[Par-reg] For Parshat Yitro - shiur #1

[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 - Intro to 2nd half of Sefer Shmot

 

     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,
Chumash

records the mitzvot in a very special manner.  In each of
our

shiurim from Parshat Yitro until Parshat Pekudei, our
study of

the sequence and progression of the mitzvot will be no
less

significant than the study of the mitzvot themselves!

 

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 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, the first step in our study will be 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 (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 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

taught the people 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 this week's regular Parsha shiur (sent out
yesterday),

we discuss in greater detail the events that transpire in

chapter 19.

 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: yitro1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 56011 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20110119/098437f8/attachment-0001.pdf