[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/20170216/65ad2e5d/attachment-0001.html>