Surf A Little Torah
Yeshivat Har Etzion

PARASHAT EKEV

By Rav David Silverberg

 MOTZAEI

            The Torah in Parashat Eikev introduces the obligation of birkat ha-mazon, to recite a series of berakhot after eating a meal: "And you shall eat and be satiated – and you shall [then] bless the Lord your God for the good land that He has given you" (8:10).

            The Gemara in Masekhet Berakhot (48b) establishes that this mitzva forms the basis of two other obligations: the requirement of berakha rishona – to recite a berakha before eating – and birkat ha-Torah – to recite a berakha before learning Torah each day.  If the Torah requires reciting a berakha upon achieving satiation, the Gemara reasons, then certainly one must recite a blessing when he still experiences hunger, before he proceeds to eat.  Likewise, the Gemara later comments, if we are obligated to recite a berakha over "chayei sha'a" ("temporary life"), our physical sustenance, then all the more so must we offer a blessing to God for "chayei olam" ("eternal life"), the study of Torah through which we earn our spiritual eternity.

            Earlier in Masekhet Berakhot (21a), however, the Gemara reaches a different conclusion, namely, that the obligation of berakha rishona does not originate from the Torah, and was rather enacted by the Sages.  (The Gemara's conclusion regarding the origin of birkat ha-Torah is unclear, and this point is subject to a famous debate between the Rambam and the Ramban.)  The Gemara does not, however, explain the rational basis for this conclusion and why the aforementioned line of reasoning is flawed.

            The Meshekh Chokhma (here in Parashat Eikev) explains that the Gemara's discussion hinges on the fundamental nature and function of birkat ha-mazon.  Instinctively, we would likely understand this obligation as an expression of hakarat ha-tov, our debt of gratitude to the Almighty for providing us with food and (perhaps primarily) for the Land of Israel ("for the good land that He has given you").  If so, then indeed, as the Gemara claims, it stands to reason that this obligation can be logically extended to berakha rishona and birkat ha-Torah.  It could be certainly be argued that a person who feels hungry and sits down to a meal bears a greater obligation to express gratitude than one who has just completed his meal.  Similarly, given that the Torah helps guarantee a person's eternal share in the next world, as opposed to food, which sustains life only temporarily, we would naturally conclude upon an obligation to express gratitude over the Torah on the basis of the mitzva of birkat ha-mazon.

            However, the Meshekh Chokhma claims, hakarat ha-tov is not the primary purpose of birkat ha-mazon.  The Torah very clearly expresses the fundamental purpose of this mitzva in the verses that immediately follow the presentation of the obligation to recite a berakha after meals:

Be careful lest you forget the Lord your God…lest you eat and be satiated and build nice homes and reside [in them], and your cattle and sheep increase and you amass much silver and gold…and your heart shall become haughty and you will forget the Lord your God who has taken you from the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage, who has led you through the great, fearsome desert – snakes, serpents, scorpions and thirst, with no water…who has fed you manna in the desert…and you shall say to yourself: It is my strength and the power of my hand that has earned me all this wealth.  You shall remember the Lord your God – for it is He who gives you the strength to earn wealth… (8:11-18)

Birkat ha-mazon serves not as an expression of gratitude, but, perhaps more profoundly, as a means of crediting God – rather than oneself – for his ability to eat and to sustain himself.  Saying "Thank you" does not necessarily express one's acknowledgment that He could not have earned his livelihood without the Almighty's assistance.  Birkat ha-mazon is much more than "Thank you"; it is a statement that "it is He who gives you the strength to earn wealth," that our efforts to secure a livelihood are successful only due to His assistance.

