PART I - QUESTIONS FOR THE 'SHABBOS TABLE'
1. The question: 'Why did God choose Am Yisrael?' is quite fundamental. How would answer this question?
How would answer that question based on Devarim 7:1-11, noting especially 7:6-9.
Do these psukim follow the same theme as Sefer Breishit?
How does "brit avot" relate to "brit Sinai" (Shmot 19:4-6)?
Be sure to relate to Breishit 12:1-3 AND its thematic connection with 18:17-19.
Next, review Devarim 4:5-9. Do these psukim contradict the theme in chapter 7, modify them, or complement them?
Now read Devarim 9:4-7. Based on these psukim, would you modify your answer to the opening question? If so, how?
2. 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 find a theme from "chet ha'meraglim" as well? Support your answer by comparing the Shmot chapter 34:1-9 and Bamdibar 14:11-25.
Based on the context of chapter 9, can you explain why?
[Relate to 9:6-7 (closed by 9:24).]
Were "midot ha'rachaim" only for chet ha'egel or do they apply to other situations as well. Would you assume that they would be needed once again when Bnei Yisrael enter the land.
If so, when?
3. Review Shmot 23:20-33, noting when and why these commandments and promises were first given. Then, as you study Parshat Ekev, see if you can uncover any similar passages (actually, note the parallels beginning with 7:1 at the end of Parshat Va'etchanan).
Can you explain the reason for these thematic parallels?
[Relate to when the mitzvot of Sefer Devarim were
first given, and when Bnei Yisrael were first supposed
to enter the land.]
Based on this parallel, attempt to explain the logic behind the progression of Moshe Rabeinu's speech in Parshat Ekev.
4. As you read through Parshat Ekev, note how Moshe seems to be speaking to the generation that went out of Egypt. [Bring examples, note especially 7:15,18-19 & 11:10.]
Note also how Moshe is clearly speaking to the second generation in the fortieth year based on 8:1-2 and its context.
Can you explain why?
[Relate to our introductory shiur on Sefer Devarim.]
PART II - QUESTIONS FOR PREPARATION (for weekly shiur)
1. Read from 10:12 - 11:12. Noting that 11:10-12 is a separate parsha, determine if and how it is connected to the parsha which precedes it (i.e. 10:12 ->11:9).
Is this short parsha (11:10-12) connected to the parsha that follows it (i.e. 10:13-19) as well? If so, how?
If all these parshiot are connected, could you give a general title to all of them? What would that title be?
2. Based on 11:10-12, would you say that the Land of Israel is 'better' or 'worse' than the land of Egypt?
[See parshanut section below for a discussion of the
"rishonim" on this issue.]
3. How do these parshiot relate to the overall theme of the MITZVAH section of the main speech of Sefer Devarim?
How to they relate to the overall topic of the main speech?
How to they relate "yirat Hashem" to the land of Israel?
4. See Breishit 13:1-18, especially 13:8-13. Can you explain why
Lot preferred the area (and climate) of Sdom?
Can you relate this to Devarim 11:10-12?
When Avraham offered Lot "right or left", did he mean east & west; or north & south? [See tirgum Unkelos!!]
What direction is Sdom from where they were standing (note from the beginning of chapter 13 that they are in Bet-el). Does Lot chose one of the 'options' which Avraham gave him?
If so, where would have Avraham gone had Lot chosen the other option?
5. See Breishit 2:4-5, and Rashi on 2:5. How does the Midrash which Rashi quotes to explain this pasuk relate to your answers to the above questions?
Relate also to Rashi on Breishit 13:11 ["va'yisa Lot m'KEDEM"]. What leads Rashi to this conclusion?
Relate also to Breishit 3:24 & 11:2.
6. Note the punishment that Sdom receives in Breishit 19:24. Why are they punished and how?
Attempt to explain why the Torah uses the verb "himtir..."?
