[Par-reg] Ekev, trying again

[Menachem Leibtag]

  The TSC Shiurim for Parshat Ekev are dedicated by:
   Vic Mellon and Dr. Chavee Lerer -
 in honor of the Bat Mitzva of their daughter Yael Tzipporah

*************************************************************
        THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
		In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
	Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
*************************************************************

               for 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 give 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
	Parshat Ekev begins as Moshe promises Bnei Yisrael
that should they keep God's laws (that he is now 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). 
    In light of that theme, Moshe Rabeinu continues his speech
by reminding the nation of how [and why] God had cared for
their physical needs during the forty years in the desert (see
8:1-6).  Afterward, he explains how God will continue to
provide for them in the land of Israel, but now through
natural means (instead of miracles) - but once again, only on
the condition that they follow His laws (see 8:7-20). 
	In this context, and in his harsh rebuke that
continues in chapters nine thru eleven, we find several
references to the importance of the land of Israel.  As we
study those references, we'll see how they relate to theme of
covenant in Sefer Devarim, and the relationship between God
and His nation.

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, 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).

	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