            Accordingly, the Meshekh Chokhma explains, birkat ha-mazon does not provide a rational basis for the obligations of berakha rishona and birkat ha-Torah.  The risk of "kochi ve-otzem yadi," that a person will attribute his fortune and success to his own efforts and talents, presents itself more acutely after a person has eaten his fill and experiences the gratifying feeling of contentment and satiation.  Therefore, an obligation of birkat ha-mazon does not necessarily invite a parallel obligation of berakha rishona.  Nor can birkat ha-mazon establish a precedent for a requirement to recite a berakha after studying Torah.  The experience of studying Torah is itself the greatest prevention for the feeling of arrogance and self-sufficiency, and the sense of independent capability to learn and comprehend.  Engagement in Torah should instill within the student a humble recognition of his dependence on God for wisdom and insight, such that he will not come to attribute his success solely to his own efforts and brilliance.  (The obligation to recite a berakha before studying Torah, the Meshekh Chokhma writes, is indeed intended for this purpose – to ensure that one approaches Torah with the proper mindset, with the recognition that his ability to understand has been endowed by God.)

SUNDAY

            As we mentioned yesterday, the Torah in Parashat Eikev introduces the obligation of birkat ha-mazon.  Rabbi Akiva Eiger, in his notes to the Shulchan Arukh (O.C. 186), raises an interesting question – that has been addressed in one variety or another in several halakhic contexts – regarding a child who becomes a bar mitzva shortly after eating a meal and reciting birkat ha-mazon.  Meaning, a young man partakes of a meal with bread shortly before sundown on the evening of his thirteenth birthday, and recites birkat ha-mazon.  The question thus arises as to whether he must repeat birkat ha-mazon if night falls within the period in which the birkat ha-mazon obligation applies.  Halakha requires one who ate a meal to recite birkat ha-mazon within the period known as ikul, "digestion," which is generally assumed to be a bit over an hour.  Possibly, then, when night falls and the child becomes a bar-mitzva, since the food has yet to be digested he now bears a Torah obligation of birkat ha-mazon.  Although he had recited birkat ha-mazon, he did so as a minor, at which point he was not yet included in the Torah obligation.  That recitation, then, perhaps cannot suffice to satisfy the Torah obligation that takes effect the moment he becomes an "adult" as defined by Halakha.  Rabbi Akiva Eiger leaves this question unresolved.

            Rav Tzvi Adlerstein, in his Hod Tzevi (siman 1, as cited in Rav Daniel Feldman's Bina Bi-sfarim, vol. 3, pp. 103-4), contends that the boy would not be required to repeat birkat ha-mazon in such a case.  Although the time-frame of birkat ha-mazon extends until after the period of ikul, the mechayev – that which effectuates the obligation – is not the process of digestion, but rather the act of eating.  The period of digestion constitutes the time-frame in which the obligation must be fulfilled; the experience of ikul does not trigger the obligation, but rather forms the duration of the mitzva's applicability.  Hence, if at the time of consumption the individual did not bear the Torah obligation of birkat ha-mazon, it stands to reason that he is not required to recite birkat ha-mazon even if he becomes subject to the Torah obligation within the period of ikul.  This is also the ruling of the Chazon Ish (hilkhot berakhot, 28:5).

            A similar question was addressed by the halakhic authorities concerning the case of an onein, Heaven forbid, one who lost an immediate relative who has yet to be buried.  Halakha exempts an onein from all mitzvot asei (affirmative commands), including birkat ha-mazon, until the burial.  The question thus arises as to whether an onein must recite birkat ha-mazon if he had eaten a meal just before the burial and the burial was completed within the period of ikul.  The Pitchei Teshuva (Y.D. 341:5) cites the author of the Netivot (Rabbi Yaakov of Lissa, 1759-1832) as ruling that the onein would, in fact, be required to repeat birkat ha-mazon in such a case.  According to the aforementioned approach of the Hod Tzevi, however, we might argue otherwise.  Since the onein bore no obligation with respect to birkat ha-mazon when he partook of his meal, he remains exempt from this mitzva even after the burial.