In your answer, attempt to relate (once again) to a thematic connection based on Breishit 18:17-19.
PART III - PARSHANUT
1. Read Devarim 11:10-12 (& see question #2 above).
See Rashi, Ramban, Rashbam, and Ibn Ezra.
Note how (and why) each "parshan" offers a different explanation. Can you explain why?
In you opinion, is it necessary to say that they argue with each other?
2. Read 10:6-7. How do these psukim relate to the psukim beforehand (10:1-5) and afterward (10:8-11)?
How does this 'travel account' compare with Bamidbar 33:30-38?
Can you explain the apparent contradiction?
Can you explain what these psukim are doing here?
First see Rashi, how does he solve this problem?
Then see Ramban. Does he argue with Rashi?
If so, on what point?
How is his pirush fundamentally different?
Next, see Rashbam. How does he solve the juxtaposition
problem. Does he 'solve' the same problems that Rashi and Ramban
dealt with. If so, in the same way or a different manner?
Then, see Ibn Ezra, Chizkuni & Seforno. Answer the same
question (above for Rashbam) for each of these parshanim.
3. Read 10:1-5. In your opinion, is the ARON that is described in these psukim the same ARON of the Mishkan (that held the Luchot/ [i.e the ARON described in Shmot 25:10-22)?
[Would this depend on the opinion concerning WHEN the
mitzvah to the build the Mishkan was first given, before or
after chet ha'egel?]
A. First see Rashi on 10:1. How does he answer the above question? What other questions does Rashi answer in his pirush to this pasuk? Can you explain why?
B. Next see Ibn Ezra. Is the first pirush that he quotes identical to Rashi?
In what manner does Ibn Ezra argues with Rashi. Can you explain why? [In what manner does he agree?]
[Note how he introduces this disagreement ("their opinion is WIDER than ours..."). Can you explain what Ibn Ezra is referring to?]
How does Ibn Ezra explain 10:3? Why?
Note how he concludes his pirush to 10:3.
What does "v'hakabblah tnatzeach" imply?
[Why is this important towards appreciating Ibn
Ezra's approach to parshanut?]
In your opinion, what is problematic with the opinion that there were two ARONOT [holy arks]. What problems are solved if
we insist that two indeed existed?
Next, see Ramban. Note how he clearly argues with Rashi. Note how he first present his own pirush, then quotes Rashi, and then explains WHY he disagrees and bases his approach on a different opinion in Mesechet Shekalim. What can we infer from this in regard to Ramban's approach to parshanut and Rashi.
Finally, note at the conclusion of his pirush, Ramban raises the possibility that this may actually be the same ARON that Betzalel made. Make sure that you follow his reasoning, and how it relates to the centrality of the Mishkan in Ramban's famous pirush to Shmot 25:1.
For the 'fun of it', see also Chizkuni to 10:2. Note his explanation for why God commanded Moshe to take an ARON with him specifically for the SECOND Luchot, based on what happened to the FIRST Luchot! Isn't this an amazing pirush?!
SHIUR ON PARASHAT EKEV
Global warming? This summer's 'hot' topic uncovers a direct connection between our climate and mankind's 'physical' behavior. However, according to Parshat Ekev, man's 'spiritual' behavior may also affect our climate - at least in regard to the 'land of Israel'.
To explain why, this week's shiur explores the significance of "matar" (rain) in Chumash.
INTRODUCTION - WHICH LAND IS BETTER?
In the beginning of Parshat Ekev, the land of Israel receives 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, it appears that the land of Egypt may still be 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?
To answer this question, we must take a closer look at this biblical comparison between the Lands of Israel and Egypt.
THE FIRST 'FAUCET'
We begin our study with the Torah's 'strange' description of how one waters his field (in its definition of 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)
Why is Egypt described as a land which 'you water with your feet'? Furthermore, how is specifically this definition significant in relation to this comparison between Egypt and the land of Israel?
