Weekly Torah portion: Ekev
In parashat Va-ethanan we are commanded: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. And these words which I commanded you this day shall be upon your heart.” Va-ethanan presents us with obligations that we are commanded to obey solely by virtue of our being God’s servants. This principle is expressed in the verse: “You shall not put the Lord your God to the test, as you tested Him at Massah” (6:16).
Bahya Ibn Paquda (Spain, 11th c.) explained in his commentary to the verse: “You shall not put the Lord your God to the test: The Bible warns that man should not test God by saying I will serve God and see if my affairs succeed by serving Him, for it is not proper to serve Him doubtfully, but rather one must choose to serve Him perfectly out of love, whether one succeeds or not.”
However, it would appear that parashat Ekev presents a different approach: “If, then, you obey the commandments that I enjoin upon you this day, loving the Lord your God and serving Him with all your heart and soul, I will grant the rain for your land in season, the early rain and the late. You shall gather in your new grain and wine and oil, I will also provide grass in the fields for your cattle, and thus you shall eat your fill” (11:13-15). On the one hand, we are commanded to love God unconditionally, while on the other hand, we are promised that if we love God, then certain conditions will be met.
Do the two parashot present conflicting approaches? Do the ve-ahavta (“You shall love the Lord”) and the ve-haya im shamo’a (“If, then, you obey the commandments”) paragraphs, which form the first and second parts of the Shema, contradict one another?
In his commentary to the siddur, R. Joseph H. Hertz explained that the first section of the Shema “is a proclamation of the existence and Unity of God; of Israel’s complete loyalty to God and His commandments; the belief in Divine Justice; the remembrance of the liberation from Egypt, and its corollary, the Election of Israel.” As opposed to this: “The middle of the Shema teaches the doctrine of Divine Righteousness. Israel shall ever look upon its fortunes, even if these depend upon natural events, like the seasons, as rewards or punishments for righteous or unrighteous living…The doctrine that obedience to the will of God is rewarded and disobedience punished, is bound up with the basic belief of Judaism in a God of Justice. Because God is just, He will not treat the righteous and the wicked in the same manner…But such reward… is not made the motive for virtue. That must be love of God and His commandments, a free enthusiasm for doing His will” (The Authorised Daily Prayer Book, 117-121).
Similarly, R. Elie Munk explains: “The foundation of Jewish ethics, their basis in dogma and their program in practice, is the theme of the Shema…The general outlines of the first paragraph are thus filled in by the specific demands of the second. He who has the ‘acceptance of the Divine Kingdom’ firmly embedded in his soul will be prepared to hallow his life by the practice of Judaism” (The World of Prayer, vol. I, 112-114). This approach reflects the Mishnaic statement: “R. Joshua b. Karha said: Why does the section ‘Hear O Israel’ precede ‘If, then, you obey the commandments’? So that one may first assume the yoke of the kingdom of heaven, and afterward assume the yoke of the commandments” (Berakhot 2:2).
1. Does the approach found in Va-ethanan, as expressed in ve-ahavta, contradict the approach in Ekev expressed in ve-haya im shamo’a?
2. It would appear that ve-ahavta presents us with an absolute obligation, a command that is not subject to free will and that cannot be breached. As opposed to this, ve-haya im shamo’a appears to present us with the possibility of choosing between two alternatives, each with its own consequences. One is free to assume the yoke of the commandments and its rewards, or to reject it and risk punishment. Both chapters – ve-ahavta and ve-haya im shamo’a - speak in terms of ‘love’. Are we faced here with two different degrees of love or approaches to love?
3. Ve-haya im shamo’a promises reward and threatens punishment. Can such an approach be reconciled with the words “loving the Lord your God and serving Him with all your heart and soul”? Is it possible to love for the sake of reward? Can one love out of fear?
4. The sages and commentators seem to view the two apparently divergent approaches as complimentary rather than contradictory. How can the approaches be reconciled?
Iyunei Shabbat is published weekly by the Schechter Rabbinical Seminary, The Masorti Movement and The Rabbinical Assembly of Israel in conjunction with the Masorti Movement in Israel and Masorti Olami-World Council of Conservative Synagogues.
Chief Editor: Rabbi Avinoam Sharon
