based on this interpretation, we can suggest a very
simple explanation for why Bnei Yisrael declare 'na'aseh
ve-nishma' at the ceremony at Har Sinai (as see 24:7).
[According to Ramban's approach that we keep 24:1-11 in its
chronological order.]
	If indeed sefer ha-brit includes the unit from
20:19-23:33, then God's promise to help Bnei Yisrael conquer
the land should they listen to Him (23:20-23:23) forms the
most basic statement of this covenant:
"Ki im shamo'a tishma be-kolo, ve-a'sita kol asher adaber -
For if you listen to what He [the mal'ach] says, and do
whatever I will speak... then I will help you defeat your
enemies..."	(see 23:21-22).
One could suggest that it is in response to this phrase that
Bnei Yisrael declare:
	na'aseh - in response to: ve-asita kol asher adaber;
	ve-nishma - in response to: im shamo'a tishma be-kolo.
[Carefully read the middle section of Ramban's peirush to 24:3
where he alludes to this interpretation. 

[Note that even according to Rashi's interpretation that sefer
ha-brit in 24:7 includes the laws at Mara, the final words of
God's charge at Mara (see 15:26) could provide the background
for a similar explanation.  One could suggest that Bnei
Yisrael respond by saying na'aseh to ve-hayashar be-einav
ta'aseh and nishma  to "im shamo'a tishma..."!  Of course,
this could also relate to God's proposal in 19:5-6. ]

B.  Regarding to the order of NA'ASEH ve-NISHMA:
	According to our explanation above, Bnei Yisrael
should have said this in the opposite order, i.e. nishma
ve-na'aseh.  Relate this to Chazal's question in the Midrash -
"lama hikdimu na'aseh le-nishma", which applauds Bnei Yisrael
for first accepting the laws which they haven't yet heard.
[Relate to "et asher adaber"!] 

C.  SOUND BYTES
	Many of the mitzvot in Parshat Mishpatim from
22:26-23:19 could be viewed as 'sound-bytes' for entire
'parshiot' that expound on these mitzvot in Sefer Vayikra and
Sefer Devarim.
1.  Attempt to find examples, e.g. 23:10 to Vayikra 25:1-8;
23:14 to Devarim 16:1-17.
2.  Use this to explain the nature of Parshat Mishpatim.
3.  How does this enhance our understanding of the ceremony in
perek 24?  Relate to 'sefer ha-brit'.
4.  Based on the above shiur, explain why Chazal interpret the
law of "va-avodo le-olam" (21:6) - when an 'eved ivri' agrees
to work 'forever' - as referring to the end of the seven
cycles of shmitta, i.e. the 'yovel' year - see Rashi 21:6 and
Vayikra 25:8-11. 

D.  AVOT & TOLADOT
	We mentioned in the shiur that the mitzvot in
Mishpatim can be understood as 'toladot' of the Ten
Commandments.  See Ibn Ezra's observation of this point.  See
also Abravanel.
1.  Attempt to find examples of dibrot V->X within the civil
laws.
2.  Explain why the laws concerning the mizbeiach should be
considered toladot of "lo tisa et shem Hashem Elokecha
la-shav."
3.  How does 'shem Hashem' relate to the concept of mizbeiach?
	Relate to Breishit 12:8, 13:4, etc.
4.  How does 23:20-22 relate to this same idea of 'shem
Hashem'?  - see shiur below


THE 'TOLADOT' OF THE 'DIBROT'   [a mini shiur]
	In the following mini-shiur, we discuss once again the
progression of mitzvot in the "ko tomar" unit, but this time
from a different perspective. 
	Just as we have shown how these mitzvot follow an
'educational progression,' we will now show how (and why) they
follow ('more or less') according to the order of the Ten
Commandments. 
	Let's begin by showing how the opening section of
mitzvot in this unit (i.e. 20:19-23 / the 'bein adam la-Makom'
mitzvot) can be viewed as 'toladot' (sub-categories) of the
first three Commandments:
 *1.  20:19 
"You have seen how I have spoken to you from heaven" - thus
emphasizing belief in God's hitgalut at Har Sinai.  This could
be considered parallel to the first 'dibur' - "Anochi Hashem
Elokecha asher hotzeiticha..."
 *2.  20:20 
"Don't make [with] Me gods of gold and silver..." - This
prohibition of idol worship is obviously parallel to the
second 'dibur': "lo yihiyeh lecha..."
 *3.  20:21-23
"An earthen mizbeiach you shall make for Me...." - Even though
this parallel is not as obvious, this commandment concerning
how to build a mizbeiach may be compared to the third 'dibur':
"lo tisa et shem..." - not to mention God's Name in vain.  The
parallel can be based on our study of Sefer Breishit where we
saw how the mizbeiach forms an avenue by which Avraham
declared God's Name to make it known to others.  [See Breishit
12:8 and 13:4 and Ramban on 12:8.] 

