<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16481" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2>*************************************************************<BR>
THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]<BR> In Memory of
Rabbi Abraham Leibtag<BR> Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem
Leibtag<BR>*************************************************************</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>PARSHAT EKEV</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Could it be that the 'People of Israel' don't
deserve the 'Land of Israel'?<BR> That seems to be what Moshe Rabeinu
thinks, when he tells Bnei Yisrael in Parshat Ekev:<BR>"You should know that it
is not because of your own righteousness that God is giving you this good land
to inherit; for you are a stiff-necked people. (see Devarim 9:6)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> So why does God give them the
land, nonetheless?<BR> As Parshat Ekev discusses both how
'good' the land is (in chapter 8), and how 'bad' the people are (in chapter 9),
this week's shiur will examine one of the reasons for why the Land of Israel was
chosen for the People of Israel.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>INTRODUCTION<BR> It only makes sense that
Parshat Ekev would discuss the importance of the Land of Israel, for it begins
in the middle of Moshe Rabeinu's final speech to Bnei Yisrael, as they prepare
to enter that Land – to establish God's special nation.
<BR> For example, the Sedra begins as Moshe promises Bnei
Yisrael that should they keep God's laws (that he is about to teach them), then
God will reciprocate by blessing the land, its produce, and the overall state of
the nation (see 7:12-26). <BR> However, Moshe Rabeinu is also
quite aware how life in the land of Israel will be very different than life in
the desert. Therefore, he continues his speech by ensuring them that just
as God had cared for their physical needs –in a miraculous manner - during the
forty years in the desert (see 8:1-6), He will continue to provide their needs
in the land of Israel, but now through natural means – but only on the condition
that they follow His laws! [See 8:7-20.] <BR> <BR> To
emphasize the conditional nature of these promises, Moshe Rabeinu then continues
(in chapters 9 thru 11) to remind Bnei Yisrael of how God had consistantly
punished them for their terrible deeds during the last forty years in the
desert. However, in between the lines of this harsh rebuke, we find
several references to the importance of the land of Israel.
<BR> In the following shiur, we will study those references in
relation to the theme of covenant in Sefer Devarim – to show how the Land plays
a key role in the unfolding relationship between God and His
people.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>BETWEEN EGYPT & ISRAEL<BR> Towards the
beginning of Parshat Ekev, the land of Israel receives what appears to be a very
positive assessment:<BR>"For the Lord your God is bringing you into a good
land... a land of wheat and barley (...the 7 species) ...a land which lacks
nothing..." (8:7-9).<BR> <BR> Yet, later in the Parsha, the
Torah describes the land of Egypt as much better:<BR>"For the land which you are
about to conquer is not like the land of Egypt, from which you have come, where
when you planted your field you watered it with your foot... <BR>The Land which
you are about to conquer, a land of hills and valleys, receives its water from
the rains (matar) of the heavens" (11:10-11).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> To understand the purpose of this comparison,
let's take a closer look at this pasuk (as well as other instances where the
Torah compares the Lands of Israel to the Land of Egypt).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>THE FIRST 'FAUCET'<BR> We begin our study with
the Torah's odd rather description of how one would water his field in the land
of Egypt:<BR>"For [your] land is not like the land of Egypt... where you planted
your field and watered it with your foot" (11:10).<BR> <BR> For some
reason, Egypt is described as a land that 'you water with your feet'? To
appreciate this strange depiction, and how it forms the basis of Egypt's
comparison to the land of Israel, we must consider how rivers affected the
development of civilizations. <BR> In ancient times, civilizations
developed along major rivers, as they provided not only a means of
transportation, but also the necessary water for agriculture and
consumption.<BR> If was for this reason that Egypt (developing
along the Nile) and Mesopotamia (developing along the Tigris and Euphrates)
became two of the greatest centers of ancient civilization.
<BR> To enhance their agriculture, the Egyptians developed a
sophisticated irrigation system by digging ditches from the Nile to their
fields. Using this system, an Egyptian could water his field by simply
kicking away the dirt [blocking the irrigation ditch] 'with his foot', thus
starting the water flow. <BR> Similarly, by using his
foot once again to kick the dirt to close the ditch - he could 'turn off' the
water supply. <BR> This background explains why the
Torah describes Egypt as a land 'watered by your feet' (see 11:10).
