[Par-reg] Parshat Yitro - additional shiur

[Menachem Leibtag]

*************************************************************************

THE TANACH STUDY CENTER  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

        & Part II  How many Yitro's are there?

 

        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 that one might expect;
Chumash records the mitzvot in a very special manner.  In our forthcoming
study of Sefer Shmot from Parshat Yitro until Parshat Pekudei, we will
demonstrate how the Torah's presentation of the sequence of the mitzvot and
their internal progression will be no less significant than the study of the
mitzvot themselves! 

        The following shiur will provide an introduction to this approach.

 

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, they must first receive the set of laws
[i.e. Matan Torah] that will facilitate their becoming God's model nation.

        It would only be logical to assume that Bnei Yisrael would receive
ALL of the mitzvot at Har Sinai, before they continue on their journey.
Therefore, we would expect the Torah to proceed in 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).  That 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 this methodology is to first 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 discussed 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 claims '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', Rashi will claim that the Torah has changed the chronological
order, in order to teach a lesson. 

        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', and hence its thematic
similarities to that event may be totally coincidental.

 

        It should be pointed out that there is a very simple reason why the
Torah is written in a 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,
God instructed to organize all of the laws that he received, and the various
stories that transpired - into the Five Books. 

[See Masechet Megilla 60a, and Rashi on the topic of "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 many months 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 spent his entire day teaching the
people, whereupon Yitro offered his famous advice 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 Part Two of our shiur, as we attempt to identify who Yitro was,
we will also be able to better appreciate what led Ibn Ezra to conclude that
Yitro must have arrived at a later time.

 

 

PARSHAT YITRO -  shiur #2 

 

YITRO - the 'father-in-law' or 'brother-in-law'

 

Many of us are so familiar with Rashi's commentary on the first pasuk of the
Parsha that Yitro had seven names (see 18:1) - that we don't even consider
any other possibility.  However, the classical commentators offer several
other very interesting interpretations.  

What difference does it make, you may ask?

If only to fulfill the mitzvah of "la'asok b'divrei Torah" - would surely be
reason enough.  In the following shiur, we attempt to explain the underlying
reasons for this controversy, and hopefully will also gain a deeper
understanding of why the Torah dedicates so many details to this topic.

 

INTRODUCTION

To our surprise, the first time that we meet Moshe Rabeinu's 'father-in-law'
in Chumash - his name is most definitely Reuel. To verify this, let's
quickly review the story of how Moshe meets Tzipora:

"...Moshe fled from the face of Pharaoh, and dwelt in the land of Midian;
and he sat down by a well... 

Now the priest of Midian - KOHEN MIDYAN - had seven daughters; and they came
and drew water... and the shepherds came and drove them away; but Moshe
stood up and helped them...

When they came to Reuel their father, he said: 'How is it that you have come
so soon to-day...

And he said unto his daughters: 'And where is he... and he [Reuel] gave
Moshe - Zipporah his daughter.

[See Shmot 2:15-22, note however that the Hebrew word "choten" does not
appear in this entire section!]

 

        Clearly, if we follow the simple meaning of the word "avihem" [their
father] in Hebrew, then Reuel is definitely Moshe's father in law!  However,
only a few psukim later, we find that Moshe is tending Yitro's sheep:

"Moshe was keeping the flock of Yitro - CHOTNO [his father-in-law?], KOHEN
MIDYAN - the priest of Midian ; and he led the flock to the farthest end of
the wilderness, and came to the mountain of God, unto Horeb."  (see 3:1)

 

        Everyone's immediate impression is that Yitro must be the same
person as Reuel, since he is called KOHEN MIDYAN - as was Reuel in 2:16, and
he is referred to now as "choten Moshe" - which almost everyone translates
as 'father-in-law' (see any English translation).  So why the 'name-change'
from Reuel to Yitro?

 

HOW MANY YEARS HAVE PASSED?

        Even though only several psukim separate between these two stories
in Shmot 2:16-22 and 3:1, it could be that many decades have passed in the
interim.  Let's explain why.

        When Moshe first fled from Egypt (see 2:11-15), the impression is
that he was rather young.  Hence, when he first meets Zipporah, it could be
that was only in his twenties (or thirties).  However, in chapter three -
when God appears to Moshe at the burning bush, he is definitely 80 years old
(see Shmot 7:7)

[Our assumption is that Moshe went back to Egypt immediately after God
appeared to him at the burning bush, and shortly after went to Pharaoh and
performed the miracles etc.]

 

        If indeed several decades have passed since Moshe first married
Zipporah, then it could be that her father Reuel - the previous KOHEN MIDYAN
- had passed away - and in the meantime, Reuel's son - Yitro - had become
the new KOHEN MIDYAN.  If so, then we would have to interpret "choten Moshe"
in 3:1- as Moshe's brother in law.   

