[Par-new] Parshat Yitro - questions for self study

[Menachem Leibtag]

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

			PARSHAT YITRO 

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