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>NO RAIN, NO FOOD<BR> In contrast
to Egypt, the Torah describes the land of Israel as follows:<BR>"The land that
you are going now to inherit is a land of hills & valleys, which drinks from
the rains of Heaven" (11:11).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Unlike Egypt, Israel lacks a mighty river
such as the Nile to provide it with a consistent supply of water. Instead,
the agriculture in the Land of Israel is totally dependent on rainfall.
Therefore, when it does rain, the fields are watered 'automatically'; however,
when it does not rain, nothing will grow for the crops will dry out.<BR>[It
should be noted that even though Israel does have the Jordan River - it really
doesn't help because it is located some 300 meters below sea level (in the
Jordan Valley), and thus not very helpful for watering the fields. In
modern times, Israel has basically 'solved' this problem by pumping up the water
from the Kineret into a national water carrier. ]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Hence, even though the land of Israel may
have a slight advantage over Egypt when it does rain [see Rashi 11:10], from an
agricultural perspective the land of Egypt has a clear advantage [see Ramban
11:10]. Furthermore, any responsible family provider would obviously
prefer the 'secure' option - to establish his home in Egypt, instead of opting
for the 'risky' Israeli alternative.<BR> So why is the Torah going out of
its way to tell us that Egypt is better than Israel, especially in the same
Parsha where the Torah first tells us how Israel is a 'great' land, missing
nothing! (See 8:9!) <BR> Furthermore, why would Moshe
Rabbeinu mention this point to Bnei Yisrael specifically at this time, as they
prepare to enter the land? Is he trying to discourage them?<BR> To
answer these questions, we must re-examine these psukim in their wider context.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>THREE PARSHIOT RELATING TO THE FEAR OF
GOD<BR> Using a Tanach Koren (or similar Chumash), take a look at the
psukim that we have just quoted (i.e. 11:10-12), noting how these three psukim
form their own 'parshia'. Note however how this short 'parshia' begins
with the word 'ki' - 'for' or 'because' - which obviously connects it
thematically to the previous parshia:10:12->11:9. Therefore, we must
first consider the theme of this preceding 'parshia' and then see how it relates
to our topic. <BR> Let's begin by taking a quick look at the
opening psukim of that 'parshia', noting how it introduces its theme very
explicitly:<BR>"And now, O Israel, what is it that God demands of you? It is to
fear ('yir'a') the Lord your God, to walk in his ways and to love Him... Keep,
therefore, this entire 'mitzva'... that you should conquer the Land..." (see
10:12-14).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> As you continue to read this parshia (thru
11:9), you'll also notice how this topic or the 'fear of God' continues, as it
is emphasized over and over again. <BR> Hence, the theme of our short
'parshia' (11:10-12), where the Torah compares the land of Israel to Egypt, must
somehow be related to the theme of "yir'at Hashem" [fearing God]. But what
does the water source of a country have to do with the fear of God?<BR> To
answer this question, we must read the Torah's conclusion of this comparison (in
the final pasuk of our 'parshia'):<BR>"It is a land which the Lord your God
looks after ('doresh otah'), on which Hashem always keeps His eye, from the
beginning of the year to the end of the year" (11:12).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> This pasuk informs us that God Himself takes
direct control over the rain that falls in the Land of Israel! In contrast
to Egypt where the water supply from the Nile is basically constant, the water
supply in Israel is sporadic. Even though one may conclude that the
erratic nature of the rainfall is totally by chance, Chumash tells us that God
controls it - and hence it becomes a vehicle of God's will.
<BR> The realization of this correlation will certainly affect
a person's fear of God - for his survival is dependent on rain, and the rain
itself is dependent on God's will. This explains the thematic relationship
between these two 'parshiot'.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>WHO STOPPED THE RAIN?<BR> In this manner, the
Land of Israel is not 'better' than Egypt; rather it is different - for its
agriculture is more clearly dependent on the abundance of rain. A good
rainy season will bring plenty, while a lack of rain will yield drought and
famine. Hence, living in a land with this type of 'touchy' rainy season,
dependent on God's will, should reinforce one's fear of God. <BR> The next
'parshia' [i.e. ve-haya im shamo'a...' (11:13-21), the second parshia of daily
'kriyat shema'] not only supports this theme, it forms its logical
conclusion:<BR>"If you obey the commandments... I will grant the rain (matar)
for your land in season... then you shall eat and be satisfied...<BR>Be careful,
lest you be lured after other gods... for Hashem will be angry ... and He will
shut up the skies and there will be no rain (matar)..." (see
11:13-16).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Thus, according to Sefer Devarim, the "matar"
that falls in the land of Israel acts not only as a 'barometer' of Am Yisrael's
faithfulness to God, but also serves as a vehicle of divine retribution.
