Ekev

Parshat Ekev Reward And Punishment Rabbi Ari Kahn In this week's Parsha, one of the most seminal ideas of Judaism is articulated: the concept of reward and punishment. The term punishment may be a misnomer; the word "consequences" may be a more apt description of this spiritual dynamic.1 This is neither the first, nor the only time that this idea is mentioned, but the idea is dealt with more thoroughly here than in any other Parsha. Particular attention is paid to the people’s long-anticipated entrance to the land, where they must follow the Divine word with even more vigilance or run the risk of exile. The context of the instructions is clarified in the following verse: Hear, O Israel; You are to pass over the Jordan this day, to go in to possess nations greater and mightier than yourself, cities great and fortified up to heaven (9:1) It sounds as if "today" is the day when entrance to the land will finally take place, and one of the great dreams and aspirations of the Children of Israel will come to fruition. Some sources indicate that the verse does not intend to convey a literal understanding, that "today" the conquest will take place, rather that the term is being used in a metaphoric manner.2 Be that as it may, the conquest is imminent, and the final preparations must begin. Thus Moshe warns of the dangers of straying from G-d’s path; now, at the border, on the eastern bank of the Jordan, this message is more poignant than ever. This context, the particular moment in Jewish history captured by these verses on the verge of the entrance to Israel, will give us insight to other issues in this Parsha. In last week’s Parsha, the first chapter of Sh'ma was taught. This week’s Parsha contains the second chapter, "V'haya im shamoa". Superficially, the two sections are quite similar, with many themes introduced in one section and repeated in the other. Love of G-d and care in performing Mitzvot, are two of the basic teachings which are repeated. The Mishna stresses the fundamental difference between the two, and teaches that awareness and cognition of this difference is part and parcel of the fulfillment of the commandments, performed by the recitation of the two sections respectively. R. Joshua b. Korhah said: Why was the section of ‘hear’ placed before that of ‘and it shall come to pass’? So that one should first accept upon himself 1

2

This may be indicated by the choice of words utilized to indicate G-d’s response to man’s infidelity: Chastise – not punish: You shall also consider in your heart, that, as a man chastens his son, so the Lord your G-d chastened you. Therefore, you shall keep the commandments of the Lord your G-d, to walk in his ways, and to fear him. (8:5,6) The Hizkuni writes that the period of conquest has begun.

the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven and then take upon himself the yoke of the commandments. (Brachot 13a) The Mishna teaches that the primary purpose of the Sh'ma is the acceptance of the "Yoke of Heaven", while the focus of the second chapter, "V'haya" is the acceptance of the commandments. Tradition has familiarized us with this distinction, yet a straightforward reading of the text does not necessarily yield a similar understanding: The first chapter also speaks of the commandments, while the second chapter also delineates our relationship with G-d. Of course, it is the simple formula "Hear Israel the Lord is our G-d the Lord is one" which reverberates with the conviction of monotheism. The rest of the section seems similar to the second chapter.3 The second chapter details the consequences of commandments, and alternatively, the results of rebellion.

adherence

to

the

And it will come to pass, if you continually follow my commandments which I command you today, to love G-d your Lord, and serve Him, with all your hearts, and with all your souls. I will provide rain for your land in its proper time, ... you will eat and be satiated. But take heed, lest your hearts become seduced and you deviate, and serve other gods and prostrate to them. Then G-d will be exceedingly angry with you, and He will restrain the heavens that there will be no rain, and the ground will not yield its produce, you will be quickly exiled from the good land which G-d has given you. (11:13-17) Here the Torah describes a direct cause and effect for people's actions. This description is quite instructive. Often people question the relation between man's actions and G-d's knowledge, on the one hand, and man's freedom of choice on the other.4 If G-d indeed knows all that was, is, and will be, then apparently man does not possess freedom of choice. However, life without freedom of choice is a theological nightmare. What is the purpose of existence if G-d sits in the heavens pulling strings while we dance below like marionettes? G-d's knowledge is beyond human understanding, but if we were to posit that G-d exists outside of time, then the problem would be solved. Indeed Judaism has insisted for millennia that G-d transcends time. Time itself is a created entity and therefore G-d, as Creator, is outside time. For G-d, the following sentence would be both theologically and grammatically correct; "G-d knows yesterday what you did tomorrow". G-d’s knowledge simply transcends time. This still leaves us with the question of predeterminism, G-d pulling all the strings. I once saw this idea described in the following manner: 5 The idea of monotheism 3

