[Par-reg] Ekev - questions for self study

[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

 

     Who 'stops' the rain?

  According to Parshat Ekev (and what we
recite every day in

the second 'parshia' of 'kriyat shema'), the
answer is God

Himself.   To better appreciate the Biblical
significance of

rain ['matar'], this week's shiur discusses
the correlation

between Divine Providence and the climate of
the Land of

Israel.

 

INTRODUCTION

     In 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).

 

     So which land is better, and on what do
we base this

comparison?  To answer this question, we take
a closer look at

various 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
'strange' 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" (see

  11:10).

 

     For some reason, Egypt is described as a
land that 'you

water with your feet'?  To appreciate this
rather strange

depiction, and how it forms the basis of
Egypt's comparison to

the land of Israel, we must review a few
basic facts of world

history.

     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 to
water his field,

an Egyptian would open his local irrigation
ditch by simply

kicking away the dirt 'with his foot'.  To
'turn off' the

water supply, he would use his foot once
again to move the

dirt to close the ditch.  [Consider this the
first 'faucet'

system.]

  This background explains why the Torah
describes Egypt as a

land 'watered by your feet' (see 11:10).  In
contrast, the

Torah describes the land of Israel as:

  "The land that you are going now to inherit
is a land of

  hills & valleys, which drinks from the
rains of Heaven"

  (11:11).

 

     In contrast to 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 a

  river, the Jordan - but it is located some
300 meters below

  sea level (in the Jordan Valley), and thus
not very helpful

  to waterthe fields.  In modern times,
Israel has basically

  'solved' this problem by pumping up the
water from the

  Kinneret 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 their
land.

     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,

and hence more clearly a vehicle of God's
will.  Considering

that one's survival in the Land of Israel is
dependent on

rain, and the rain itself is dependent on
God's will, then to

survive in the land of Israel,one must depend
on God - a

dependence which should have a direct affect
on one's level of

Yir't Hashem!

 

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.

 

     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 a trip to 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 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 (and
especially weeds) 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

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 for man to work and keep.  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.

  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 this

spiritual environment,

 

                              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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20130723/0bd1e4b2/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ekevq.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 28389 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20130723/0bd1e4b2/attachment-0001.pdf>