SALT – PARASHAT EIKEV

BY RAV DAVID SILVERBERG

MOTZAEI

            In Parashat Eikev, Moshe recounts the events of cheit ha-eigel (the sin of the golden calf), including his shattering of the stone tablets upon seeing the people worshipping the calf.  He recalls that after these events, God commanded him to carve new tablets and to make a wooden ark in which to store them (10:1).

            The commentaries raise the question of how to reconcile this account with God’s command in Sefer Shemot that the ark for the tablets be constructed along with the rest of the Mishkan’s furnishings (Shemot 25:10).  From there it appears that the ark was built as part of the general project of building the Mishkan, and not specifically by Moshe.  In fact, later in Sefer Shemot (37:1), the Torah writes explicitly that the ark was built by Betzalel, the artisan who led the project of building the Mishkan.

            Rashi, based on one view in the Talmud Yerushalmi (Shekalim 6:1), explains that two arks were constructed.  The ark built by Betzalel remained in the Mishkan (and, later, in the Beit Ha-mikdash) at all times, and it contained the tablets.  The ark spoken of here in Parashat Eikev was a second ark, which contained the shivrei luchot, the broken pieces of the original tablets.  This ark, Rashi comments, would be taken with the Israelite army to the battlefield.  This theory appears earlier in Rashi’s commentary, as well, in Sefer Bamidbar (10:33), in discussing the ark that traveled ahead of the Israelite camp during travel in the wilderness.  Rashi clarifies that this was not the ark that stood in the Mishkan, but was rather the second ark which contained the shivrei luchot.

            It should be noted that in his commentary here in Parashat Eikev, Rashi cites from the Midrash Tanchuma that God commanded Moshe to build a new ark after the sin of the calf for the purpose of storing the second set of tablets.  At first glance, this directly contradicts Rashi’s contention that Moshe’s ark was used for the remnants of the original tablets, rather than the new tablets.  The answer, as the Ramban mentions, is that Moshe’s ark housed the tablets temporarily, until the ark built with the Mishkan was ready.  At that point, the second tablets were transferred to the ark in the Mishkan, and the shivrei luchot were placed in Moshe’s ark.

            Why would Benei Yisrael take the shivrei luchot with them to battle?  What message might this be intended to convey?

            Rav David Mandelbaum, in his Pardeis Yosef He-chadash, proposes several possible theories.  First, the presence of the broken tablets would bring to mind the sin of the golden calf, and thus inspire the soldiers to repent, in the merit of which they would be granted success in battle.  Additionally, the sight of the shivrei luchot would arouse a sense of humility to offset the feelings of pride that triumphant armies generally experience.  Thirdly, Rav Mandelbaum suggests, the shivrei luchot accompanied the soldiers as a symbolic prayer to God to show compassion for His people even if they are “broken tablets,” meaning, currently unworthy of His assistance.  The respect accorded to the broken stone pieces demonstrates that an object of sanctity retains its status, at least to some degree, even after it has been shattered.  The presence of the shivrei luchot at battle was intended as a prayer that the Almighty assist the nation even if they have fallen from their original status of sanctity, and have become mere “shivrei luchot.”

David Silverberg

SUNDAY

            Yesterday, we discussed the verse in Parashat Eikev (10:1) in which Moshe recalls God’s commands to him in the aftermath of the sin of the golden calf.  Moshe had shattered the original stone tablets upon seeing the calf, and God therefore instructed him after this event to carve new stone tablets and to construct an ark where the tablets would be stored.  Rashi, as we saw, commented that this ark was not the ark that was built along with the other furnishings of the Mishkan.  The ark built by Moshe, to which he refers in this verse, contained the new tablets only until the second ark was built together with the rest of the Mishkan.  At that point, the new tablets were transferred to the second ark, which remained permanently in the innermost sanctum of the Mishkan.  Moshe’s ark then contained only the shivrei luchot – the remnants of the original tablets which he broke – and it would accompany the nation when they went out to war.

