[Par-reg] Parshat Yitro - additional shiur

[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 -  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:
"...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 verify if this interpretation is possible, it
would logical to check other times In Chumash where the
word "choten" is used.  Indeed we find this word used
numerous times in regard to Yitro (in Shmot chapter 18),
but to our surprise, it is used only one other time in
Chumash - in describing Chovav ben Reuel in Sefer
Bamdibar.  Let's take a look:
"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)
[note that the phrase "choten Moshe" must refer to Chovav
and not Reuel, based on Sefer Shoftim 4:11!]

	If we follow the simple meaning of the text, that
Chovav is NOT Yitro - then we find additional proof that
"choten" implies 'brother in law'.  In other words,
Zipporah had at least two brothers, Yitro and Chovav - and
they were all children of Reuel.  When Reuel died, Yitro
took over as KOHEN MIDYAN, while Chovav seems to have
become a 'professional scout' - who joined Bnei Yisrael in
the desert to help them with their travels (see again
Bamidbar 10:29-33).  

	Furthermore, note how Chovav is not referred to as
KOHEN MIDYAN, rather only as "choten Moshe".  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).  On the
one hand, Yitro himself returned to Midyan after his short
visit, as described in Parshat Yitro (to bring back his
'sister' Zipporah), as verified by Shmot 18:26.  After
all, he was the KOHEN of MIDYAN - and hence he needed to
return to fulfill his duties in his own country.  
[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.]

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. 
[Why that chapter in Sefer Shoftim emphasizes this point
of "chotno" is beyond the scope of this shiur, but can be
explained when considering the numerous ironies in that
entire event.]

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.]

    If you've followed the shiur, it would seem that if
"choten Moshe" could imply 'brother in law', then it could
be that Yitro, Chovav, and Reuel, are all different
people!
[I haven't researched this topic as much as I would have
liked, so if you are familiar with any other sources, that
would either support or contradict these conclusions,
please let me know.]

	On the other hand, if "choten" in Hebrew 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, 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 so, we must ask ourselves - what is 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. 

HAR SINAI & YITRO
    In either case, 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.
    
	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').  Ramban argues that
since none of those proofs are conclusive, this entire
'parshia' (i.e. Shmot chapter 18) should be understood as
taking place BEFORE Matan Torah (i.e. when it is written -
'yesh mukdam u-me'uchar..'.).
	Rashi (see 18:13) offers an interesting
'compromise' by 'splitting' the parshia in half!  His
opinion would agree with Ramban that Yitro first arrives
before Matan Torah (18:1-12); however, the details found
later (in 18:13-27), e.g. how Moshe taught the people
God's laws 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]

	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.

YITRO'S FAMILY - Before & After
	To conclude our shiur, we follow the 'lead' of Ibn
Ezra, by noting how we find Yitro's family mentioned at
key points in Jewish history.  

	First, Moshe grows up in Pharaoh's house; yet
afterward, spends a significant amount of time in Midyan,
living with Reuel and Yitro, the family of KOHEN MIDYAN.
It's not clear precisely what God Yitro believed in,
nonetheless - he definitely comes to recognize the God of
Israel after these events, and it would only be logical to
assume that Moshe acquired some of his leadership traits
during his stay in Midyan.  
	Just as we later find a contrast between Amalek
Yitro, we find an earlier contrast between growing up in
Pharaoh's home vs. Yitro's home.

	However, more significant is the fact that the
Torah 'surrounds' 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

===========
    

    
PARSHAT YITRO - FOR FURTHER IYUN

STRUCTURE AND THEME IN CHUMASH
	When we study Chumash, we encounter two basic
styles:
		(1) Narrative, i.e. the ongoing story;
		(2) Mitzvot, i.e. the commandments.

	Until Parshat Yitro, i.e. before Bnei Yisrael
arrive at Har Sinai, Chumash consisted primarily of
narrative (e.g. the story of Creation, the Avot, Yetziat
Mitzrayim etc.).  In contrast, beginning with Parshat
Yitro, we find many sections consisting primarily of
'mitzvot' (e.g. the Ten Commandments, the 'mishpatim'
(chapters 21->23), laws of the mishkan (chapters 25->31),
etc.). 
	The reason for this is quite simple.  Sefer
Breishit explained why and how God chose Avraham Avinu to
become the forefather of His special nation.  Sefer Shmot
began by describing how God fulfilled His covenant with
the Avot, and redeemed His nation from slavery in Egypt.
Now, before this nation enters the Promised Land where
they are to live as God's nation, they must first receive
the set of laws [i.e. Matan Torah] that will facilitate
their becoming God's special nation.
	Assuming that Bnei Yisrael are to receive ALL of
the mitzvot at Har Sinai before they continue on their
journey, we would expect to find the following 'logical'
order:
    I.  NARRATIVE
The story of the Exodus from Egypt until Bnei Yisrael's
arrival at Har Sinai.
	II.  MITZVOT
    ALL of the mitzvot that Bnei Yisrael receive at Sinai.
	III.  NARRATIVE
The story of Bnei Yisrael's journey from Har Sinai to the
Promised Land.
	
	However, instead of this clear and structured
order, we find a much more complicated presentation.
First, 'ten commandments' are given at a special gathering
(i.e. Ma'amad Har Sinai).  After a short narrative, we
find an additional set of mitzvot - that comprise most of
Parshat Mishpatim.  At the end of Parshat Mishpatim, we
find yet another short narrative (chapter 24), followed by
seven chapters of mitzvot that detail how to build the
Mishkan (Teruma / Tetzaveh).  This lengthy set of mitzvot
is followed by yet another narrative, which describes
'chet ha-egel' (32:1-34:10), which is then followed by yet
another set of mitzvot (see 34:11-26), etc.  In a similar
manner, we find this pattern of a 'blend' of mitzvot and
narrative in the rest of Chumash as well. 
	So why does the Torah present its mitzvot in this
complex manner?  Would it not have made more sense to
present all of the mitzvot together in one organized unit
(like 'shulchan aruch')?