God will use this matar to 'communicate' with His nation. Rainfall, at the
proper time, becomes a sign that is pleased with our 'national behavior', while
drought (i.e. holding back the matar) becomes a sign of divine anger - and a
reason for self-examination and repentance. <BR> <BR> So which land is
better?<BR> The answer simply depends on what one is looking
for in life. An individual striving for a closer relationship with God
would obviously prefer the Land of Israel, while an individual wary of such
direct dependence on God would obviously opt for the more secure life in Egypt
['chutz la-aretz'?].<BR> To support this interpretation, we will now show
how the connection between "matar" and Divine Providence had already emerged as
a Biblical theme back in Sefer Breishit.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>BACK TO AVRAHAM AVINU<BR> At the onset of our
national history, we find a very similar comparison between the lands of Egypt
and Israel.<BR> Recall, that when God first chose Avraham Avinu, commanding
him to uproot his family from Mesopotamia and travel to the land of Canaan (see
12:1-3), his nephew Lot was consistently mentioned as Avraham's 'travel partner'
(see 12:4-6 & 13:1-2). As Avraham was childless and Lot had lost his
father, it would only be logical for Avraham to assume that Lot would become his
successor. <BR> Nevertheless, after their return from Egypt, a
quarrel broke out between them, which ultimately led to Lot's 'rejection' from
Avraham's 'chosen family'. <BR> One could suggest that the
Torah's description of these events relates directly to this same Biblical theme
of "matar". To show how, let's begin with the Torah's description of that
quarrel:<BR>"And Avraham said to Lot, let there not be a quarrel between us...
if you go to the right [=south], I'll go to the left [=north] (& vice
versa)..." (see Breishit 13:8-9).<BR>[Note that Avraham suggested that Lot
choose either North or South (13:8-9), not East or West as is often
assumed! See Targum Unkelos which translate right & left as 'south' or
'north' (see also Seforno). Throughout Chumash 'yemin' always refers to
the south, kedem - east, etc.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> In other words, Avraham Avinu, standing in
Bet El (see 13:3), is offering Lot a choice between the mountain ranges of
'Yehuda' (to the south) or the hills of the 'Shomron' (to the north). To
our surprise, Lot chooses neither option! Instead, Lot prefers to divorce
himself from Avraham Avinu altogether, choosing the Jordan Valley instead.
Note, however, the connection between Lot's decision to 'go east' and his most
recent experience in Egypt:<BR>"Then Lot lifted up his eyes and saw the whole
plain of Jordan, for it was all well watered (by the Jordan River)... just like
the Garden of the Lord, like the land of Egypt..." (13:10-12).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> After his brief visit to Egypt (as described
at the end of chapter 12), it seems as though Lot could no longer endure the
hard life in the 'hills and valleys' of the Land of Israel. Instead, Lot
opts for a more secure lifestyle along the banks of the Jordan River, similar to
the secure lifestyle in Egypt by the banks of the Nile River. <BR>[Note
especially how the Torah (in the above pasuk) connects between this river valley
and the 'Garden of the Lord', i.e. Gan Eden (for it was set along four rivers,
see Breishit 2:9-14).]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Lot departs towards Sdom for the 'good
life', while Avraham Avinu remains in Bet El, at the heart of the Land of Israel
(see 13:14-16, see also previous TSC shiur on Matot / Mas'ei). <BR> Rashi,
commenting on Breishit 13:11, quotes a Midrash which arrives at a very similar
thematic conclusion:<BR>"Va-yisa Lot mi-kedem... [Lot traveled from kedem] - He
traveled away from He who began the Creation ('kadmono shel olam'), saying, I
can no longer endure being with Avraham nor with his God" ("iy efshi, lo
be-Avraham, ve-lo be-Elokav").</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> As Rashi alludes to, this quarrel between
Avraham and Lot stemmed from a conflict between two opposite
lifestyles:<BR>* A life striving for a dependence (and hence a
relationship) with God (=Avraham Avinu);<BR> * A life where man
prefers to be independent of God (=Lot).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> The path chosen by Avraham Avinu leads to
