[Par-reg] For Parshat Ekev

[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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20130724/3a86bf85/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- 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/20130724/3a86bf85/attachment-0001.pdf>