[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"?


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.7/1233 -
Release Date: 1/19/2008 6:37 PM
 
  
-------------- 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/20080120/241551e6/attachment-0001.pdf