[Par-reg.w] Veetchanan - questions for self study
Menachem Leibtag
tsc at bezeqint.net
Sun Aug 3 19:58:08 EDT 2014
*********************************************
****************
THE TANACH STUDY CENTER
[http://www.tanach.org]
In Memory of Rabbi Abraham
Leibtag
Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem
Leibtag
*********************************************
****************
PARSHAT VA-ETCHANAN
PART I - QUESTIONS FOR THE 'SHABBOS TABLE'
REWARD FOR 'SPECIFIC' MITZVOT
1. Review 5:16, noting how the commandment to
honor one's parents includes the promise of
reward. Note the words that the Torah uses
to describe that reward.
Are you familiar with any other
specific mitzvot in the Torah that promise
reward; if so, what are they, and in what
book are they recorded?
In your opinion, is this reward (that the
Torah promises) for the individual or for the
entire nation?
2. Review the story in 5:20-30, noting how
Moshe tells the story of how God first gave
him the mitzvot that he is about to teach
Bnei Yisrael in his speech. Then, carefully
study 5:28-30, noting how Moshe promises
reward to the nation, should they keep these
laws (that he is about to teach).
How does the wording of this reward
(see 5:30) similar to the reward that God
promised in 5:16 (in relation to honoring
one's parents)?
Review 6:1-3, noting how it reltates
directly to 5:28-30; then note how the reward
that Moshe promises in 6:2-3 in similar to
5:16 and 5:30!
Based on these textual parallels, could
one reach the conclusion that the reward
promised in 5:16 may relate to keeping ALL of
the laws of "brit Sinai", and not just "kibud
horim"? If so, can you explain the logic of
this conclusion?
3. Review 4:40 (the last line of Moshe
Rabeinu's first speech), noting how it
relates to 4:1, and to same mitzvot that
Moshe discusses in 5:1 and 5:28 and 6:1.
Relate this pasuk (4:40) to your answer
to the previous question!
In your opinion, is the reward promised
in 4:40 (and 5:30 and 6:2-3) for the
individual or for the entire nation. [What
does the word "adama" refer to in all of
these psukim?]
4. Review Devarim 22:6-7, noting how we find
a specific mitzva that appears to promise
reward. Note how the Torah's wording of this
reward is similar to 5:16, 5:30, and 6:2-3!
Are there any other textual or thematic
parallels between 5:16 and 22:6-7? Does it
make any sense that specifically this mitzvah
includes reward, in contrast to so many
others (in Sefer Devarim) that do not?
Finally, note 25:13-16, noting yet
another example of the promise of reward.
Could the reward promised in 25:16 and
22:7 be considered reward for all the mitzvot
that are included in Moshe Rabeinu's speech,
and not necessarily specfically these
mitzvot? If so, can you explain why this
[general] reward would be mentioned
specifically together with these specific
mitzvot?
[See also the last mishna & gemara of
Mesechet Chulin 142!]
5. If indeed the reward mentioned for
'honoring parents' in 5:16 relates to general
reward for the entire nation for keeping
loyal to "brit Sinai" - why do you think that
it would be mentioned at the conclusion of
the fifth commandment, and not after the
tenth commandment?
What is the thematic connection between
honoring one's parents and dedication to God?
[What is common to both relationships?] See
Ramban on Shmot 20:12 ("kabed...").
A LAW FOR EVERY SITUATION
1. Even though there are many laws in the
Torah, it is impossible for any law-code to
provide a precise guideline for every
situation.
With this in mind, review Devarim
6:16-19, noting especially 6:17-18. In your
opinion, how does 6:17 relate to 6:18?
According to 6:18, how is someone
supposed to know what is considered "ha'tov
v'hayashar" [what is good & straight in the
eyes of God]?
Would you consider this pasuk a 'mitzvah'
in itself, a 'guideline' in itself, or a
'guideline' for all mitzvot? [Iin your
answer, relate to why God punished the
generation of the Flood, even though no laws
had been given to man!]
For a very interesting [and important]
interpretation of this pasuk, see Ramban on
6:18.
VE-ZOT HA-TORAH & 'HAGBAHA'
1. Review 4:44-45, noting how the pasuk
"ve-zot ha-torah..." - the pasuk that we
recite each time when the Torah is lifted for
'hagbaha' - is found in this week's Parsha.