4

5

Incidentally, the amount of text which constitutes the biblical requirement of the saying of Sh'ma is not that simple, and there are those among the Rishonim who opine that it requires only the first line , others say the first chapter, yet others, say the first two chapters Rav Meir Simcha of Dvinsk, wrote an exhaustive essay on this topic, it may be found as an addendum to his commentary on the Rambam, “Or Sameach” after the laws of repentance. In a pamphlet by Professor Shalom Rosenberg “Good and Evil in Jewish Thought”

one all-powerful G-d, suggests G-d’s control over all. Therefore, the description of puppets on string would be appropriate. Rambam, with his passion and logic, cut down the strings and insisted on mans freedom of choice. No strings pull man, man has choice and therefore life has meaning. Man controls his own destiny. The Kabbalists insisted that in truth, there are strings between man and G-d, and from afar, it seems as if G-d is pulling the strings. However, the reality is quite different. It is not G-d pulling the strings, rather it is man. In a sense, existence is a cosmic puppet theater. Surely, it was G-d who built the stage, and connected the strings, and has the ability to pull them at will. But it is our actions which cause the reaction from G-d. 6 This idea should not sound radical; it is the major message of the second chapter of Sh'ma. As we have seen, if man performs G-d’s commandments, a relationship is forged, and G-d will provide man with all his needs. Alternatively, when man rebels, G-d responds by withholding His Divine blessing. This description requires more explanation; should this direct causal relationship not be more obvious? Why do we not witness this relationship in action, daily and on individual basis? To understand this we must return to the comparison between the first two chapters of Sh'ma. There is a fundamental but subtle distinction between the chapters. The first chapter is written in the singular while the second chapter is written in the plural. (This distinction is not always felt in English translations, where the distinction between singular and plural is often blurred)7 The second chapter, which speaks to the community, speaks of cause and effect. It is here that we are told that our rebellious behavior will result in lack of rain, and eventually exile. One can not imagine a situation where it rains for one man but not for his neighbor. Certain punishments are communal. Exile is one such type punishment, especially when we realize that the traditional understanding of exile is not a description of merely a geographical change, but it refers to the exile of the Shechina as well. This is obviously a response to communal behavior; either G-d’s presence is amongst us, as best manifest by the Temple, or we suffer, as a community, the pain of alienation from G-d and his presence. Now we can better understand the verse which immediately precedes the second chapter of Sh'ma. The land of Israel is described as a land where-

6

For a fuller discussion on this relationship see my Notes on Parshat Naso. This analysis helps us resolve a number of difficult Halachic difficulties. For example, we know that there is a Jewish ethic that, "He who saves a life is as if he has saved an entire world." Elsewhere, we are taught that, for reasons of Tikun Olam, a community should not spend exorbitant sums to free captives. See Rambam, Matanot Aniyim 8:10,12. Why should a limit be placed on the amount to be spent by a community? Or, in other words, how can a value be put on something of limitless value? The first chapter of Sh'ma calls upon man to love G-d with all his heart all his soul and all his possessions, while the second chapter teaches us to love G-d "with all your hearts, and with all your souls." The second chapter, which speaks to the community, never mentions "all the community’s possessions". Apparently the community, as a community, possesses different responsibilities than the individual. (Rav Chaim Volozhin, in his classic the Nefesh Hachaim, Sha’r aleph chapter 8. This idea has also been reported in the name of the Sfat Emet, but the exact citation has eluded me). 7