            Rav Ovadya Yosef, however, in his Yabia Omer (vol. 3, O.C. 27), suggests the possibility of distinguishing in this regard between the cases of the child becoming a bar mitzva and of an onein.  It could be argued, Rav Ovadya writes, that an onein – unlike a minor – in principle bears an obligation to recite birkat ha-mazon and only as a practical matter is given an exemption so that he could properly tend to the relative's burial needs.  Whereas a minor is excluded altogether from mitzva obligation, the onein is obligated in mitzva observance but receives a practical exemption.  Accordingly, one might contend that an onein must, indeed, recite birkat ha-mazon after the burial if the period of ikul has not elapsed.  However, Rav Ovadya then cites a comment of the Rosh (end of Masekhet Ta'anit) from which it emerges clearly that an onein is given a complete exemption from mitzva observance, in which case he should not recite birkat ha-mazon after the burial, as we said above concerning the case of the bar mitzva.  As for the final halakha, Rav Ovadya rules that an onein in such a case does not recite birkat ha-mazon (Yalkut Yosef, vol. 7, p. 51), whereas Rav Chayim Pinchas Scheinberg (Mishmeret Chayim, p. 34) rules that an onein is required to recite birkat ha-mazon after the burial, if the period of ikul has not passed.

MONDAY

            In the opening verse of Parashat Eikev, Moshe promises that "eikev tishme'un eit ha-mishpatim ha-eileh" – in reward for Benei Yisrael's observance of the Torah's laws – they will earn the fulfillment of the promises God made with their patriarchs.  Rashi, based on the Midrash Tanchuma, claims that the relatively uncommon term eikev (literally, "as a result of"), which can also be read as akeiv ("heel"), alludes to "the 'light' mitzvot upon which "one treads with his heel."  The promise of reward is given specifically with regard to mitzvot which people deem "light" and hence "tread upon with their heel."

            Many different approaches have been taken in identifying the kind of mitzvot to which the Midrash refers, and explaining why they are subject to being "treaded" upon and why their observance brings one great reward.  Rav Yaakov Neuberger (http://torahweb.org/torah/2000/parsha/rneu_eikev.html) explains that the Midrash speaks here of the mitzvot "that are not particularly challenging to one's passions or lifestyle," those which are, relatively speaking, easy to observe and do not entail considerable self-restraint or inconvenience.  The individual whom the Midrash addresses focuses his attention on the more spiritually challenging commandments, those which demand great sacrifice and pose difficult tests of loyalty and commitment.  He sees avodat Hashem as something that one expresses specifically by overcoming tall obstacles and heroically withstanding demanding religious tests.

            Moshe therefore reminds us here in this verse of the importance of observing even the "easy" mitzvot, those which do not appear to pose any significant challenges.  Rav Neuberger explains the message underlying this emphasis as follows:

Perhaps the point of the medrash is to remind us that we grow intellectually and spiritually in different ways.  True, we improve through confrontation and distillation.  However, we also mature through steady and gradual osmosis, naturally absorbing from our environs, and harmoniously incorporating life's lessons into the way we live.  Hashem in His kindness does not insist that we only raise ourselves through stubborn contrariness.  Rather by surrounding ourselves with easy mitzvos…serving Him becomes natural.

Avodat Hashem manifests itself not only through challenges and sacrifice, but also through the "easy," day-to-day responsibilities that combine to create a general religiously-oriented lifestyle and mindset.  Undoubtedly, difficult situations arise that test the level of one's devotion to God and His Torah and require considerable inner strength and resolve.  But in addition, one expresses his loyalty through the "little things," through the every-day recitation of berakhot and the like, whereby our lives become naturally infused with a spiritual focus and awareness, thus rendering us deserving of all the blessings described in Parashat Eikev.

TUESDAY

            Towards the beginning of Parashat Eikev, Moshe urges Benei Yisrael not to feel frightened by the large Canaanite armies they must confront upon crossing the Jordan River, as the Almighty will assist them and ensure their triumph.  Among the promises Moshe makes to Benei Yisrael is that God would send "the tzir'a" to help destroy the Canaanite enemies (7:20).  The Gemara in Masekhet Sota (36a) explains tzir'a as a hornet that injected a type of toxin into the Canaanites' eyes to blind them.  By contrast, Saadia Gaon and Ibn Ezra identify tzir'a as a type of malady with which God struck the Cananites during Benei Yisrael battles against them.