In your opinion, what does the word
"torah" in this pasuk refer to?
- the entire 5 books of Chumash;
- just Sefer Devarim;
- just the first speech (that just
finished /chap. 1-4);
- just the mitzvot of the (upcoming)
main speech?
[i.e. chapters
5 thru 26]
As you answer this question, be sure to
study 4:44-47 in relation to 5:1 (and the
main speech of Sefer Devarim that follows -
as discussed in last week's questions/shiur).
See Rashi on 4:44-45. How would Rashi
answer the above questions? See also
Chizkuni on 4:45.
Now see Seforno on 4:44-45. How would
Seforno answer the above questions? Explain
the logic behind this commentary.
2. When we recite this pasuk for "hagbaha",
are we using it in the same context or a
wider one?
Can you explain why we quote this pasuk
for "hagbaha"?
Note, that we add a phrase to this
pasuk. What phrase do we add, where is it
from, and why do you think that we add it?
In your answer, relate to 5:1-5, and
the story in 5:20-28, especially 5:5 & 24!
[In other words, what is the original source
of these laws?]
See Bamidbar 4:37 & 4:45, noting their
context. Did you find the 'missing phrase'
from "hagbaha"? Attempt to identify a
thematic connection between the topic of
Bamidbar chapter 4 and the statement of
"v'zot ha'torah"?
3. Finally, study Sefer Nechemia 8:1-8,
noting especially 8:5.
How do these psukim relate to our custom
of raising the Sefer Torah so that everyone
will see it?
Based on these psukim in Nechemia, would
it make more sense to perform "hagbaha"
before we read the Sefer Torah in public - or
after it has been read?
See also Shulchan Aruch Orach Chayim
siman 134 (#2). Note the two minhagim, and
attempt to explain their source.
OR LA-GOYIM
1. Review Devarim 4:5-8, in the context of
4:1-8.
Note how the phrase "chukim u'mishpatim"
in 4:5 relates to the identical phrase in
4:1!
Then review 5:1, i.e. the opening
sentence of the main speech, noting how this
very same phrase - "chukim u'mishpatim" -
introduces the laws of the main speech. Also
note this same phrase in 26:16, which just so
happens to be the summary pasuk of that
speech. Note this phrase in 11:31-12:1 as
well. [See intro shiur to Devarim
www.tanach.org/dvarim/dvarint.txt ]
Based on these obvious textual parallels,
how does the primary topic of 4:5-8 relate to
the laws that Moshe is about to teach to Bnei
Yisrael in the main speech?
In your answer, relate to 26:16-19,
esepcially to 26:18-19 and its textual and
thematic parallel to Shmot 19:5-6.
2. How do these psukim relate to the biblical
theme of God's choice of Am Yisrael's in
order that they become an 'or la-goyim' [a
light (or model) for other nations]? [Recall
that this theme has been discussed numerous
times in previous shiurim.]
Relate your answer to Yeshayahu 42:5-6
(which just so happens to be the first two
psukim of the Haftara for Parshat Breishit).
Review as well Shlomo Ha-melech's prayer when
he dedicates the bet ha-mikdash in Melachim
Alef 8:41-43, and the visit of the Queen of
Sheba in 10:1-9!
See also Tehillim 105:1-12, 72:1-16 and
Divrei Ha-yamim Alef 16:8-36, noting
especially 16:24-26 and 16:35.
BETWEEN THE DIBROT IN SHMOT & DEVARIM
1. As most everyone is familiar, the wording
of the Ten Commandments in Parshat Veetchanan
(Devarim 5:6-18) is slightly different than
their wording in Parshat Yitro (Shmot
20:1-14). For example, in regard to the
commandment of shabbat [the fourth
commandment] - one version begins with the
word "zachor", while the begins with the word
"shamor".
[As we sing in the "lecha dodi"]
Compare the mitzvah of shabbat in each
source, and make sure that you can identify
all of the other differences. Relate to both
the laws of shabbat, as well as to the reason
that the Torah gives for why we are commanded
to keep it - according to each version.
Can you relate the different reasons in
each version to the meaning in Hebrew of the
words "zachor" and "shamor"?
Be sure to note the reason for Shabbat
according to Shmot 23:9-12, and how it
relates to reason for shabbat in Devarim.