A land which the Lord your G-d cares for; the eyes of the Lord your God are always upon it, from the beginning of the year to the end of the year. (11:12) This description seems obscure. What does it mean that G-d looks at this land all year round? The previous verses contrast Israel with the land of Egypt. And that you may prolong your days in the land, which the Lord swore to your fathers to give to them and to their seed, a land that flows with milk and honey. For the land, which you enter to possess, is not as the land of Egypt, from where you came out, where you sowed your seed, and watered it with your foot, as a garden of vegetables. But the land, which you are going over to possess, is a land of hills and valleys, and drinks water from the rain of the skies; (11:9-11) The special status of the Land of Israel is manifested, in the eyes of G-d observing the land. It is a land that needs rain, a land of dry climate. If the rain is not forthcoming, man must turn to G-d and pray for the rain. It is land that brings man in touch with the idea of the Shechina, forcing man to have a relationship with the Almighty. It is not a place where water can be carried from the Nile. It is a land where the symbiotic relationship between man and G-d is felt. Now we understand why this is the introduction to the second chapter of Sh'ma: If man behaves properly, the Shechina will be felt amongst us. If man ignores G-d, exile will follow. Israel is a land whose very air makes us wise, because it is a land which demands of us a relationship with the Divine.8 Surely G-d rewards and punishes all men in accordance with their actions, and the purity of their deeds and minds. Nevertheless, the ultimate issues of reward and punishment are on a communal level. Now we may gain insight into the nature of the community of Israel. We are taught in many sources and contexts, that all Jews are responsible for one another. This serves to teach you that the great are exhorted concerning the young and are punished on their account if they fail to reprove them. In the same strain it says, ‘And they shall stumble, a man through his brother’ (Lev. XXVI, 37), meaning, one for the iniquity of another. This teaches that all Israel are responsible for each other. [Midrash Rabbah - Numbers X:5] ‘For all transgressions in the Torah he alone is punished, but here he and the whole world.’ — And for all transgressions of the Torah is not the whole world punished? Lo, it is written, ‘And they shall stumble one upon another’: one because of the iniquity of the other. This teaches us that all Israel are responsible one for another! (Shavuot 39a)

8

See Talmud Baba Batra 158b “R. Zera said: From this one may deduce that the climate (or air) of the land of Israel makes one wise.” Also see Zohar Pinchas 245b, Tikunei Zohar 64a.

This principle of mutual responsibility teaches us that one Jew is responsible if another Jew sins. The negative actions of one person can effect the spiritual level of one’s neighbor, and indeed the entire community. The paradigmatic example of this principle is the embezzlement perpetrated by Achan. But the people of Israel committed a trespass in regard to the devoted property, for Achan, the son of Carmi, the son of Zavdi, the son of Zerah, of the tribe of Yehudah, took of the devoted things; and the anger of G-d was kindled against the people of Israel…. Israel has sinned, and they have also transgressed my covenant which I commanded them; for they have taken of the devoted things, and have also stolen, and also lied, and they have put it among their own possessions. Therefore the people of Israel could not stand before their enemies, but turned their backs before their enemies, because they were accursed; nor will I be with you any more, unless you destroy the accursed from among you. Arise, sanctify the people, and say, ‘Sanctify yourselves for tomorrow; for thus said the Lord God of Israel, There is devoted property in your midst, O Israel; you can not stand before your enemies, until you remove the devoted thing from among you.(Joshua 7:11:-13) One man sins and the entire community feels the consequences; moreover, the verse states that “Israel has sinned,” which implies that the entire nation bears responsibility. This idea is conveyed in the Tanna D’be Eliyahu as follows: The Jewish people are compared to a boat. If there is even one hole, the entire boat is in jeopardy, not only the section with the hole. (Tan D’be Eliyahu 11:2) A number of medieval authorities go even further. The principle of mutual responsibility also teaches us that if one Jew makes a blessing, his friend can answer “amen” be considered to have said the actual bracha. This principle applies when food is being eaten and both partake; it also applies in the case of fulfilling mitzvot. If one Jew made Kiddush, and his friend did not hear the kiddush as of yet, the first, who has already fulfilled his own obligation, may say the kiddush again. The normative explanation is that aside from an individual obligation to fulfill commandments, there is also an obligation to insure that others perform mitzvot as well. However, the Ran explains the idea as follows: as long as the second Jew has not fulfilled his obligation, the first has also not completed his. In a sense, each Jew’s obligation to say kiddush is multiplied by the number of Jews in the world. Therefore, the spiritual state of one Jew affects the spiritual reality of the entire community.9 Similarly, when Achan sinned, all “Israel” was responsible. The Talmud stresses that this was not the first instance where Achan committed a trespass: ‘Achan answered Yehoshua and said: In truth, I have sinned against the Lord, the G-d of Israel, and thus and thus have I done…’ R. Assi said in R. Hanina's name: This teaches that Achan had thrice violated the ban, twice in the days of Moses, and once in the days of Yehoshua, for it is written, ‘I have sinned, and thus and thus have I done.’ 9