As you probably remember from your first class in world history, the ancient civilization of Egypt developed around the Nile Delta. The Egyptians used the Nile River to water their fields by digging irrigation ditches. Therefore, to water one's field in Egypt, one would simply open the irrigation ditch by 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 (basically, you could consider this the first 'faucet' system).]
It is specifically this agricultural aspect of the land of Egypt which the Torah contrasts with the land of Israel:
"...a land of hills & valleys, which drinks from the rains of Heaven." (see 11:11)
In contrast to Egypt, Israel lacks a mighty river such as the Nile. Instead its fields are 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.
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].
[Any responsible family provider would obviously prefer the more secure option of Egyptian agriculture over the 'risky' Israeli alternative.
Note also that even though Israel does have a river, the Jordan - it is located very low down in the Jordan Valley (300 meters below sea level), and thus not very helpful to the water fields. It should be noted that Israel today has basically 'solved' this problem by pumping up the water from Lake Kineret (in the Jordan Valley) into a national water carrier.]
So what's going on? Why is Moshe Rabeinu telling Bnei Yisrael (as they prepare to enter the land!) that the land of Egypt is better than the land of Israel?
To answer this question, we must re-examine these psukim in their wider context.
THREE RELATED 'PARSHIOT'
Take a look in your Chumash (preferably using a Tanach Koren) and note how the psukim which we quoted above (i.e. 11:10-12) form their own 'parshia'. However, this 'parshia' begins with the word "ki" ['for' or 'because'] which obviously connects it thematically to the previous parsha (i.e. 10:12-11:9). [Later we will show how the next 'parshia' (i.e. 11:13-21) is connected as well.]
Therefore, we must first consider the theme of the first 'parshia' and then see how it relates to our topic. Luckily, that theme is very easy to find, for the opening psukim of that 'parshia' introduces the theme very explicitly:
"And now, O Israel, what is it that God demands of you? It is to fear ("yirah") the Lord your God, to walk in his ways and to love Him... Keep, therefore, this entire 'Mitzvah'... that you should conquer the Land..." (see 10:12-14)
Not only does this parshia open with the mitzvah to FEAR God, but as it continues it emphasizes this same point over and over again.
Thus, the theme of our short 'parshia' (11:10-12), where the Torah's compares the land of Israel to Egypt, must somehow be related to the theme of Yirat 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 which falls in the Land of Israel! Hence, in contrast to Egypt where the water supply from the Nile is basically constant, the sporadic water supply in Israel becomes a direct function of God's will. Hence, because 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 increase one's level of Yirat Hashem!
WHO STOPPED THE RAIN?
In other words, the Land of Israel is not better than Egypt, rather it is different for its agriculture is 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 which follows [i.e. "ve'haya im shamoa..." (11:13-21)] follows this same theme, and actually 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" (rain) acts not only as a 'barometer' of Am Yisrael's faithfulness to God, but also as a vehicle of divine retribution. Through the "matar", God 'communicates' with His nation in their special land; rainfall, at the proper time, should be considered a divine reward for national 'good behavior', while a drought (the holding back of "matar") should be understood as a sign of divine anger.
So which land is better? The answer simply depends on what one is looking for. 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 (i.e. "chutz la'aretz").
BACK TO AVRAHAM AVINU
At the onset of our national history, we find this very same comparison between the lands of Egypt and Israel.