            Regardless of whether this term denotes a creature or ailment, it seems clear from Moshe's reference to tzir'a that it did not serve as the primary means of warfare against the Canaanites.  The verse states, "And the Lord your God shall also send the tzir'a upon them, until those who remain and are in hiding are destroyed before you."  Moshe tells the people that God will "also" dispatch the tzir'a, in addition to the assistance He will lend through more conventional means.  This additional measure is required in order to eliminate "those who remain and are in hiding," meaning, the enemies whom Benei Yisrael would be unable to eliminate through the usual means of battle.  Thus, the campaign to conquer Eretz Yisrael was to be conducted primarily through conventional means, and the tzir'a was dispatched to eliminate those who would otherwise escape.

            Rav Yaakov Kaminetzky, in his Emet Le-Yaakov, suggests a characteristically novel and creative theory to explain more precisely the function served by the tzir'a during the process of kibbush ha-aretz (the conquest of the land).  We read in Sefer Yehoshua (chapter 24) that shortly before Yehoshua's death, he assembled the nation in Shekhem and spoke to them, among other things, of the miracles God had performed during the conquest of the Land of Israel.  He declares in the Name of God (24:11-12):

You crossed the Jordan and came to Jericho, and the people of Jericho, the Emorites, the Prizites…waged war against you and I gave them into your hands.  And I sent the tzir'a before you and it chased them from you – the two Emorite kings – not with your sword and not with your bow.

Already the Radak noted the difficulty that emerges from the sequence of these verses.  Yehoshua first recalls the assistance lent to Benei Yisrael in their battles with the Canaanites after crossing the Jordan, and he then speaks of the tzir'a that chased away "the two Emorite kings," presumably referring to Sichon and Og.  Of course, Benei Yisrael's battles against Sichon and Og took place before they crossed the Jordan River and confronted the people of Jericho and other Canaanite peoples.  Why, then, does Yehoshua first recall the battles fought west of the Jordan, and then make reference to the earlier war waged against Sichon and Og?

            Rav Yaakov suggests that God sent the tzir'a to protect the Israelite families who had settled east of the Jordan River, whose husbands and fathers were waging war west of the river.  Recall that when the tribes of Reuven and Gad decided to permanently settled in the region east of the Jordan, they vowed to join Benei Yisrael in their battles west of the river, and constructed fortified cities where their families would remain during the men's absence.  (See Bamidbar 32:16-17,36).  The need for fortified cities testifies to the fact that there remained a number of hostile Emorites who posed a potential threat to the families of these tribes while the men were west of the Jordan fighting along with the other tribes.  Rav Yaakov thus suggested explaining Yehoshua's account as indicating that the tzir'a was sent against these threatening enemies east of the river during the period when Benei Yisrael waged battle west of the river.  The tzir'a served to eliminate not the Canaanite refugees from the war in the "mainland" of Eretz Yisrael, but the remaining Emorites who threatened the women and children of Reuven and Gad, whose husbands/fathers were across the river with the other tribes.

            In this vein, Rav Yaakov suggested, we should explain the verse here in Parashat Eikev, which speaks of the tzir'a eliminating "those who remain and are in hiding."  Moshe employs the present tense, and thus refers to those who already at that point – before Benei Yisrael crossed the Jordan – "remain and are in hiding."  He speaks of the Emorites who managed to flee from Benei Yisrael during their campaign against Sichon and Og, and thus posed a potential threat to the families in Trans-Jordan while the men waged battle against the Canaanites across the Jordan River.  It is against these refugees that God will dispatch the tzir'a, in order to protect the families of Reuven and God.

WEDNESDAY

            Yesterday, we discussed Moshe's promise to Benei Yisrael in Parashat Eikev (7:20) that God will send the tzir'a – either a kind of deadly hornet or a debilitating illness – against the Canaanites to help Benei Yisrael conquer the Land of Israel.  We presented the novel theory advanced by Rav Yaakov Kaminetzky, who claimed that the tzir'a was sent to protect the families of Reuven and Gad who had settled on the eastern banks of the Jordan River.  As the men joined the other tribes in battle to capture the "mainland" of Eretz Yisrael, west of the Jordan, the families required protection from the Emorites who had survived Benei Yisrael's conquest of the Emorite kingdoms east of the Jordan River.  This approach, as we saw, is based upon a careful reading of the verse here in Parashat Eikev and verses in Sefer Yehoshua (24:11-12).

