[Par-new] YITRO - additional shiur

[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 -  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