Chronology – Shemot 18 – Forum
Comment by Aryeh Klapper, 12 Shevat, 5772, 9:40 AM (JST):
Rabbi David Salzman and I had been discussing over Shabbat his suggestion that Yitro's advice had led to the unity that Rashi via Targum Y suggests led to Sinai, to which I had responded that at least 19:1-2 were likely resumptive repetition, and therefore acc. to Rashi Yitro cannot be the cause of anything in 19:1 even if he came before matan Torah.
Now I think on your site you attribute "my" position to Josephus and Rav Saadia acc. to Ibn Ezra, and Rabbi Salzman's to a whole host of midrashim, Ramban, Peirush HaRosh, Ibn Caspi, Maasei Hashem, and the Biur.
Other than Ibn Caspi, I'm not immediately convinced any of these latter attributions are compelling. Here's why:
a) Some of them – Peirush HaRosh, Biur – seem so far as I can tell only to say that Yitro came before Mattan Torah.
b) The Midrashim do say "afterward bachodesh hashelishi", but is it clear that they are being precise chronologically, rather than literarily/episodically? Perhaps they mean only that he came before the story of Matan Torah, which begins "bachodesh hashelishi"
c) Ramban seems to me to clearly take a more nuanced chronological position, namely that Yitro came in Refidim but moved with them to Sinai almost immediately, and left while they were at Sinai. This seems to me to fit better with my reading.
d) I'm not sure the section of Maasei Hashem you excerpt is correct, as I couldn't find the relevant line.
If my points about all the others, especially Ramban are valid, it may pay to revisit Ibn Caspi in detail.
Looking forward very much to your reply,
Robert
Rabbi Aryeh Klapper
Dean, The Center for Modern Torah Leadership
www.torahleadership.org
Comment by Hillel Novetsky, 12 Shevat, 5772, 11:39 AM (JST):
As you intuited, one of the major potential benefits of the site is that people will be able to discuss parshanut (both old and new) with each other (that's what the forum buttons are for, but they have not yet been activated), and add/correct/improve etc. So I am really happy that you wrote about this.
Regarding the particulars of chronology, this is a really involved topic, and the mefarshim are almost to a man not explicit on every detail, so it involves considerable reconstruction. I'll do my best to explain what isn't totally explicit on the site, and we'll probably go back and add some explanatory notes.
Peirush HaRosh, like the Pesikta and other Midrashim, maintains that Yitro was not allowed to be present for the revelation, and thus both came and was sent away prior to Mattan Torah. Theoretically, any of them could hold like your/Josephus' suggestion, but they would then encounter the difficulty of fitting in all of the events of Chapter 18 into a couple of days. In the analysis of Josephus, we wrote that Josephus was able to take this position, because he probably didn't date the Decalogue to 6 Sivan (in my opinion, this point is the highlight of the entire chronology topic). For the other exegetes, though, this would be a very difficult hurdle. Combined with the fact that they don't say anything about 19:1-2 being earlier, my inclination would be to assume like we wrote, but I would agree that this isn't completely clear.
Ramban conflates a number of different variations, so it gets complicated reconstructing each individually. In his first option in 18:12 he has at least the first half of the perek before they arrived at Sinai. In 18:1, he says that the rest of the chapter happened in first year, but it's hard to know exactly when (from 24:14, it sounds like the system was in place before 7 Sivan, perhaps earlier before they came to Sinai but it's hard to know for sure). However, you're correct that from first line of 18:1, it sounds like at least 18:27 was after they came to Sinai.
As far as Ma'asei HaShem, he is combatting Abarbanel's split between the advice and implementation. From the line אם כן אין משם ראיה שהיה המנוי אז אחר מ"ת it becomes clear that he is saying it is all before Sinai, rather than all after. Here, too, there is nothing explicit about 19:1-2, so you could still make your claim.
Regarding Biur, this too involves reconstruction. In Bemidbar, he has Yitro leaving the day after he came, and in the discussion in Shemot 18:1 to which he refers, he has this position assuming that Yitro came to Refidim.
In any case, I would very much like to hear more of your thoughts on this issue, others, and suggestions for the site in general, and I look forward to being in touch.
Bivrakhah,
Hillel
Comment by Aryeh Klapper, 12 Shevat, 5772, 4:31 PM (JST):
"Theoretically, any of them could hold like your/Josephus' suggestion, but they would then encounter the difficulty of fitting in all of the events of Chapter 18 into a couple of days."
Ah – I should have focused more on that. An informal poll in shul this morning – "How long did it take from the time of Yitro's arrival until he gave his advice?" got the result "2 days", which matched my sense, based on ויהי ממחרת. Why is your sense different?
Comment by Hillel Novetsky, 12 Shevat, 5772, 5:38 PM (JST):
Shalom again,
There are problems from both ends:
1) From arrival until giving the advice could very well be two days, but unless Moshe just needed to wave his staff, the implementation took much longer. It's quite a system to put into place for a few million people. This is why the Akeidat Yitzchak, Abarbanel, R. D"Z Hoffmann et al. split off the last 4 verses and say that they are just hashlamat ha'inyan. But all the Midrashim and exegetes we are discussing disagree and want to keep the entire chapter together before Ma'amad Har Sinai.
2) The events of Chapter 19 also take time. One can condense them a little more than Chazal, but there still won't be too much of the first six days of Sivan left. So to say like Josephus and still maintain that Maamad Har Sinai was 6 Sivan, Moshe would have to be climbing up and down the mountain a few times, gathering the people and relaying the info. back and forth, at the same time he was also dealing with Yitro and implementing a major organizational reform. Even if one wants to make a case that this is reasonable or possible, it doesn't sound like that is what the midrashim/mefarshim are arguing.
Btw, in footnote 15 we brought some sources.
Thanks for continuing the discussion.
Bivrakhah,
Hillel
Moderator's Comment, 17 Shevat, 5772, 8:40 AM (JST):
Click here to see Rabbi Aryeh's Klapper's synopsis of this discussion and further thoughts on this topic.