 

CHOVAV - A PRIEST or TOUR GUIDE?

        To  support this interpretation, we simply need to examine the next
time in Chumash when Reuel is mentioned, later on in Parshat Bhaalotcha, as
Bnei Yisrael prepare to leave Har Sinai:

"And Moshe said unto Chovav, the son of Reuel the Midianite, CHOTEN MOSHE -
'We are journeying unto the place of which the LORD said: I will give it
you; come with us, and we will do you good..." (see Bamidbar 10:29-30)

 

        If we follow the simple meaning of the text, Chovav is definitely a
son of Reuel, and most probably NOT Yitro (why would his name change?).  In
other words, Reuel gave birth not only to seven daughters, but also to at
least two sons.  Hence - Zipporah had at least two brothers, Yitro and
Chovav.'

[Note that even though Shmot 2:16 states that Reuel had seven daughters,
this does not preclude the possibility that he also had sons.  The pasuk
mentions only the daughters, as they were tending to the sheep, and they
were the 'pool' from whom Moshe would receive his wife from Reuel, their
father.]

 

        Note as well how Sefer Bamidbar describes Chovav as "choten Moshe"
(see 10:29).  Even though one might suggest that "choten Moshe" in that
pasuk is describing Reuel, a parallel verse in Sefer Shoftim (see 4:11), its
quite explicit that "choten Moshe" refers to Chovav himself!  This
definitely supports our contention that "choten" can imply a brother in law;
and not only a father in law. 

        In fact, this is only other time In Chumash where the word "choten"
is used to describe a specific person, other than its repetitive use to
describe Yitro in Shmot chapter 18).

 

        Review the psukim in Bamidbar 10:29-30 once again, noting that
Chovav is not referred to as KOHEN MIDYAN, rather only as "choten Moshe".
If Chovav and Yitro are different brothers, this would make perfect sense,
for only one of the brothers could take over for Reuel - the previous "kohen
Midyan".  It seems that Yitro took over his father's coveted position as
KOHEN MIDYAN, while Chovav became a 'professional scout'. That's would
explain why Moshe begs him to join Bnei Yisrael in the desert to help them
with their travels (see again Bamidbar 10:29-33).

It also appears that Chovav accepted Moshe Rabeinu's offer to join their
journey and receive a portion in the land, as supported by Sefer Shoftim
4:11 (read carefully).   Yitro, however, as chief priest of Midyan - cannot
stay with Bnei Yisrael for any lengthy amount of time.  This explains why he
himself returns to Midyan (see Shmot 18:26) after his short visit to bring
back his 'sister' Zipporah (and the kids), as described in Parshat Yitro. 

 

PILEGESH B'GIVAH

        In Tanach, we do find one additional use of the word "choten", and
finally in regard to someone other than Moshe Rabeinu.  In the story of the
Levite who travels to Bet-lechem to bring back his "pilegesh" [concubine],
the father of this "pilegesh" is referred to three times as "chotno avi
ha'naara" (see Shoftim 19:4-9).

        How should we translate this phrase?

        At first glance, this seems to be a perfect proof that "choten"
implies a father in law.  In fact, this pasuk could almost serve as the
definition of this word - to mean specifically a father in law.  If so, then
in Chumash, it must also imply father in law - and hence Yitro and Chovav
must be the same person, as well as Reuel (unless we explain that Reuel was
the grandfather / see Rashi Shmot 18:1) - and hence the conclusion that we
are all familiar with, quoted by Rashi on 18:1.

 

        However, this phrase could prove exactly the opposite.  If the word
"choten" implies 'father-in-law' - and only 'father-in-law' - then why the
redundancy?  Would not the word "chotno" be enough, without the additional
phrase "avi ha'naara"!  

 

        On the other hand, if "chotno" implies any relationship through
marriage, be it 'brother in law', or 'father in law'; then the extra phrase
is informative, as it tells us that he was specifically her father, and not
her brother. 

 

THE VERB L"HITCHATEN

        To appreciate why the word "choten" could imply any relationship
through marriage, let's note a pasuk from Sefer Melachim:

"VA'YITCHATEN Shlomo et PHARAOH - King of Egypt, and he took the daughter of
Pharaoh..."  (see I Kings 3:1)

 

        Note, that Shlomo 'marries' Pharaoh ["va'yitchaten"], and then takes
his daughter as a wife.  In other words, the verb "l'hitchaten" can imply
entering into a family relationship.  [As we all know, you don't only marry
the wife - you marry her entire family!]

        If so, then "choten" could imply 'brother in law', just as it could
also imply 'father in law'.