'Bet El' - the house of God, while the path chosen by Lot leads to 'Sdom'- the
city of corruption (see 13:12-13). </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>BACK TO THE CREATION<BR> This Biblical theme
of "matar" is so fundamental, that it actually begins at the time of
Creation! Recall how the Gan Eden narrative (i.e. Breishit 2:4-3:24) opens
with a very peculiar statement in regard to matar:<BR>"These are the generations
of Heavens and Earth from their Creation... And no shrub of the field had
yet grown in the land and no grains had yet sprouted, because Hashem had not yet
sent rain [matar] on the land, nor was there man to work the field..." (Breishit
2:4-5).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> It is rather amazing how this entire account
of Creation begins with a statement that nothing could grow without "matar" or
man! <BR> Furthermore, this very statement is rather
odd, for it appears to contradict what was stated earlier (in the first account
of Creation [= 'perek aleph'] which implies that water was just about everywhere
(see1:2,6,9 etc.). <BR> Finally, this very statement that man
is needed for vegetation to grow seems to contradict what we see in
nature. As we all know shrubs and trees seem to grow very nicely even
without man's help. Yet, according to this opening pasuk of the second
account of Creation - nothing could grow without this combination of "matar" and
man. <BR> Nonetheless, Chumash emphasizes in this opening
statement that both man and matar are key factors in the forthcoming story of
creation. To appreciate why, we must first very briefly review our
conclusions in regard to the comparison between the two accounts in Sefer
Breishit. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> The first account [perek aleph]
focused on God's creation of all 'nature' in seven days. God's Name -
'Elokim' - reflected its key point that all powers of nature - that appear to
stem from the powers of various gods - are truly the Creation of the one
God. To remind ourselves of this key point, we are commanded to refrain
from all creativity once every seven days. ['olam
ha-teva']<BR> In contrast, the second account ['perek bet'] -
focused on the special relationship between man and his Creator, as reflected in
its special environment - Gan Eden - created by God, where man would serve Him
["l'ovdo u'l'shomro"]. In that environment, man is responsible to follow
God's laws, and His Name ['shem Havaya'] reflects His presence and involvement
['olam ha-hitgalut'].<BR> [See TSC shiur on Parshat
Breishit.]<BR> <BR> Therefore, this opening pasuk -
emphasizing the relationship between matar and man - must relate in some manner
to the special relationship between man and God. <BR>
The Midrash (quoted by Rashi), bothered by this peculiarity, offers a very
profound interpretation, explaining this connection:<BR>"ki lo himtir...' And
why had it not yet rained? ... because "adam ayin a'avod et ha-adama", for man
had not yet been created to work the field, and thus no one had yet recognized
the significance of rain. And when man was created and recognized their
importance, he prayed for rain. Then the rain fell and the trees and the
grass grew..." (see Rashi 2:5).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> This interpretation reflects the
very same theme that emerged in our discussion of matar in Parshat Ekev.
According to this Rashi, God created man towards the purpose that he recognize
God and His Creations. From this perspective, matar emerges as a vehicle
to facilitate that recognition. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>FROM HEAVEN TO EARTH<BR> The
reason for this may stem from the very meaning of the word matar. Note
that matar does not mean only 'rain'. Rather, the 'shoresh' - 'lehamtir' -
relates to anything that falls from heaven to earth. Rain is the classic
example; but even 'bread' or 'fire', when they fall from heaven, are described
by the Bible as matar. <BR>[In regard to bread, see Breishit 19:24 re: the story
of Sedom, "Ve-Hashem himtir al Sedom gofrit va-eish min ha-shamayim". In
relation to fire coming from heaven, see Shmot 16:4 re: the manna: "hineni
mamtir lachem lechem min ha-shamayim" ).]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> When man contemplates Creation, there may
appear to be an unbridgeable gap between 'heaven' and 'earth'. Man must
overcome that gap, raising his goals from the 'earthly' to the 'heavenly'.