            One might, at least at first glance, challenge this approach in light of the fact that already forty years earlier, as recorded in Sefer Shemot (23:28), God had promised to send the tzir'a against the inhabitants of Canaan.  This promise was issued at Mount Sinai, from which Benei Yisrael were originally intended to proceed directly to Canaan.  The initial plan did not include a battle against Sichon and Og east of the Jordan River and the capture of their territory.  The tribes of Reuven and Gad were, at that point, intended to receive portions in Eretz Yisrael proper, and thus the problem of the wives and children left defenseless across the river was not anticipated.  According to Rav Yaakov's theory, then, the question arises as to why there was the need for tzir'a at this point.  If the tzir'a served only to provide protection for the families of Reuven and Gad on the east of the Jordan River, then it seemingly became necessary only once Reuven and Gad chose to permanently settle in that region.  Yet, God speaks of the tzir'a already forty years earlier, while Benei Yisrael were still encamped at the foot of Mount Sinai.

            In defense of Rav Yaakov's theory, we might contend that the entire nature of the planned kibbush ha-aretz (conquest of the land) underwent a fundamental change in the wake of chet ha-meragelim (the sin of the spies).  Several writers, including Rav Yaakov Mecklenberg, in his Ha-ketav Ve-ha-kabbala (Bamidbar 10:35), write that the land's conquest was initially to have occurred miraculously, through God's supernatural intervention, and not through conventional warfare.  In this vein Rav Mecklenberg explains Moshe's declaration upon embarking from Sinai that Israel's enemies will flee and be scattered (va-yehi bi-nso'a ha-aron – Bamidbar 10:35).  Moshe proclaimed that when Benei Yisrael enter the Land of Israel – as they would have done immediately had it not been for the sin of the spies – God will wage the nation's battle and oust the Canaanite peoples for them.  The sin of the scouts, however, demonstrated that Benei Yisrael were unworthy of this level of divine intervention, and they were thus forced to wage battle against the Canaanites through conventional means, albeit, of course, with God's indispensable assistance.

            Accordingly, we might suggest that the function of the tzir'a changed after the chet ha-meragelim.  Initially, the tzir'a was to serve as the primary means of warfare, the "weapon" with which God would eliminate the Canaanites and thereby allow Benei Yisrael to inhabit the land.  Once, however, it was determined that the process kibbush ha-aretz would unfold through natural means, the role of the tzir'a changed.  Rather than being used as the primary "weapon," the tzir'a was used for the secondary purpose of protecting the families of Reuven and Gad who had settled on the east bank of the Jordan.

            Evidence to this notion may be drawn from a clear distinction between the two contexts in which the tzir'a is discussed.  As mentioned yesterday, Moshe's description of the tzir'a here in Parashat Eikev suggests that it served a secondary function, to eliminate survivors and refugees from the enemy nations.  In Sefer Shemot, by contrast, God declares, "I shall send the tzir'a before you, and it shall banish the Chivites, the Canaanites…"  This clearly suggests that at this point, the tzir'a was intended to serve as the primary means of ousting the nations of Canaan.  It is thus likely that at some point in the interim – presumably after the sin of the spies – the role of the tzir'a changed, as it was determined that Benei Yisrael would have to fight the Canaanite nations through conventional means, rather than rely on the Almighty's supernatural intervention.

 THURSDAY

            As we mentioned earlier this week, the Torah in Parashat Eikev introduces the obligation of birkat ha-mazon, which requires reciting a berakha after eating a meal: "You shall eat and be satiated, and you shall bless the Lord your God for the good land that He has given you" (8:10).

            Although it is accepted that this verse indeed serves as the Biblical source of this obligation, a brief review of its context reveals the possibility of a different reading:

For the Lord your God is bringing you to a good land – a land of streams of water, wellsprings and fountains that flow in the valleys and mountains, a land of wheat and barley, of grapes, figs and pomegranates…a land in which you may eat bread without stint, where you lack nothing – a land whose stones are iron and from whose mountains you shall mine copper.  You shall eat and be satiated, and you shall bless the Lord your God for the good land that He has given you. (8:7-10)