Note how this relates to the phrase
"v'zacharta ki eved hayita..." in Devarim
5:15, in relation to its context in Devarim
16:12 & 24:17-22.
2. In your opinion, do these two 'versions'
contradict - or complement - one another?
Explain your answer.
Can you relate the different reasons in
each version to the concept of "mitzvot bein
adam la'Makom / la'chaveiro"?
Assuming that the recording of these two
different reasons for shabbat was
intentional, can you suggest any underlying
thematic message that Torah may be alluding
to in this manner of presentation?
3. Another difference between the Dibrot in
Yitro vs. Va-etchanan is the additional
phrase 'ka-asher tzivcha Hashem Elokecha'
(see Devarim 5:12 & 16).
Can you explain the addition of this
phrase in Parshat Veetchanan based on the
fact that Moshe is quoting the dibrot as part
of his speech (as discussed in last week's
shiur)?
Why do you think that this phrase is
found specifically in the dibrot of Shabbat &
'kibbud av', and not in the others. [Relate
to 5:4-5.]?
Relate these two mitzvot as well to
Rashi's opinion in regard to which mitzvot
that were given at Mara (see Shmot 15:25).
Can this information provide a different
reason for the use of this phrase
specifically in regard to these two mitzvot?
4. Finally, note the slight differences in
regard to the wording of the Tenth
Commandment ["lo tachmod"]. What lesson do
you think one can learn from these
differences?
For an interesting discussion, see Ibn
Ezra, Ramban, and especially Chizkuni (note
his concluding remarks in regard to the
reason for the two versions) on Devarim 5:17.
AVODA ZARA LE-SHEM SHAMAYIM
1. Read 4:15-20, noting how these psukim
include a very detailed warning against idol
worship.
Then, review 4:9-14, noting how these
psukim discuss what happened (and what didn't
happen) at Har Sinai. Note especially 4:14,
noting how this pasuk relates to the main
speech of Sefer Devarim/ compare with 4:1,
4:45 & 5:1.
Can you explain how the warnings in
4:15-20 relate to the topic of 4:9-14? In
other words, what form of idol worship [an
image of 'another god' or an image of the
real God] is Moshe Rabeinu worried about, and
how does this fear relate to what Bnei
Yisrael saw [or didn't see] at Har Sinai?
2. Review 4:15-20 once again, this time
noting the various examples of forms of idols
that are forbidden. Examine this list
carefully, noting the use of the word
'tavnit', and compare this list to the first
chapter of Sefer Breishit. Can you identify
a pattern?
Can you explain why?
Note the only other use of the word
"tavnit" in Chumash is found in Shmot 25:8-9
- in relation to the mishkan! Relate this to
the purpose of the Mishkan, i.e. what it
represents (see especially Ramban on Shmot
25:1).
In your opinion, does the warning
against avoda zara in chapter 4 relate to
someone with 'good intentions' or 'bad
intentions'? Explain your answer, relating
to 4:12-16.
3. What is the symbol of God's presence in
the mishkan itself? [Relate to Shmot
25:20-22.] Could this relate in any manner
to 'keruvim' that are mentioned in Breishit
3:24?
Relate this to your answer to the above
question.
=====
PART II - QUESTIONS FOR PREPARATION (for
weekly shiur)
THE CONCLUSION OF THE FIRST SPEECH [shiur #1]
1. In last week's introductory shiur, we
discussed how chapters 5 thru 26 form the
main speech of Sefer Devarim. With the
conclusions of that shiur mind, study 4:44-46
carefully.
Note the word 'zot' in 4:44, as well as
the word 'eileh' in 4:45. In your opinion,
do they refer to what 'was' [in the previous
chapter] or to what 'will be' [in the chapter
to follow]?
Or in other words, do these psukim
relate to the speech that just finished
(chapters 1 thru 4), or the one coming up, or
both?
See how both Rashi & Chizkuni interpret
these words.
[Review 4:45 once again, noting how it
supports our conclusion in last week's shiur
that the mitzvot of the main speech were
first given at Har Sinai.]
2. To appreciate the meaning of the word
Torah in 4:44, and how it relates to the main
speech, review 27:1-8, paying special
attention to the word Torah in 27:3 and 27:8.
In your opinion, what does the word Torah
refer to in these two psukim?
