[Par-reg] 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-reg/attachments/20070204/ee8411fe/attachment-0001.pdf