This verse appears amidst Moshe's description of the bounty that awaits Benei Yisrael in their destined homeland across the Jordan River, and his promise of the material prosperity they will enjoy in the land.  Accordingly, Shadal contends that on the level of peshuto shel mikra (the straightforward, plain reading of the text), Moshe's comment, "You shall eat and be satiated, and you shall bless the Lord your God for the good land" expresses not a command, but rather a promise.  Moshe here promises the people that the delights of Eretz Yisrael will inspire them to give praise and thanks to the Almighty.  They will be so overcome by gratitude and joy that they will naturally burst forth in praise of God for the special land to which He has brought them.  It is only in the next verses, Shadal claims, in which Moshe warns, "Be careful lest you forget the Lord your God…lest you eat and be satiated …and your heart shall become haughty," that Moshe gives instructions and issues warnings and commands.  But here, when he speaks of Benei Yisrael blessing God for the good land, he refers to an instinctive response to the bounty of Eretz Yisrael, rather than an obligation of birkat ha-mazon.

            According to Shadal's reading, this verse might serve as an enlightening example of the interplay between peshat and derash, between the plain meaning of the text and the process of halakhic exegesis, of how these two levels of interpretation often complement one another.  Indeed, the plain reading of the text indicates that Moshe foresees Benei Yisrael's instinctive rush of joy and outburst of praise for the Almighty.  The derash reading, however, recognizes the fact that enjoying the blessings of the world is not always followed by an instinctive desire to give praise to God.  While there is indeed a human instinct of gratitude, there is also a competing, equally powerful tendency to take the world's blessings for granted, and to complain about what one does not have rather than feel grateful for what he does have.  Therefore, while on the peshat level Moshe here gives a prediction, rather than a command, on the level of derash this verse introduces an obligation of birkat ha-mazon, to genuinely feel and express gratitude to the Almighty for the blessings and prosperity with which He has graced us.

FRIDAY

            We find in Parashat Re'ei a verse in which Moshe describes God as "ohev ger latet lo lechem ve-simla" – "He loves the foreigner, giving him bread and clothing" (10:18).  In the next verse, Moshe urges that we follow God's example in this regard and likewise treat foreigners kindly: "And you shall love the foreigner, for you were foreigners in the land of Egypt."

            Rashi, commenting on the words "He loves the foreigner, giving him bread and clothing," writes, "And this is significant, for all of Yaakov's prayer was for this: 'and He gives me bread to eat and clothing to wear' (Bereishit 28:20)."  Lest one think that the provision of "bread and clothing" to needy foreigners does not signify exceptional love and concern, Yaakov's prayer for "bread and clothing" demonstrates that these are a foreigner's primary needs.  When Yaakov fled Canaan and became a foreigner, he beseeched God for the basic provisions of food and clothing, and thus God's practice of supplying food and clothes to foreigners is indeed noteworthy and an expression of profound love.

            The obvious question arises, how could Yaakov's prayer be seen as establishing the uniform standard desired by all foreigners?  The fact that Yaakov requested only his basic necessities, without praying for luxuries, does not necessarily set a precedent for all others in his situation.  Others might desire or even need much more than their daily bread and a shirt on their back.  Why, then, does the provision of food and clothing to foreigner demonstrate the special love and concern that God shows them?

            The Taz, in his Divrei David Turei Zahav, explains Rashi's comments by suggesting that the verse refers to the provision of food and clothing even before the foreigner prays.  Yaakov had to pray for food and clothing, but generally God provides foreigners with these necessities even before they ask for it.  The proof of God's immense love for the foreigners is His immediate and unconditional provision of food and clothing regardless of whether they pray for it.  As opposed to Yaakov, who had to first pray for these basic provisions, other foreigners receive them from the Almighty even without prayer.

            As mentioned earlier, this description of God is followed by an admonition to take example from God's concern for the foreigner, and to similarly treat him with love ("And you shall love the foreigner…").  In light of the Taz's comments, it emerges that we must ensure to assist foreigners – and all those in need of help – even before they ask for it.  People experiencing hardship – particularly newcomers – are often too ashamed and inhibited to make requests and solicit help.  We are therefore enjoined to follow the Almighty's example and to come forth and initiate offers to help, rather than wait for those in need to bring us their requests.