In your answer, relate once again to the
fact that chapters 5 thru 26 form the 'main
speech' (of mitzvot) in Sefer Devarim.
How does your conclusion help you
understand the meaning of Torah in 4:44?
3. Now, note the phrase 'chukim u-mishpatim'
in 4:45 as well. Relate it to the same
phrase found in 5:1, 5:28, and 6:1.
How does this relate to the same phrase
in 4:1 & 4:5?
To verify your answer, see if chapter 4
includes any chukim u-mishpatim that would
qualify 4:1 to be their 'header'.
In your opinion, could 4:1 & 5 be
understood as an introduction to the chukim
u-mishpatim that are found in the main
speech? If so, why would this header be in
chapter four, and how does it relate to the
content of this chapter?
[Note as well 4:14 in its context!]
4. Attempt to summarize the main points that
Moshe makes in his speech in chapter 4?
To do so, we suggest the following
'methodology'.
First, attempt to divide the chapter into
paragraphs. Then, give each paragraph a
short title, and list those titles
(vertically) on a sheet of paper. Finally,
study your list, and attempt to turn that
list into an outline, by grouping together
the paragraphs that share a common topic.
Give a title to each section of your outline,
and if possible, one for the entire outline.
After you have finished, answer the
following questions:
5. Considering that chapters 1 thru 4 is one
speech, nonetheless, chapter 4 is quite
different than chapters 1 thru 3. Attempt to
define how these two sections are different.
In your opinion, why does Moshe
Rabbeinu include chapter four as part of his
first speech, and how does it relate to his
explanation of why forty years have passed
(in chapters 1) and his 'pep-talk' (in
chapters 2-3)?
6. Indeed, we do find certain mitzvot in
chapter four. In your opinion, what is
special about them, and how do they relate to
the mitzvot that will be found in the main
speech?
Also, how does that fact that Moshe is
about to die (and hence no longer be their
leader / see 4:21-24) relate to the content
of chapter 4?
THE FIRST TWO PARSHIOT OF KRIYAT SHEMA [shiur
#2]
1. Recall from last week's shiur how the
story in chapter five explained when the
mitzvot (that begin in chapter six) were
first given. In that context, review once
again 5:28 and 6:1, noting how they describe
the mitzvot of the main speech. As you study
those psukim, note the distinction between
the words "ha-mitzva" and the "chukim &
mishpatim". How does the word "ha-mitzva"
differ from the word "mitzvah"?
Note how (and where) we find similar
phrases in earlier introductory psukim - see
4:1, 4:5, and 4:44-45 and 5:1.]
In your opinion, do all of these
different words describe the same thing, or
does each word describe a different type of
commandment? If so, what does each word
refer to?
2. It is possible to divide the main speech
into two sections based on this distinction
between ha-mitzva and the chukim & mishpatim.
To identify the ha-mitzva section,
carefully study 6:4-9 in relation to
11:22-25, noting the word "ha' mitzvah".
Note as well 8:1 in this context.
Then, study 11:31- 12:1 in relation to
26:16-19, noting how these parallel psukim
can help you identify the chukim & mishpatim
section. Note as well how this parallel
relates back to 5:1 and to 5:28 & 6:1.
Next, briefly scan the mitzvot of the
main speech (i.e. chapters 6-26), noting the
difference in the nature of the mitzvot found
in between chapters 6-11 in contrast to the
mitzvot found in between chapters 12-26.
[This question may take you a long time to
answer, but it is important, for it will be
helpful towards understanding the basic
structure of the main speech.]
3. Review 6:4-9 & 11:13-21, noting that
these are the two parshiot of daily kriyat
shema. Pay attention to their respective
locations within the main speech of Sefer
Devarim, especially in regard to the
ha-mitzva section, noted above.
Based on the division of the main
speech into two sections (as discussed in the
questions above), can you suggest a reason
why Chazal choose these two parshiot for the
daily kriyat shma?
In your answer, relate to the word
've-shinantem' in 6:6. Relate as well to the
Mishna in Sota VII:8 in regard to what is
read at Hakhel.
SOMETHING OLD, OR SOMETHING NEW?
4. Recall once again that the mitzvot of the
main speech were first given to Moshe
Rabbeinu during his first forty days on Har
Sinai, and he had taught them to the people
numerous times - and now, in the fortieth
year - he is teaching them on last time.
