[Par-reg.w] For Parshat Yitro - Into to second half of Sefer Shmot

[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 - Intro to 2nd half of Sefer Shmot

     In Parshat Yitro, Chumash enters a new phase as its
primary focus now shifts from its ongoing narrative to the
mitzvot that Bnei Yisrael receive at Har Sinai.  Nonetheless,
the manner in which the Torah presents the mitzvot is far more
exciting than we would expect.  Instead of a formal
[organized] 'shulchan aruch' style of presentation, Chumash
records the mitzvot in a very special manner.  In each of our
shiurim from Parshat Yitro until Parshat Pekudei, our study of
the sequence and progression of the mitzvot will be no less
significant than the study of the mitzvot themselves!

INTRODUCTION - STRUCTURE AND THEME IN CHUMASH
     When we study Chumash, we encounter two types of
parshiot:
       (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, the first step in our study will be 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 (AND GO)?
     Even though this controversy of 'mukdam u-me'uchar'
relates primarily to 'parshiot' dealing with mitzvot, there
are even instances when this controversy relates to the
narrative itself.  A classic example is found with regard to
when Yitro first came to join Bnei Yisrael in the desert.
     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.
     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, the entire 'parshia' should be
understood as taking place BEFORE Matan Torah (i.e. when it is
written - 'yesh mukdam u-me'uchar..'.).
     Rashi (see 18:13) suggests 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 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]

     The dispute concerning 'When Yitro came' 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'.]

     As we explained in our introduction, 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.

     In this week's regular Parsha shiur we discuss in greater detail the
events that transpire in
chapter 19.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg.w/attachments/20190124/5fb71adf/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: yitro1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 56011 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg.w/attachments/20190124/5fb71adf/attachment-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: yitro1.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 73216 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg.w/attachments/20190124/5fb71adf/attachment-0001.doc>