In this context, matar - a physical proof that something in heaven can come down
to earth - may symbolize man's potential (and purpose) to bridge that gap in the
opposite direction, i.e. from 'earthly' to 'heavenly'. <BR>
Hence, Biblical matar emerges as more than just a type of water, but more so as
a symbol of a potential connection between the heavens and earth, and hence
between God and man.<BR> In the special spiritual environment created by
the climate of the Land of Israel, as described in Parshat Ekev, matar serves as
a vehicle by which Am Yisrael can perfect their relationship with God.
Even though others lands may carry a better potential for prosperity, the Land
of Israel becomes an 'ideal' environment for the growth of the People of Israel
- a nation chosen to serve their Creator.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>A SPECIAL LAND FOR A SPECIAL NATION<BR> With
this in mind, we can return to our original question. <BR> The fact that
Moshe rebukes the nation, telling them that they don't 'deserve' the land - does
not mean that they should not inherit the land. Am Yisrael was not chosen
to be God's nation - because they were a great people; but rather in order to
become a great people! [See Devarim 4:5-8.]<BR> Similarly, the land
of Israel was not chosen because it had the best climate; rather it was chosen
for its special climate could serve as a vehicle that would enhance Am Yisrael's
fear of God - and thus enable them to serve Him in a better manner.
<BR> Considering the goal of the Jewish people, this 'special land' is
precisely what they need to help them achieve their destiny.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> shabbat
shalom,<BR> menachem</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>===================<BR>FOR FURTHER
IYUN:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>A. Relate the famous Midrash Chazal of 'ein
mayim ela Torah' [- the true water is really the Torah] to the above
shiur.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>B. Note how the word matar appears in
relation to the Flood in Breishit 7:4-5. Based on the above shiur and our
shiur on 'perek aleph & bet' (on Parshat Breishit), attempt to explain
why.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>C. In the psukim by Lot, the Nile and Jordan
rivers are compared to the rivers of Gan Eden.<BR>1. Does this indicate
that there may be a positive aspect to the supply of water by a
River?<BR>2. Why should a river be appropriate for Gan Eden, while rain is
more appropriate for Eretz Yisrael?<BR>3. Relate this to Zecharaya 14:7-9
& Yechezkel 47:1-12!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>D. Throughout the time period of the Shoftim,
and even during the time period of the First Monarchy, many Israelites
worshipped the 'Ba'al' - the Canaanite rain god.<BR>1. Relate the nature
of this transgression to the above shiur.<BR>2. Relate this to the
mishnayot of Masechet Ta'anit, which requires national fast days should rain not
fall in sufficient quantities early in the rainy season.<BR>3. Relate to
Kings I 17:1 & 18:21 and context of perek 18!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>E. In last week's shiur we noted that the
'mitzva' section of the main speech includes 'mitzvot' given originally during
Ma'amad Har Sinai, as well as 'tochachot' added in the 40th year by Moshe
Rabbeinu. <BR>1. Show textually why from 8:1 till 10:11 must be an
'addition' of the 40th year, while 6:4-7:26 is most likely 'original'!
Prove your answer. Use Shmot 23:20-33 in your proof!<BR>2.
10:12-11:21. Would you say that these parshiot are also 'additions' or
originals, or possibly a combination. Support your answer, and relate it
to the above shiur!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>F. The story of chet ha-egel is repeated in
chap 9.<BR>1. In what context is this story now being brought
down.<BR> Relate to 9:4-6, and especially to 'ki am ksheh oref ata'
(9:6).<BR> Relate also to 9:7<BR>2. What other examples of this
behavior are cited in this perek?<BR>3. Based on this observation, explain
why the story about chet ha-egel is broken up in the middle by psukim 9:22-23,
and later by 10:6-9.<BR>4. What is the primary theme of this short
'tochacha'? </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>G. Read 9:25-29 carefully. Is this
simply a review of Moshe's request that God invoke His 'midot ha-rachamim" after
the incident of chet ha-egel, or do you find a theme from 'chet ha-meraglim' as
well? Support your answer by comparing Shmot chapter 34:1-9 and Bamidbar
14:11-25.<BR> Based on the context of chapter 9, can you explain
why?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><BR></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>