With this in mind, review all of the
'parshiot' between chapters 6 thru 11, and
try to determine which sections appear to be
'quotes' from the mitzvot that were first
given forty years ago, and which sections of
the speech are 'added' by Moshe Rabbeinu now
in the fortieth year. In your answer, relate
to the fact that some parshiot contain
mitzvot, while others contain rebuke.
As you answer this question, pay
attention to how the events of the Exodus are
described, paying special attention to 6:16,
6:20-23, 7:17-19, & 11:10-12.
In your opinion, would it make sense
for Moshe to talk to the people in this
manner in the fortieth year?
Note also the opening psukim of chapter
8! Does this appear to be an 'add-on' by
Moshe Rabeinu, or part of the original set of
mitzvot? Explain why.
Finally, compare 7:6-9 with 9:4-7.
Attempt to explain the reason for what
appears to be a contradiction!
5. Review once again 4:44-45, noting how
these psukim introduce the main speech that
begins in chapter five. Then note how there
appears to be a contradiction in 4:45 in
regard to when these mitzvot were given -
forty years ealier when Am Yisrael left
Egypt, or now, in Arvot Moav!
Explain this pasuk based on your answer
to the above question!
6. Suggest a reason why it may be meaningful
for Moshe to present these laws to the people
in the fortieth year, worded in the same
manner as they were given when the first
generation left Egypt. In your answer,
relate to 5:2-3!
[See also "Parshanut" section below.]
====
'HAR AVARIM' & 'TRANSITION' - [for shiur #3]
1. In the beginning of the Parsha, Moshe
pleads with God to allow him to enter Eretz
Canaan (see 3:23-29).
In your opinion, does Moshe also want
to remain the leader of Bnei Yisrael, or does
he just want to enter as regular citizen
[what we would call today a 'rabbi
emeritus'], while allowing Yehoshua to lead
the nation?
In your answer relate to both 3:28 and
Bamidbar 20:12 [& our conclusion in regard to
this topic in our shiur on Parshat Chukat].
Does God explain to Moshe why His answer
is no? If not, can you explain why He
doesn't? Can you suggest a reason for why
God does not allow Moshe to enter the land,
even though he is no longer their 'official'
leader?
2. Note the Torah's use of the 'shoresh'
[root] ayin.bet.reish. in 3:25, 3:26 and
3:28. Does this shoresh have the same
meaning in each of these psukim, or different
meanings? Explain.
Now read Bamidbar 27:12-14 (see also
27:15-23).
In your opinion, is this the same story
or a different one?
How do these two accounts complement
each other?
See Rashi & Chizkuni on 27:12.
Now, note again the name of the
mountain that Moshe is instructed to ascend
-'har ha-avarim'. Note again the shoresh
ayin.bet.reish!
What is the 'real name' of this mountain
- see Devarim 32:49! Based on the above
questions, why do you think that the Torah
refers to it as "har ha-avarim" instead of
'Har Nevo'?
Is there a geographical reason as well
for this name?
See Ramban 27:12.
[Note also the use of ayin.bet.reish. in
Bamidbar 27:6-11! Note also the use of verb
'latet' - to give - both in 27:7 and 27:12!
(cute?)]
PART III - PARSHANUT
WHAT DOES 'WHAT' MEAN?
1. Read 6:20 (and ONLY 6:20, i.e. don't read
on). Even though this pasuk may sound
familiar to you from the Seder [the wise
son's question] - read it again, by itself,
and attempt to translate it.
How did you translate the word "mah" in
this pasuk?
Before you read 6:21, how would you
answer this question?
2. Now, read from 6:21-25. Based on this
answer, what does the word "mah" in 6:20 seem
to imply?
See Rasag, Ibn Ezra, Ramban, and
Seforno on 6:20, noting how each commentator
offers a slightly different way to translate
the word "mah".
Try to identify what how the
translation by each commentator of the word
"mah" - is affected by a certain point in
6:21-25.
3. Finally, how did you translate the word
"tzedaka" in 6:25? Does it mean 'charity',
or 'just & upright'? Based on its context in
this pasuk, notice how difficult it is to
translate.
See Ibn Ezra, noting how offers three
interpretations! Relate them to the various
classic translations of the word "tzedaka".