Ran in his commentary at the end of the 3rd chapter of RoshHashana (29a)

R. Johanan said on the authority of R. Eleazar b. Simeon: He did so five times, four times in the days of Moses, and once in the days of Yehoshua, for it is written, ‘I have sinned and thus and thus have I done.’ And why were they [the Israelites] not punished until this occasion? R. Yohanan answered on the authority of R. Eleazar b. Simeon: Because [G-d] did not punish for secret transgressions until the Israelites had crossed the Jordan. This point is disputed by Tannaim: ‘The secret things belong unto the Lord our G-d, but the things that are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever.’ Why are the words: Lanu u-lebanenu, [unto us and to our children] and the ‘ayin of the word ‘ad, [for ever] dotted? — To teach that God did not punish for transgression committed in secret, until the Israelites had crossed the Jordan. (Sanhedrin 43b) This passage refers to a verse at the end of D’varim: And the anger of the Lord was kindled against this land, to bring upon it all the curses that are written in this book. And the Lord rooted them out of their land in anger, and in wrath, and in great indignation, and cast them into another land, as it is this day. The secret things belong to the Lord our G-d; but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this Torah.(29:26-28) Rashi explains that we are not responsible for the secret sins perpetrated by others, but the known sins we bear responsibility to chastise, and eradicate from our midst. Rashi qualifies the injunction, and says that it only began after the Jews crossed the Jordan. When they made the oaths on Mount Grizim and Mount Eval, the People of Israel became responsible for one another. 10 Though the Torah was given at Sinai, and arguably, we became a nation as we left Egypt, mutual responsibility begins as the Jews cross the Jordan. It is solidified as they stand on Mount Grizim and Mount Evel. This is because mutual responsibility is inextricably related to national identity, of which inhabiting the land is an essential component. Only when the Israelites entered the land was this aspect of nationhood complete. Now they were bidden to stand on Mount Grizim and Evel and reaffirm their commitment to follow the Torah given at Sinai. At that moment mutual responsibility became a reality. These are the words of the covenant which the Lord commanded Moses etc.’ and it is written: Keep therefore the words of this covenant etc. Hence there were forty-eight covenants in connection with each commandment. R. Simeon excludes [the occasion of] Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal and includes that of the Tent of Meeting in the wilderness. The difference of opinion here is the same as that of the teachers in the following: R. Ishmael 10