Recall, that when Avraham Avinu first 'made aliya', he traveled together with his nephew Lot. As Avraham was childless and Lot had lost his father, Lot was most probably considered Avraham's natural successor. Yet, 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'. In the Torah's description of that quarrel, note how a similar theme (connected to "matar") emerges:
"And Avraham said to Lot, let there not be a quarrel between us... if you go to the left [north], i'll go to the right [south] & visa 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 Tirgum Unkelos which translate right & left as 'south' or 'north' (see also Sforno). 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" (South) or "Shomron" (North). To our surprise, Lot chooses neither option!. He decides to divorce himself from Avraham Avinu altogether, choosing the Jordan Valley instead. Note how Lot's decision to 'go east' relates to his most recent experience in Egypt:
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)
Lot, after his brief visit to Egypt, could no longer endure the hard life in the 'hills and valleys' of the central mountain range of the Land of Israel. He opted for the more secure lifestyle by the banks of the Jordan River, similar to the secure lifestyle in Egypt by the banks of the Nile River. [The reference in the above pasuk to the "Garden of the Lord", Gan Eden, also relates to its four rivers, i.e. to its abundance of water.]
Lot departs towards Sdom for the 'good life', while Avraham Avinu remains in Bet El, at the heart of the Land of Israel (13:14-16, see also previous shiur Matot/Masei).
Note how Rashi (on Br.13:11) quotes a Midrash which arrives at this very same conclusion:
"Va'yisa Lot mi-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").
Thus, once could understand this quarrel between Avraham and Lot as reflective of a conflict between two opposite lifestyles:
A) A life striving for a dependence (and hence a relationship) with God (=Avraham Avinu);
B) A life 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
Just as we found this concept at the onset of our own national history, so we find a similar concept at the onset of the history of all mankind.
Recall how the Gan Eden narrative (2:4-3:24) opens with a statement concerning "matar" (rain) in a similar context:
"...When Hashem made heaven and earth... 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)
At first glance, this statement appears to contradict earlier psukim (in the first account of Creation [="perek aleph"] which tell us that water was everywhere (even though rain itself was never mentioned). Furthermore, we all know that shrubs and grains grow very nicely even without man's help. Yet, according to this second account of Creation it appears as though nothing could grow without "matar" (rain) and without man.
Without going into all the details of the comparison between 'perek aleph' and 'perek bet' in the story of Creation (see shiur on Parshat Breishit), we will simply note our conclusion that 'perek bet' focuses on the special relationship in the Creation between man and God, as reflected in the Gan Eden narrative ("olam ha'hitgalut" b'shem "Ha'vaya"), while 'perek aleph' focuses on the creation of all 'nature' in seven days ("olam ha'teva" b'shem "Elokim").
Thus, according to the Torah's second account of Creation, i.e. from the perspective of man's relationship with God, "matar" (rain) and "adam" (man) emerge as the two essential ingredients for all growth and development. The concept of "matar" emerges as more than just a source of water, but more so as a symbol of any connection between the heavens and earth, i.e. between God and man.
Once again, Rashi cites a Midrash on this pasuk which alludes to this same concept:
"ki lo himtir...": And why had it not yet rained? ... because "adam ayin la'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)
In the ideal spiritual environment, as reflected in the Land of Israel, "matar" serves as a vehicle by which Am Yisrael can perfect their relationship with God.
QUESTIONS FOR FURTHER IYUN
A. The word "matar" appears many other times in Chumash, note its use in each and relate it to the above shiur. For example:
1. By the Flood, Breishit 7:4-5
2. By the punishment of Sdom, Breishit 19:24!
3. By the manna, "hineni mamtir lachem lechem min hashamayim" /see Shmot 16:4 and its context.
(that should keep you busy)
B. Throughout the time period of the Shoftim, and even during the time period of the First Monarchy, many Israelites worshipped the 'Ba'al' - the Cannanite rain god.
1. Relate the nature of this transgression to the above shiur.
2. Relate this to the mishnayot of mesechet 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!
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. In last week's shiur we noted that the "Mitzvah" 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 Rabeinu.
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!
E. 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 kshe 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'?
F. 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 the Shmot chapter 34:1-9 and Bamdibar 14:11-25.
Based on the context of chapter 9, can you explain why?
G. Relate the famous Midrash Chazal of "ain mayim elah Torah" [- the true water is really the Torah] to the above shiur.
For more articles by Rav Menachem Leibtag, visit his web site, www.tanach.org