            The Ramban, in his commentary to this verse, notes that the position cited by Rashi represents the minority view among the Tanna’im, as indicated in the Talmud Yerushalmi (Shekalim 6:1).  Furthermore, the Ramban adds, the Talmud in several places (Bava Batra 14b, Menachot 99a and Berakhot 8b) comments, “Luchot ve-shivrei luchot munachin ba-aron” – “The tablets and the broken tablets are placed in the ark.”  This clearly indicates that the remnants of the original tablets were stored together with the new tablets in a single ark.  In fact, Rashi, in his commentary to Bava Batra (14b), writes explicitly that the tablets were placed on top of the remnants of the original tablets.  The Ramban thus contends that according to the majority view among Chazal, Benei Yisrael used only one ark.  God instructed Moshe to build an ark for storing the luchot (tablets) temporarily until the new, permanent ark would be constructed along with the rest of the Mishkan.  Once the permanent ark was built, the Ramban speculates, Moshe’s ark was buried, insofar as it was endowed with the halakhic status of tashmishei kedusha, sacred articles which must be buried once it falls into disuse.  After its burial, only the second aron was used.

            After presenting this theory, the Ramban then proceeds to suggest an entirely different approach, which he claims follows “derekh ha-peshat” (the plain, straightforward reading of the verse).  Namely, according to the Ramban, God’s command which Moshe recalls here actually refers to the command to construct the Mishkan.  In the aftermath of the golden calf, God informed Moshe that the original command to construct a Mishkan with an aron at its center still applied, despite the sin of the calf.  When God commanded Moshe to make a wooden ark, He referred to the ark built along with the rest of the Mishkan, indicating to Moshe that Benei Yisrael must proceed with the construction of the Mishkan despite the sin of the calf.  Thus, according to the Ramban, only one ark was built; there was never a second ark.  This is also the position taken by Ibn Ezra, in his commentary to Sefer Shemot (25:15).

            Interestingly, when the Torah tells of the Mishkan’s construction toward the end of Sefer Shemot, it specifies that Betzalel, the chief artisan, personally built the aron (Shemot 37:1).  A number of commentators noted that the Torah associates Betzalel personally with only the aron, and not any other part of the Mishkan.  The work Leviyat Chen (cited in Pardeis Yosef He-chadash) suggested that according to Rashi’s view, we might explain that the Torah mentioned Betzalel by name in the context of the ark to clearly distinguish between the two arks.  Since, according to Rashi, there were two arks constructed, the Torah perhaps emphasized that Betzalel built the aron that was fashioned as part of the Mishkan’s construction, to clarify that this ark was not the same ark built by Moshe before he received the second tablets.

David Silverberg

MONDAY

            Toward the end of Parashat Eikev, Moshe informs Benei Yisrael about the unique quality of Eretz Yisrael:

For the land into which you are crossing to possess is not like the land of Egypt, from which you left, where you sow your seed and then irrigate by foot, like a vegetable garden.  For the land into which you are crossing to possess is a land of mountains and valleys; you drink water from the rain of the heavens… (11:10-11)

Rashi explains these verses as speaking in praise of Eretz Yisrael, where fields are irrigated effortlessly, by rainwater, rather than requiring manual irrigation.  The Ramban, by contrast, claimed that these verses serve as an introduction to the subsequent section, the second paragraph of the daily shema recitation, which warns of the disastrous consequences of the nation’s disobeying the Torah.  Moshe informs the people that if they forsake God, He will withhold rainfall, thus causing them to leave the land and settle elsewhere (11:17).  The Ramban claims that it is in this respect that Moshe distinguishes between Eretz Yisrael and Egypt.  Whereas Egypt enjoys the reliability of the Nile River which served as a constant water source, from which agricultural fields could be irrigated, Eretz Yisrael depends upon rainfall.  Benei Yisrael’s ability to survive in the land thus hinges upon their worthiness of God’s blessing of plentiful amounts of rain.

