For the past year or so, I’ve been reading the government welfare blessings in English while the guy reads it aloud in the shul at which I daven and just tonight, I discovered a correlation with something from this week’s parsha.
When we ask that “Yisrael yishkon lavetach” (Israel should dwell in security), I see a parallel to the promise made at the end of sheini: “vishavtem al ha’aretz lavetach” (you will live in the land securely — Leviticus 25:18).
But this is not an unconditional promise made by God; rather, it hinges on our fulfillment of the commandments. It’s difficult to think of a world in which all the Jewish people observe the commandments above the threshold that would meet these expectations. As such, I sense, we do not dwell in security, neither in the Land of Israel nor the State of Israel.
It is then that the verses continue: the land shall provide for its inhabitants and do not worry about shmitah-induced famine because the land will produce enough for the nation until such time that newly harvested food is available. I am aware that Aish HaTorah uses this verse (25:20) in its Discovery seminar, but attempting to look at this conditional guarantee with fresh, unjaded eyes, does this verse really serve to provide any sort of evidence for the truth of the Torah? I’m no farmer, but was it normal to have enough leftover food for approximately 2.5 years until the 8th year produce was ready for harvesting? Or did the farmers just anticipate the missing agricultural output and plant more in the 6th year? That’s what I’d do if I were a farmer, because it doesn’t seem like there’s any sort of promise we can count on, the security and abundance of verses 19 and 20 seemingly heavily dependent on the observance and practice of verse 18.
i would think that the farmers would be making use of all their land every year anyway…why would you not utilize all your ground for crops (you’d have more to sell at market, you could plant diff crops, etc.)
it is easy to say, “of course! i’ll just plant more!” but who’s to say the extra land is available? Hshem provided. the end. I also think it is fine that you are pointing out this question, however, as someone who “believes” (you) I would make sure to add in the opinion of why this DOES enfore the Torah, as some skeptics may be reading this.
Shabbat Shalom!
I don’t think farmers use all of their land all of the time in the most efficacious manner, taking economics out of the picture — in other words, farmers might grow things that are of economic value (plants for dyes, flax for fabric, etc.) but if they are heading into a shmitah year, they might opt for grains because that has the longest lastability. When I went to visit the Wise potato chip factory 2 years ago, we passed a whole bunch of fields on the main road off the highway (Berwick, PA) and the VP was telling me how they used to purchase potatoes from the local farmers, but they mostly switched to growing Halloween pumpkins for Walmart because it was much more profitable. But if everyone is starving to death, indigo may not be the way to go.
The overall driving force of this post was as follows: when we suffer because of a bad decision, Maimonides explains that we may not blame God for our stupidity — that we can effectively negate the divine guidance of events through our choices. But in the same way, if we are all preparing for shmitah, can it really serve as a sign that God is with us when we succeed? It’s really not as evident as Aish HaTorah might lead you to believe.
And if one didn’t have enough food, it could have been attributed to poor religious observance, making it all the more difficult to be able to point to shmitah survival and say, “now look at this…this proves there’s a God!”
> But in the same way, if we are all preparing for shmitah, can it really serve as a sign that God is with us when we succeed? It’s really not as evident as Aish HaTorah might lead you to believe.
If there was indeed a bumper crop in the sixth year every time, this might be used as a proof – and it’s that proof that you’re questioning here by pointing to farmers planting more food crops in preparation for shmitah. But that’s not the proof Aish HaTorah makes out of shmitah. According to Aish Hatorah, the CLAIM that there will be a bumper crop in the sixth year is proof that the Torah was written by God, because who else could make such a claim? This is silly for a host of reasons:
1) People make predictions all the time, and it doesn’t dissuade their followers one bit when the predictions fail to come true. The best examples are probably the frequent predictions of the end of the world. Not only don’t the followers abandon their leader when the world continues to stubbornly exist after the predicted date of its demise, but their faith in him often gets even stronger. This is because the can either they can admit to themselves that they were idiots to follow this guy; or they can convince themselves that he’s the great leader they thought him to be, and that there are other reasons the prediction didn’t come true. Which brings us to…
2) As you said, if there was no bumper crop, it would inevitably be blamed on the people’s lax observance of the mitzvos.
3) Every now and then there are bumper crops. If it happened in the third year or the fifth year, no special significance would be attached to it, but if it happened in the SIXTH year – well, that’s obviously proof that Hashem is fulfilling His promise to provide for shmitah.
4) The “proof” is based on the same silly scenario used in the Kuzari proof: Someone making up the Torah one day and trying to convince everyone else of its truth. Of course, myths usually aren’t made up by a single person, but develop slowly over a long time. Most probably the practice of shmitah was around long before the promise of a bumper crop in the sixth year. It’s entirely possible that the claim was added to encourage people to keep the practice, or developed during a period when bumper crops were common and so occurred several times in a row on the sixth year.
Given that there are plausible ways for the claim to develop besides the single-person scenario, and given that the lack of a bumper crop in the sixth year would not be seen as disproving the claim, insisting that no one but God could make such a claim is silly.
Given the likely benefits of crop rotation, I think it more likely that rather than see a bumper crop in year 6, the farmer would see a bumper crop in year 1, after the shmitah year.
That wouldn’t really help all those who would die of starvation in the seventh year.
Looking at the pesukim, I don’t agree with your analysis. There is a break btwn verse 19 and 20. 19 says if you do my mitzvos then the land will produce and you will stay here securely.
20-22 are connected pesukim and bring up something new: 20. “And if ye shall say: ‘What shall we eat the seventh year? behold, we may not sow, nor gather in our increase’ 21. then I will command My blessing upon you in the sixth year, and it shall bring forth produce for the three years. 22. etc.” This question is referring back to the beginning of the chapter. What follows is that God is saying, as long as you keep the shmitta, I will command my blessing . Thats it.
[The text is throwing stuff into the middle, confusing modern readers used to relatively consecutive flows, and not used to texts being interrupted with tangential thoughts. But dibra torah klashon benei adam, and, not that I’m an expert, but that was apparently the style of ANE texts.]
The aliyah break does separate the verses, but the subject flows through — there is talk of there being bounty and satisfaction (in general) and then a rhetorical wonderment is expressed and presented on behalf of the people who would read such a thing (Bounty? How can there be bounty if we’re not growing anything?!), followed by the assurance that the bounty of the land will suffice to allow the people to live through a year of no agriculture every 7 years.
It is related, but it’s not part of the original ‘thought’. Over Shabbos, I looked at the Ramban on the pasuk, and he obviously sees this as break as well. He fits these verses into the text, by showing similarities with the general topic, but it’s clear he sees these psukim as deviations. And, as you point out, the Baalei Hamesorah probably thought so as well.