[Par-reg] Parshat Ekev - 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 EKEV

	Could it be that the 'People of Israel' don't
deserve the 'Land of Israel'?
	That seems to be what Moshe Rabeinu thinks, when
he tells Bnei Yisrael in Parshat Ekev:
"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)

    So why does God gifve them the land, nonetheless?
    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.

INTRODUCTION
	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.  
    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). 
    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.] 
    
	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. 
    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.

BETWEEN EGYPT & ISRAEL
	Towards the beginning of Parshat Ekev, the land of
Israel receives what appears to be a very positive
assessment:
"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).
		
	Yet, later in the Parsha, the Torah describes the
land of Egypt as much better:
"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... 
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).

	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).

THE FIRST 'FAUCET'
	We begin our study with the Torah's odd rather
description of how one would water his field in the land
of Egypt:
"For [your] land is not like the land of Egypt... where
you planted your field and watered it with your foot"
(11:10).
 
	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.  
	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.
    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.  
    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.  
    Similarly, by using his foot once again to kick the
dirt to close the ditch - he could 'turn off' the water
supply.  
    This background explains why the Torah describes Egypt
as a land 'watered by your feet' (see 11:10).  

NO RAIN, NO FOOD
    In contrast to Egypt, the Torah describes the land of
Israel as follows:
"The land that you are going now to inherit is a land of
hills & valleys, which drinks from the rains of Heaven"
(11:11).

	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.
[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. ]

	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.
	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!) 
    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?
	To answer these questions, we must re-examine
these psukim in their wider context. 

THREE PARSHIOT RELATING TO THE FEAR OF GOD
	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. 
    Let's begin by taking a quick look at the opening
psukim of that 'parshia', noting how it introduces its
theme very explicitly:
"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).

	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. 
	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?
	To answer this question, we must read the Torah's
conclusion of this comparison (in the final pasuk of our
'parshia'):
"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).

	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.  
    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'.

WHO STOPPED THE RAIN?
	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. 
	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:
"If you obey the commandments... I will grant the rain
(matar) for your land in season... then you shall eat and
be satisfied...
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).

	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. 
 
	So which land is better?
    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'?].
	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.

BACK TO AVRAHAM AVINU
	At the onset of our national history, we find a
very similar comparison between the lands of Egypt and
Israel.
	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. 
    Nevertheless, after their return from Egypt, a quarrel
broke out between them, which ultimately led to Lot's
'rejection' from Avraham's 'chosen family'. 
    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:
"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).
[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.]

	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:
"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).

	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.  
[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).]

 	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). 
	Rashi, commenting on Breishit 13:11, quotes a
Midrash which arrives at a very similar thematic
conclusion:
"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").

	As Rashi alludes to, this quarrel between Avraham
and Lot stemmed from a conflict between two opposite
lifestyles:
*  A life striving for a dependence (and hence a
relationship) with God (=Avraham Avinu);
	*  A life where man prefers to be independent of
God (=Lot).

	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). 

BACK TO THE CREATION
	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:
"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).

	It is rather amazing how this entire account of
Creation begins with a statement that nothing could grow
without "matar" or man!  
    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.). 
    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. 
    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.  

    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']
    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'].
    [See TSC shiur on Parshat Breishit.]
    
	Therefore, this opening pasuk - emphasizing the
relationship between matar and man - must relate in some
manner to the special relationship between man and God.  
    The Midrash (quoted by Rashi), bothered by this
peculiarity, offers a very profound interpretation,
explaining this connection:
"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).

    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. 

FROM HEAVEN TO EARTH
    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. 
[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" ).]

	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'. 
    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.
	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.

A SPECIAL LAND FOR A SPECIAL NATION
	With this in mind, we can return to our original
question. 
	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.]
	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. 
	Considering the goal of the Jewish people, this
'special land' is precisely what they need to help them
achieve their destiny.

						shabbat
shalom,
						menachem

===================
FOR FURTHER IYUN:

A.  Relate the famous Midrash Chazal of 'ein mayim ela
Torah' [- the true water is really the Torah] to the above
shiur.

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.

C.  In the psukim by Lot, the Nile and Jordan rivers are
compared to the rivers of Gan Eden.
1.  Does this indicate that there may be a positive aspect
to the supply of water by a River?
2.  Why should a river be appropriate for Gan Eden, while
rain is more appropriate for Eretz Yisrael?
3.  Relate this to Zecharaya 14:7-9 & Yechezkel 47:1-12!

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.
1.  Relate the nature of this transgression to the above
shiur.
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.
3.  Relate to Kings I 17:1 & 18:21 and context of perek
18!

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. 
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!
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!

F.  The story of chet ha-egel is repeated in chap 9.
1.  In what context is this story now being brought down.
  Relate to 9:4-6, and especially to 'ki am ksheh oref
ata' (9:6).
  Relate also to 9:7
2.  What other examples of this behavior are cited in this
perek?
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.
4.  What is the primary theme of this short 'tochacha'? 

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.
	Based on the context of chapter 9, can you explain
why?



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ekev1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 49456 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20090806/01352a85/attachment-0001.pdf