            Rav Yechezkel Levenstein noted that this quality of Eretz Yisrael is characteristic of sacred entities.  The greater an object’s sanctity, the more fragile it is.  The special designation of the Land of Israel as the site of the divine presence, and the privilege of residing there, result in higher risks.  The nation’s residence in Eretz Yisrael is a great privilege, and for this very reason it can be so easily disrupted by insufficient winter rains.

            Rav Yechezkel added that this applies equally to the human soul.  The soul is sacred, and for this reason it can so easily be tainted and corrupted.  Rav Yechezkel cites in this context Rabbi Elazar Ha-kapar’s warning in Pirkei Avot (4:21), “Envy, lust and honor remove a person from the world.”  According to Rav Yechezkel, this Mishna underscores the fragility of the human soul.  Because the soul is so sacred, it can easily become corrupted by the familiar emotions of envy, lust and craving for attention.  A person who does not exercise constant diligence and discipline to keep his emotions in check runs the risk of spiritual downfall.  The soul, the person’s most valuable commodity, is also the most vulnerable commodity.  It must therefore be protected through intensive, ongoing introspection and a dedicated effort to constantly improve.

David Silverberg

TUESDAY

            Parashat Eikev includes the second paragraph of the daily shema recitation, in which Moshe conveys God’s promise to grant the nation material blessing in reward for their Torah observance: “I shall provide the rain for your land in its time…and you shall gather your grain, your wine and your oil” (11:14).

            The Gemara in Masekhet Berakhot (35b) records a famous debate between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai surrounding this verse.  Rabbi Yishmael infers from God’s promise that the Torah expects Am Yisrael to engage in professional pursuits, to earn a livelihood with the sweat of their brow.  After all, the Torah here promises Benei Yisrael that if they observe the Torah, they will be rewarded with rainfall that will allow them to “gather your grain, your wine and your oil.”  Apparently, successful spiritual life is not at all inconsistent with the rigorous agricultural process of sowing, planting and harvesting.  Of course, as Rabbi Yishmael himself comments, every individual bears an obligation to set aside time each day for Torah study.  One is not, however, expected to withdraw entirely from professional activity to devote himself exclusively to Torah.

            Rabbi Shimon, by contrast, claimed that this description does not represent the Torah ideal.  In his view, the Torah here speaks of a time when Benei Yisrael “do not perform the Almighty’s will,” and it is only because of their spiritual shortcomings that they are compelled to spend their days tilling the land.  When Benei Yisrael achieve the level of “osin retzono shel Makom” – performing the divine will – they are able to devote themselves exclusively to Torah learning, while people from other nations provide them with their livelihood.

            Already Tosafot raise the question of how Rabbi Shimon could understand the verse here in Parashat Eikev as referring to a period of spiritual failure.  This abundance is promised as a reward for Benei Yisrael’s strict compliance with the Torah: “It shall be, if you carefully heed My commands which I command you, to love the Lord your God and serve Him with all your heart and with all your soul…” (11:13).  How did Rabbi Shimon interpret the blessing of “you shall gather your grain” as speaking of a time when Benei Yisrael fail to observe the mitzvot, if the Torah explicitly presents it as a reward for their obedience?

            Apparently, as noted by Rav Baruch Mordechai Ezrachi (in Birkat Mordekhai), Rabbi Shimon distinguished between Torah observance, and what he described as “osin retzono shel Makom.”  Even if a person meticulously observes the Torah’s commands, he does not necessarily fulfill Rabban Gamliel’s dictum, “Make His will like your will” (Avot 2:4), living one’s entire life with the exclusive purpose of serving his Creator.  Rabbi Shimon felt that God’s promise to grant rainfall and enable Benei Yisrael to successfully farm applies only when Benei Yisrael are observant.  When they reach the higher level of “osin retzono shel Makom,” of conducting their lives at every moment with the intention of serving God, then they are not required to work the land at all.  They can instead devote themselves exclusively to Torah learning and rest assured that others will provide them with sustenance.