	In the answer to this question lies the basis for
our approach to studying Chumash - for the intricate
manner in which the Torah presents the mitzvot 'begs' us
to pay attention not only to the mitzvot themselves, but
also to the manner of their presentation.  Therefore, as
we study, we search for thematic significance in the order
and sequence in which the Torah presents the mitzvot.
	For example, we usually will begin our study with
an attempt to identify the specific topic of each
'parshia' and/or 'paragraph'.  Then we analyze the
progression of topic from one parshia to the next in
search of a thematic reason for this progression.
[Following this methodology will also help us better
appreciate the underlying reason for the various
controversies among the classic commentators.]

CHRONOLOGY IN CHUMASH
    This introduction leads us directly into one of the
most intriguing exegetic aspects of Torah study - the
chronological progression of 'parshiot' [better known as
the sugya of 'ein mukdam u-me'uchar..']. 
    In other words, as we study Chumash, should we assume
that it progresses according to the chronological order by
which the events took place, or, should we assume that
thematic considerations may allow the Torah to place
certain parshiot next to each other, even though each
'parshia' may have been given at different times.
	In this respect, we must first differentiate once
again between 'narrative' and 'mitzvot'. 
	It would only be logical to assume that the
ongoing narrative of Chumash follows in chronological
order, (i.e. the order in which the events took place/
e.g. the story of Yitzchak will obviously follow the story
of his father Avraham). 
	Nonetheless, we periodically may find that a
certain narrative may conclude with details that took
place many years later.  For example, the story of the
manna in Parshat Beshalach concludes with God's
commandment that Moshe place a sample of the manna next to
the Aron in the Mishkan.  This commandment could only have
been given after the Mishkan was completed, an event that
does not occur until many months later.  Nevertheless,
because that narrative deals with the manna, it includes a
related event, even though it took place at a later time.
	The story of Yehuda and Tamar in Sefer Breishit is
another example.  See chapter 38, note from 38:11-12 that
since Tamar waited for Shela to grow up, the second part
of that story must have taken place at least thirteen
years later, and hence after Yosef becomes viceroy in
Egypt!  Recall that he was sold at age 17 and solved
Pharaoh's dream at age 30.

	How about the 'mitzvot' in Chumash?  In what order
are they presented?  Do they follow the chronological
order by which they were first given?
	Because the mitzvot are embedded within the
narrative of Chumash, and not presented in one unbroken
unit (as explained above), the answer is not so simple.
On this specific issue, a major controversy exists among
the various commentators; popularly known as: "ein mukdam
u-me'uchar ba-Torah" (there is no chronological order in
the Torah).
	Rashi, together with many other commentators (and
numerous Midrashim), consistently holds that 'ein mukdam
u-me'uchar', i.e. Chumash does not necessarily follow a
chronological order, while Ramban, amongst others,
consistently argues that 'yesh mukdam u-me'uchar', i.e.
Chumash does follow a chronological order.
 	However, Rashi's opinion, 'ein mukdam u-me'uchar',
should not be understood as some 'wildcard' answer that
allows one to totally disregard the order in which Chumash
is written.  Rashi simply claims that a primary
consideration for the order of the Torah's presentation of
the mitzvot is thematic, more so than chronological.
Therefore, whenever 'thematically convenient', we find
that Rashi will 'change' the chronological order of
mitzvot, and sometimes even events. 
	For example, Rashi claims that the mitzva to build
the Mishkan, as recorded in Parshat Teruma (chapters
25->31) was first given only after the sin of the Golden
Calf, even though that narrative is only recorded
afterward (in Parshat Ki Tisa /chapter 32).  Rashi prefers
this explanation due to the thematic similarities between
the Mishkan and the story of 'chet ha-egel'. 
	In contrast, Ramban argues time and time again
that unless there is 'clear cut' proof that a certain
parshia is out of order, one must always assume that the
mitzvot in Chumash are recorded in the same order as they
were originally given.  For example, Ramban maintains that
the commandment to build the Mishkan was given before
'chet ha-egel' despite its thematic similarities to that
event! 

	It should be pointed out that there is a very
simple reason why the Torah is written in thematic order,
which is not necessarily chronological.  Recall that the
Torah (in the form that we received it) was given to us by
Moshe Rabeinu before his death in the fortieth year in the
desert.  [See Devarim 31:24-25.]  When Moshe Rabeinu first
received the laws, he wrote them down in 'megilot'
[scrolls].  However, before his death, he organized all of
the laws that he received, and the various stories that
transpired into the Five Books. 
[See Masechet Megilla 60a, and Rashi on "Megilla megilla
nitna...".  See also Chizkuni on Shmot 34:32!  It's not
clear from these commentators whether God told Moshe
concerning the order by which to put these 'megillot'
together, or if Moshe Rabeinu made those decisions
himself.  However, it would only be logical to assume that
God instructed Moshe Rabeinu in this regard as well.]

	Considering that Chumash, in its final form, was
'composed' in the fortieth year - we can readily
understand why its mitzvot and narratives would be
recorded in a manner that is thematically significant.
Therefore, almost all of the commentators are in constant
search of the deeper meaning of the juxtaposition of
'parshiot' and the order of their presentation.

WHEN DID YITRO COME
	The dispute concerning 'When Yitro came', which we
discussed in the shiur above, 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'.]

	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.





-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: yitro3.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 34353 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20100203/0ff556d0/attachment-0001.pdf