 

        See Ibn Ezra on Bamdibar 10:29, where he states this explicitly.
Note also his commentary on Shmot 3:1, where he claims that Yitro is
Zipporah's brother (as we did).  [However, he concludes that Chovav and
Yitro are the same person.  In our shiur, we entertained the possibility
that they are different brothers.]

 

In summary, if the phrase "choten Moshe" could imply 'brother in law' (as
Ibn Ezra suggests), then one could conclude thqt Yitro, Chovav, and Reuel,
are all different people!

        If on the other hand, "choten" implies only a 'father in law', then
we are forced to conclude that Chovav and Yitro are the same person, while
Reuel is yet another name for Yitro; or alternatively, the grandfather of
Zipporah.  That conclusion which would force us to conclude that Hebrew word
"aviha" could imply grandfather as well as father. 

[Turns out that we must widen our definition of either the Hebrew word "av"
or "choten"!]

 

        If indeed they are the same persons, then the commentators must
explain the meaning of these various names for the same person?  See Ramban
on 2:16 for a beautiful explanation, as well as Rashi on 3:1.  On the other
hand, if they are different people, we must also search for meaning.  

Furthermore, we must also ponder why the Torah dedicates so many details to
Yitro (and his family).

Before discussing this question, let's discuss another controversy between
the commentators concerning when Yitro first came to meet Moshe at Har
Sinai.

 

HAR SINAI & YITRO

        Recall how Parshat Yitro opens with Yitro's arrival at the campsite
of Bnei Yisrael at Har Sinai (see 18:5).  The location of this 'parshia' in
Sefer Shmot clearly suggests that Yitro arrives before Matan Torah, yet
certain details found later in the 'parshia', (e.g. Moshe's daily routine of
judging the people and teaching them God's laws/ see 18:15-17), suggests
that this event may have taken place after Matan Torah.   After all, what
'laws of God' was Moshe teaching if the Torah had not yet been given?
Furthermore, it seems (from chapter 19)  that as soon as Bnei Yisrael
arrived at Har Sinai - that Moshe went up to God immediately, and the events
of Maamad Har Sinai began (see 19:1-8); thus not leaving any time for the
story in chapter 18 to transpire.

        Based on this and several other strong proofs, Ibn Ezra claims that
this entire parshia took place after Matan Torah ('ein mukdam u-me'uchar').
Note however, that Ibn Ezra claims Chovav and Yitro are the same person.
Therefore, he explains that the narrative in Shmot chapter 18 takes place at
the same time as Bamidbar chapter 10. 

To explain why the Torah 'moves up' part of this story to Parshat Yitro, Ibn
Ezra suggests a thematic reason - based on the juxtaposition of this
'parshia' and the story of Amalek:

"...And now I will explain to you why this parshia is written here [out of
place]: Because the preceding parshia discussed the terrible deeds of Amalek
against Israel, now in contrast the Torah tells us of the good deeds that
Yitro did for Am Yisrael..."  [see Ibn Ezra 18:1]

 

        Ibn Ezra claims that the Torah wants to teach us that not all
'goyim' are bad.  Certainly, we encounter enemies such as Amalek, but we may
also encounter righteous non-jews, such as Yitro - from whom we can gain
important advice.

 

        What may be even more significant, is the fact that the Torah has
textually 'enveloped' Bnei Yisrael's encampment at Har Sinai with two
stories considering Yitro (and Chovav).

        Immediately upon our arrival at Sinai, and right before the story of
Matan Torah, the Torah records the story of Yitro's important advice to
Moshe concerning how establish an organized court system.  Then, in Sefer
Bamdibar, immediately before Bnei Yisrael leave Har Sinai, as they embark on
their journey to the land of Israel - we find Moshe Rabeinu's offer that
Chovav join the people on their journey, to provide assistance. 

        On the one hand, Matan Torah was a singular event, intended only for
the people of Israel - to enter a special covenant - and receive God's
special laws that will make them His nation.  However, the deeper purpose of
that covenant (and those laws) was for Bnei Yisrael to become God's 'model
nation' that would help bring the Name of God to all mankind - should we
keep His laws in the proper manner.

        For that reason, it may be quite significant that this key event in
our national history is surrounded by events that relate to our relationship
with the outside world.  While there are times when we find ourselves
isolated from the outside world, we must always remember that we were chosen
to have a positive impact upon it.  There may also be times that we can
improve ourselves by taking wise advice from other nations (Yitro before
Matan Torah), and there may also be times when they can even provide us with
guidance should we become a bit 'lost in a desert' (Chovav after Matan
Torah).  However, foremost, we must be dedicated to keeping the special laws
that God gave us at Matan Torah - so that our symbiotic relationship with
other nations can remain fruitful - for the betterment of all mankind.

                                      shabbat shalom,

                                      menachem

 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: yitro1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 56011 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090212/275f8c86/attachment-0001.pdf