[Par-reg] For 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20150206/3b163896/attachment-0001.html>