Rashi 29:28. Rashi refers to separate actions, one crossing the Jordan, and the second standing on the respective mountains, and making the vows. The episode of Achan transpired prior to standing on Mount Grizim and Eval. Apparently mutual responsibility was already in effect at that point. Perhaps the ability to make blessing for each other was held in abeyance until the formal vows were taken. However the sequence of events, is debated in the Talmudic sources, see Sotah 37.

says: General laws were proclaimed at Sinai and particular laws in the Tent of Meeting. R. Akiba says: Both general and particular laws were proclaimed at Sinai, repeated in the Tent of Meeting, and for the third time in the plains of Moab. Consequently there is not a single precept written in the Torah in connection with which forty-eight covenants were not made. R. Simeon b. Yudah of K’far Acco said in the name of R. Simeon: There is not a single precept written in the Torah in connection with which forty-eight times six hundred and three thousand, five hundred and fifty covenants were not made. Rabbi said: According to the reasoning of R. Simeon b. Judah of Kefar Acco who said in the name of R. Simeon that there is not a single precept written in the Torah in connection with which forty-eight times six hundred and three thousand, five hundred and fifty covenants were not made, it follows that for each Israelite there are six hundred and three thousand, five hundred and fifty commandments. What is the issue between them? — R. Mesharsheya said: The point between them is that of personal responsibility and responsibility for others. (Sotah 37a) The principle of mutual responsibility was taught as the Jews crossed the Jordan. In our Parsha, as the Jews stood on the other side of the Jordan, issues of communal responsibility needed to be examined and understood. The land has so much more than milk and honey; it has a spiritual capacity to bring us close to Gd, to make us wise. When communal responsibility is ignored, our existence in the Land is jeopardized: spiritual havoc results, and the results for the nation and each individual comprising the nation are disastrous. The Talmud, in an amazing passage, tells us of the destruction of Jerusalem. The destruction befalls not only the wicked who rebelled, but primarily the “righteous”, who did not attempt to influence the wicked. For R. Aha b. R. Hanina said: Never did a favorable word go forth from the mouth of the Holy One, blessed be He, of which He retracted for evil, save the following, where it is written, ‘And the Lord said unto him, “Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark [tav] upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that are done in their midst.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Gavriel, ‘Go and set a tav of ink upon the foreheads of the righteous, that the destroying angels may have no power over them; and a tav of blood upon the foreheads of the wicked, that the destroying angels may have power over them.” Said the Attribute of Justice before the Holy One, blessed be He, “Sovereign of the Universe! Wherein are these different from those?” “Those are completely righteous men, while these are completely wicked,” replied He. ‘Sovereign of the Universe!,’ he continued, ‘they had the power to protest but did not.’ ‘It was fully known to them that had they protested they would not have been heeded.’ ‘Sovereign of the Universe!’ said he, ‘If it was revealed to You, was it revealed to them?’ Hence it is written, ‘[Slay utterly] the old man, the young and the maiden, and little children and women; but come not near any man upon whom is the mark;

and begin at my Sanctuary [mikdashi].’ Then they began at the elders who stood before the House.11 (Shabbat 55a) The behavior of the nation as a whole is observed from heaven, and even though a certain type of logic compels one to “punish the wicked for their inequities”. This passage teaches us that primarily the righteous, are responsible for the spiritual environment, which was created. Why was it that the wicked felt that to fulfill their life’s ambitions they would be better to abandon Torah and embrace a different system of thought, and a foreign mode of behavior. For this the righteous have to give an accounting. After all, if we were to observe those around us digging holes under themselves on a boat, which we stood wouldn’t we respond quickly? Especially when those digging may not fully comprehend the ramifications of their actions. If the boat does sink, are not the “enlightened” responsible? As the people stood on the banks of the River Jordan, poised to meet their destiny, they received a lesson in metaphysics. It was the type of lesson that if learned, understood, and internalized, would make our stay in Israel an eternal glorious stay. It is a lesson we still need to review today.

11

A number of Rishonim rule that this passage reflects the law. See Smag 11, Yerayim 223.