	As Parshat Mishpatim continues this "ko tomar" unit,
we can continue to find additional parallels to the remaining
dibrot.  Just as we found 'toladot' of the first three
'dibrot', so do we find 'toladot' of the fourth commandment -
i.e. 'shabbat'.  In fact, both the opening and closing
sections of the mitzvot relate to shabbat.  The opening
mitzva, the law of a Hebrew servant (21:1-6), is based on the
concept of six years of 'work' followed by 'rest' (=freedom)
in the seventh year.  The closing mitzvot of 'shmitta',
shabbat, and 'aliya la-regel' (23:10-19), are similarly based
on a seven-day or seven-year cycle. 
	In between these two 'toladot' of shabbat, we find
primarily 'mitzvot bein adam le-chavero' (21:1->23:9), which
can be considered 'toladot' of the fifth through tenth
Commandments.
	The final section, describing God's promise to help
Bnei Yisrael conquer the land should they keep these mitzvot,
continues this pattern in descending order:
	23:20-23 The mal'ach with "shmi be-kirbo" -> III. "lo
tisa"
	23:24 - Not to worship their idols -> II. - "avoda
zara"
	23:25 - Worshipping God and its reward... -> I. Anochi

	This structure, by which the 'mitzvot bein adam
la-Makom' that govern our relationship with God (I->IV) serve
as 'bookends' enclosing the mishpatim [the civil laws and
ethical standards regarding one's relationship to fellow men
(V-X)], underscores an important tenet of Judaism.  Unlike
pagan religions, man's relationship with other people
constitutes an integral part of his unique relationship with
God. 

YITRO / MISHPATIM  - A CHIASTIC STRUCTURE
	The following table illustrates how this progression
of the  mitzvot according to the dibrot helps form a chiastic
structure, which encompasses the entire unit from Shmot
chapters 19->24.
	Note the chiastic A-B-C-D-C-B-A structure that
emerges:
A.  Brit  & the dibrot at Har Sinai (19:1-20:18)
|	B. Mitzvot   I, II, III (20:19-23) ['bein adam
la-Makom']
|	|	C. Eved Ivri (IV) [21:1-> 'bein adam
le-chavero']
|	|	|	D. Misc. civil laws (V-X) / causative
& imperative
|	|	C. Shmitta, shabbat, regalim (IV)
|	B. Mitzvot - III, II, I    (23:20-33) ["bein adam
la'makom"]
A. The 'Brit' of 'na'aseh ve-nishma' at Har Sinai and Moshe's
	ascent to receive the 'luchot' containing the
'dibrot'.

	A chiastic structure (common in Chumash) usually
points to a common theme and purpose of its contents.  In our
case, that theme is clearly 'Ma'amad Har Sinai'.  This unit of
'Ma'amad Har Sinai' (Shmot 19->24) continues the theme of the
first unit of Sefer Shmot (1->18), the story of Yetziat
Mitzrayim.
	We conclude our shiur by relating this structure to
the overall theme of Sefer Shmot, as discussed by Ramban in
his introduction to the sefer.
	As we explained, Yetziat Mitzrayim (our redemption
from Egypt) constituted the first stage in God's fulfillment
of brit avot.  Now, at Ma'amad Har Sinai, Bnei Yisrael enter a
second stage, as they collectively accept God's covenant and
receive the Torah (brit Sinai).  These laws, especially those
of Parshat Mishpatim, will help form their character as God's
special nation - in order that they can fulfill the final
stage of 'brit Avot' - the inheritance of the Promised Land
and the establishment of that nation.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: mish2.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 57734 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-new/attachments/20060223/8956ff57/mish2-0001.pdf