            This might explain the Gemara’s famous conclusion to this discussion: “Many [people] followed Rabbi Yishmael and were successful, [whereas many followed] Rabbi Shimon and were not successful.”  Rabbi Shimon spoke of an ideal existence reserved for a time when Benei Yisrael devote all their time, energy and resources to the single goal of avodat Hashem.  Since the vast majority of people are not capable of such singular devotion, many who tried Rabbi Shimon’s lifestyle were unsuccessful.

            Nevertheless, Rabbi Shimon’s approach reminds us that there always remains room for spiritual growth and perfection.  Even when one has reached the level of strict observance, he must still work to make avodat Hashem his exclusive aspiration and the goal toward which his entire life is directed.

David Silverberg

WEDNESDAY

            Yesterday, we discussed the surprising position taken by Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, as recorded in Masekhet Berakhot (35b), concerning the second paragraph of shema, which appears in Parashat Eikev.  The Torah in this section promises Benei Yisrael plentiful amounts of rain in reward for their mitzva observance, resulting in agricultural success: “and you shall gather your grain, your wine and your oil” (11:14).  According to Rabbi Shimon, this description of Benei Yisrael engaging in agricultural work does not represent the ideal state.  When the nation is worthy, they devote themselves exclusively to Torah while other peoples provide their livelihood.  It is only when Am Yisrael is undeserving that they are compelled to till the land and work for a living rather than have their needs provided for by others.  (Rabbi Yishmael, as the Gemara cites, disagreed, and felt that the Torah envisioned a nation involved in professional activity even under ideal conditions.)

            The obvious question, as many writers note, is how Rabbi Shimon understood this section as referring to a situation of religious failure, if it explicitly presents agricultural success as the reward for Torah observance.

            The Meshekh Chokhma answers based on a comment of the Sifrei that distinguishes between the first two sections of the shema recitation.  According to the Sifrei, when the Torah here in Parashat Eikev speaks of Benei Yisrael observing the commandments and “loving the Lord your God and serving Him with all your heart and all your soul” (11:13), it refers specifically to “ma’aseh” – practical observance of the Torah.  This description foresees the time when Benei Yisrael observe the mitzvot, but do not invest the time and effort for Torah learning.  This is in contrast to the first paragraph of shema, which is found earlier in Sefer Devarim (6:4-9), and admonishes the people to excel not only in the strict observance of Torah, but also in the study of Torah.  Accordingly, Rabbi Shimon felt that although the Torah here in Parashat Eikev promises the nation reward for their observance, this promise should not be taken as representing the ideal state of affairs.  For when Benei Yisrael devote themselves to both observance and study, then God will enable them to withdraw entirely from work and have others provide their livelihood.

            Rav Avraham Yitzchak Sorotzkin, in his Rinat Yitzchak, noted that this distinction drawn between the first two paragraphs of shema may shed light on their different descriptions of the kind of ahavat Hashem (love of God) which the Torah demands.  The first paragraph of shema commands us to love God “with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength” (6:5).  According to the Sifrei (cited by Rashi), “with all your strength” refers to money, and requires that we be prepared to make financial sacrifices in our service of God.  In the second paragraph of shema, where the Torah describes Benei Yisrael’s worthiness of God’s blessing, this phrase is omitted: “It shall be, if you carefully heed My commands which I command you, loving the Lord your God and serving Him with all your heart and with all your soul…” (11:13).  Here, Benei Yisrael are depicted as serving the Almighty with all their “heart” and “soul,” but not with all their money.  This omission, Rav Sorotzkin suggests, can be easily understood in light of the Sifrei’s comment that the first section refers to excellence in Torah learning whereas the second speaks of Torah observance.  Achievement in Torah learning, more often than not, demands financial sacrifice, minimizing, or at least limiting, gainful pursuits for the sake of pursuing Torah scholarship.  As such, in the second section of shema, where the Torah foresees a nation that succeeds in observance but not in scholarship, it omits the term “me’odekha.”  In this description, although the nation complies with the Torah’s obligations, the people are not prepared to make the sacrifices necessary to achieve in Torah learning.