Review 4:5-8, noting again how it
relates to 5:1 (and the laws of the main
speech). How (and why) does Ibn Ezra's third
interpretation relate to those psukim?
See Ramban (at the conclusion of his
commentary to 6:20-25). Note how he explains
why he considers "tzedaka" as reward. [See
also Seforno - noting how it is similar.]
Finally, see Chizkuni - noting his two
interpretations, and how they relate to 6:20!
A COVENANT FOR ALL GENERATIONS
1. Review 5:1-3, noting what is so
problematic about the statement that Moshe
makes in 5:3. Then, note how almost every
commentator adds a word to 5:3.
[For example, see Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Rasag,
Chizkuni.]
What is that word and why do you think
that everyone agrees that it must be added?
Then see Seforno on 5:3. Does Seforno
agree to the addition of this word? In what
manner is Seforno's interpretation different
than all the others?
Most commentators assume that this
'missing' word is implicit. Nonetheless,
would it not have made more sense to say it
explicitly? Can you suggest any thematic
reason for Moshe Rabeinu to have left this
word out, considering that he is speaking to
the next generation?
Can you find any other examples in this
section of main speech where Moshe speaks to
the new generation as though they were the
first generation?
If so, can you explain why does this so
often?
AZ YAVDIL MOSHE / When & Why?
Recall from last week's shiur, that the end
of chapter 4 (4:41-49) is written in 'third
person', and serves as a buffer between
Moshe's introductory speech (chapters 1-4),
and Moshe's main speech - ne'um ha-mitzvot -
which begins with chapter 5.
Before continuing, read these nine
psukim, noting that they are indeed written
in third person, noting how they divide into
two distinct sections - 4:41-43 and 4:44-49.
Then, try to understand how each section
relates to either the previous speech, or to
the speech that follows.
Then, pay attention to the first topic
- i.e. the setting aside of three cities of
refuge in Transjordan (4:41-43).
In your opinion, why is this topic
recorded here?
Does it relate in any way to the first
speech?
If so, how?
Does it relate in any way to the main
speech (which follows)? If so, how?
How does this parshia relate to
Bamidbar 35:9-14?
Does it belong there? If so, why
is it here?
Relate also to Devarim 19:1-10,
especially 19:8-9!
How does 4:41-43 relate to
19:8-9?
Are these three additional cities
(i.e. a total of 9)?!
[see
commentaries on 19:8-9]
Finally, how should one translate the
first two words of 4:41, in past tense, or
future tense? What is the difficulty?
After contemplating these above
questions, study the commentaries of Rashi,
Ibn Ezra, Rashbam, Ramban, Chizkuni, & Sforno
on 4:41, and then answer the following
questions:
A. Which of the above problems does Rashi
deal with?
How does he solve it? What additional
'mussar' does Rashi's commentary teach us?
B. Rashbam's peirush deals with three of the
problems listed above. How does he explain
them?
[Note how concise & comprehensive his
commentary is!]
C. What problem does Ibn Ezra try to solve?
Why does Ramban disagree?
Can you explain their argument
based on their respective understandings of
this parshia as either a completion of the
first speech or an introduction to the main
speech?
D. Later in the Ramban, he also quotes the
same peirush as Rashi. Attempt to explain
why.
Then, Ramban continues by explaining how
this section connects to the beginning of the
main speech. How does his commentary relate
to his opening explanation concerning the
nature of the main speech of Sefer Devarim
(in 1:1)?
E. Chizkuni clearly connects this parshia to
the first speech. Carefully study his
commentary - does he suggest that 4:41-43
should be read in first person instead of
third person?
If so, can you explain why?
Does the continuation of the parsha
support this, or not? How does Chizkuni
relate this parshia to Bamidbar chapter 35?
How does he explain the reason for its
repetition?
F. What problem in pshat does Seforno deal
with? How is his peirush similar to Rashi's?
How (and why) is it different?
Would you say that Seforno disagrees
with Ramban as well in regard to when these
cities actually became official (i.e.
functional) cities of refuge?
be-hatzlacha,
menachem
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg.w/attachments/20140803/e7e9ebba/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: veetq.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 70144 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg.w/attachments/20140803/e7e9ebba/attachment-0001.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: veetq.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 50448 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg.w/attachments/20140803/e7e9ebba/attachment-0001.pdf>
More information about the Par-reg.w
mailing list