[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://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20100131/1bc99923/attachment-0001.pdf