            (It must be emphasized that this entire discussion relates to the view of Rabbi Shimon.  Rabbi Yishmael, as we mentioned earlier, disagreed with Rabbi Shimon’s understanding and maintained that the second paragraph of shema represents the ideal state of affairs among Am Yisrael.)

David Silverberg

THURSDAY

            In our last two editions of S.A.L.T., we discussed the second paragraph of the daily shema recitation, which appears in Parashat Eikev and describes the reward promised to Benei Yisrael if they obey the Torah.  God promises to bless the nation with rainfall and allow them to successfully farm the land in Eretz Yisrael.  The straightforward implication of the text, as Rabbi Yishmael inferred (Berakhot 35b), is that the Torah’s ideal vision of Benei Yisrael’s life in their land is one in which they work for a living, while strictly observing the Torah and allocating time each day for Torah learning.  Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, however, understood that this description does not represent the Torah’s ideal.  When Benei Yisrael are deserving, Rabbi Shimon held, they devote themselves exclusively to Torah learning and have other nations support them.  It is only when they are undeserving that they must spend the time tilling the land and working for a livelihood.

            As we saw, a number of writers raised the question of how to reconcile Rabbi Shimon’s view with the verses in this section of shema, which explicitly describe Benei Yisrael faithfully observing the Torah’s commands.

            The Tosafot Ha-Rosh suggests that Rabbi Shimon divided this second section of shema into two subsections, each of which depicts a different situation.  The first section, which describes the blessing of rainfall that God will bestow upon the nation in reward for their observance, continues through the phrase, “I shall provide the rain for your land in its time, the early rain and the late rain” (11:14).  At this point, the Torah shifts onto a description of the time when Benei Yisrael are undeserving: “and you shall gather your grain, your wine and your oil.”  This second half of the verse begins a new subsection, which describes the time when Benei Yisrael will be compelled to work for their livelihood, rather than devote themselves exclusively to Torah.

            Needless to say, it seems very difficult to explain two halves of the same verse as referring to two entirely different realities, unless the Torah itself specifies this transition.  Moreover, the Torah explicitly makes this transition two verses later: “Guard yourselves, lest your hearts be lured and you stray and worship other gods and bow before them.  The Lord will then be incensed with you and withhold the skies, that there will be no rain…”

            However, as noted by Rav Yaakov Koppel Schwartz in his Yekev Efrayim (Brooklyn, 2001), the Tosafot Ha-Rosh’s explanation is actually rooted in a careful reading of the text.  In the verse that describes the blessing of rainfall, the Torah suddenly shifts from the plural to singular form: “Ve-natati metar artzekhem…ve-asafta deganekha…”  The verse first speaks of “artzekhem” (“your land”) – addressing the nation as a whole – and then addresses the individual: “ve-asafta” (“you shall gather”).  The Torah indeed makes a transition in the middle of this verse, and the Tosafot Ha-Rosh asserted that this transition signifies a shift from one reality to another.  Until the middle of this verse, the Torah describes a time when the entire nation is faithfully committed to Torah study and observance.  Under such circumstances, according to Rabbi Shimon, Benei Yisrael will not have to work for a living.  When the entire nation commits itself to Torah, they can all spend their time engaging in Torah study and rely on God to provide their livelihood through other peoples.  But then the Torah shifts its attention onto a period when only some members of Benei Yisrael remain committed to Torah observance.  Under such circumstances, the Torah writes, addressing these individuals (hence the singular form), “you shall gather your grain, your wine and your oil.”  The promise of adequate sustenance without work is reserved for a time when all Benei Yisrael are committed to Torah observance.  The collective merit of a nation unified by its devotion to Torah ensures their ability to thrive and prosper without engaging in professional activity.  But once Torah commitment becomes the lot of individuals, rather than the entire nation, even Rabbi Shimon would not encourage withdrawal from work, and reliance on God for one’s livelihood.  Without the collective merit of all Am Yisrael, even those potentially capable of fully devoting themselves to Torah study must secure a source of livelihood.

            According to Rav Schwartz, this is how the Tosafot Ha-Rosh explained Rabbi Shimon’s approach to these verses.  The section begins by describing a time when the entire nation faithfully observes the Torah, in which case they can and should (according to Rabbi Shimon) devote themselves exclusively to Torah and God will provide their sustenance through other nations.  The Torah then envisions the time when some, but not all, of Benei Yisrael will be committed, in which case gainful employment becomes necessary.  The final verses of this section foresee the time when the nation as a whole forsakes God and worships idols, and warn that this will result in drought and exile from the land.

David Silverberg

FRIDAY

            In Parashat Eikev, Moshe recalls the tragedy of cheit ha-eigel (the sin of the golden calf), which resulted in his breaking the tablets containing God’s commands.  In the aftermath of this calamity, as Moshe recounts, God commanded him, “Carve two stone tablets like the first ones…and I shall write upon the tablets the things that were on the first tablets, which you broke” (10:2).

            The Gemara in Masekhet Bava Batra (14b) famously interprets the words “asher shibarta” (“which you broke”) to mean, “yiyasher kochakha she-shibarta,” an expression of approval and congratulations saluting Moshe’s bold decision to break the tablets in response to the sin of the calf.

            Where did Chazal find an allusion in this verse to God’s approval of Moshe’s breaking of the luchot?

            The simplest explanation, perhaps, is that the Gemara saw within the word “asher” an allusion to the word “yiyasher,” or perhaps the congratulatory expression “ashrei.”  The Ramban, however, in his commentary to Bava Batra, suggests that the Gemara arrived at its interpretation from the juxtaposition between this phrase and the subsequent phrase – “and you shall place them in the ark.”  Although this instruction clearly refers to the new tablets which Moshe was ordered to carve, the Gemara there infers from this juxtaposition that the remnants of the shattered tablets were also to be placed in the new ark (“luchot u-shivrei luchot munachim ba-aron”).  The Ramban comments that had God disapproved of Moshe’s decision to break the tablets, He would not have commanded him to place the broken tablets in the ark together with the new tablets.  The stone pieces would have symbolized Moshe’s offense and would have thus had no place in the ark alongside the permanent tablets.

            We should note, however, that the Ramban’s comments seem difficult in light of the fact that he combines two different opinions recorded in the Gemara.  It clearly emerges from the Gemara that the view which interprets “asher shibarta” to mean “yiyasher kochakha she-shibarta” does not infer from this verse that the broken tablets were stored in the ark.  The Gemara clearly ascribes these two readings of the verse to two different schools among the Talmudic Sages.  It thus seems difficult to understand how the Ramban explained one reading based upon the other.

            In any event, Rav Shimon Diskin, in his Mas’at Moshe, suggests an entirely different approach to explain the Gemara’s comment.  Quite simply, he writes, God would not have made unnecessary mention of Moshe’s breaking the tablets had He deemed that action sinful.  Halakha strictly forbids reminding somebody of his inauspicious past, or transgressions that he had committed.  We may thus assume that when God instructs Moshe to carve new tablets, He would not have emphasized “asher shibarta” to underscore his guilt.  The Gemara therefore concluded that God must have approved of Moshe’s bold decision to break the stone tablets in response to the grave sin of the golden calf.

David Silverberg