Daf Ditty Ta’anis 5: Ilan, Ilan

1
2
GEMARA: Rav Naḥman said to Rabbi Yitzḥak: Is the first rain in Nisan? The first rain is in
Marḥeshvan, as we learned in a baraita: The first rain is in Marḥeshvan, and the last rain is
in Nisan. Rabbi Yitzḥak said to Rav Naḥman that Rabbi Yoḥanan said as follows: This verse
was fulfilled in the days of the prophet Joel, son of Pethuel, in a year concerning which it is
written:
,‫ד ֶיֶתר ַהָגָּזם ָאַכל ָהַא ְרֶבּה‬ 4 That which the palmer-worm hath left hath the locust eaten;
;‫ְוֶיֶתר ָהַא ְרֶבּה ָאַכל ַהָיֶּלק‬ and that which the locust hath left hath the canker-worm eaten;
.‫ ָאַכל ֶהָחִסיל‬,‫ְוֶיֶתר ַהֶיֶּלק‬ and that which the canker-worm hath left hath the caterpillar
eaten.
Joel 1:4

“That which the palmer-worm has left, the locust has eaten and that which the locust has left,
the canker-worm has eaten; and that which the canker-worm has left, the caterpillar has eaten”
when no crops remained. In that year, the month of Adar ended and still no rain had fallen.
The rain of the first rainy season fell for them on the first of Nisan.

3
After the first rain fell, the prophet said to the Jews: Go out and sow. They said to him: One
who has one kav of wheat or two kav of barley left, should he eat them and live off them for a
while or sow them and die? Given the improbability of the crops’ growth under these
circumstances, it appears wasteful to plant them rather than consume that which remains. The
prophet said to them: Nevertheless, go out and sow. A miracle occurred for them, and they
discovered wheat and barley seeds that were hidden in the walls and that were concealed in ant
holes.

4
They went out and sowed on the second, third, and fourth days of Nisan, and the rain of the
second rainy season fell for them on the fifth of Nisan. The crops grew so quickly that they
were able to sacrifice the omer offering in its proper time, on the sixteenth of Nisan.
Consequently, grain that normally grows in six months grew in eleven days, and
consequently, the omer that is generally sacrificed from grain that grows in six months was
sacrificed that year from grain that grew in eleven days.

5
And with regard to that generation the verse says:

‫ְבּ ִרָנּה‬ --‫ה ַהֹזּ ְרִﬠים ְבִּדְמָﬠה‬ 5 They that sow in tears shall reap in joy.
.‫ִיְקֹצרוּ‬

‫ֹנֵשׂא‬ --‫ וָּבֹכה‬,p‫ ֵיֵל‬p‫ו ָהלוֹ‬ 6 Though he goeth on his way weeping that beareth the
:‫ַהָזּ ַרע‬-p‫ֶמֶשׁ‬ measure of seed, {N}
.‫ ֲאֻלֹמָּתיו‬,‫ ֹנֵשׂא‬--‫ָיב ֹא ְב ִרָנּה‬-‫בּ ֹא‬ he shall come home with joy, bearing his sheaves. {P}
Ps 126: 5.6

“They who sow in tears shall reap with songs of joy. Though he goes on his way weeping, who
bears the measure of seed, he shall come home with joy, bearing his sheaves”

The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the expression: “Though he goes on his way weeping,
who bears the measure of seed”? Rabbi Yehuda said: An ox, when it plowed at that time, it
went on its way weeping and lamenting its labor; and yet upon its return, through the same
furrow, it was able to eat the young shoots [ḥaziz] of crops that had already sprouted from the
furrow. And this is the meaning of the phrase: “He shall come home with songs of joy.”

The Gemara further asks: What is the meaning of the expression: “Bearing his sheaves”? Rav
Ḥisda said, and some say this was taught in a baraita: The stalk of that crop was one span, i.e.,
the distance between the thumb and the little finger, while the ear itself was two spans, i.e., the
ears were twice as long as the stalk, whereas usually the stalk is three or four times longer than the
ear.

The Gemara relates: When they were taking leave of one another, Rav Naḥman said to Rabbi
Yitzḥak: Master, give me a blessing. Rabbi Yitzḥak said to him: I will tell you a parable. To
what is this matter comparable? It is comparable to one who was walking through a desert
and who was hungry, tired, and thirsty. And he found a tree whose fruits were sweet and

6
whose shade was pleasant, and a stream of water flowed beneath it. He ate from the fruits of
the tree, drank from the water in the stream, and sat in the shade of the tree.

And when he wished to leave, he said: Tree, tree, with what shall I bless you? If I say to you
that your fruits should be sweet, your fruits are already sweet; if I say that your shade should
be pleasant, your shade is already pleasant; if I say that a stream of water should flow beneath
you, a stream of water already flows beneath you. Rather, I will bless you as follows: May it
be God’s will that all saplings which they plant from you

be like you. So it is with you. With what shall I bless you? If I bless you with Torah, you already
have Torah; if I bless you with wealth, you already have wealth; if I bless you with children,
you already have children. Rather, may it be God’s will that your offspring shall be like you.

Summary

Introduction1

The previous mishnah discussed the concept of “mentioning rain.” This mishnah adds in a
discussion of the subject of “asking for rain.” This refers to the addition of the words “and give
dew and rain (veten tal umatar)” in the ninth blessing of the Amidah, which is called “The Blessing
of the Years.”

They don’t pray for rain except close to the rainy season.

1
https://www.sefaria.org/Taanit.5a.3?lang=bi&p2=Mishnah_Taanit.1.2&lang2=bi&w2=English%20Explanation%20of%20Mish
nah&lang3=en

7
In Israel there is a clearly defined rainy season, which lasts roughly from Sukkot to Pesah. It does
not rain in the summer in Israel. The mishnah teaches that we request rain only in the season in
which it is normal for it to rain. There are probably two reasons for this. First of all, rain in the
wrong season can destroy crops, so one shouldn’t ask for something if it will cause damage.
Secondly, we ask God for nature to perform in a predictable and stable fashion, for it to run its
course. We do not ask God for miracles, nor do we rely on them or expect them.

Rabbi Judah says: One who goes down before the ark on the last day of Sukkot
the last one mentions [rain], the first does not; on the first day of Pesah, the first
mentions, the last does not.

This section returns to discuss the “mentioning of rain” that comes during the second blessing of
the Amidah. In yesterday’s mishnah Rabbi Joshua said that we begin to mention rain on the last
day of Sukkot. Rabbi Judah in our mishnah agrees and merely points out that there are two prayer
leaders on a festival, one for Shacharit and one for Mussaf. On the last day of Sukkot the prayer
leader, one who “goes down before the ark” for Mussaf begins to mention rain. The prayer leader
for Shacharit does not. The opposite is true at the other end of the spectrum. On the first day of
Pesah, the prayer leader for Shacharit still mentions the rain, but the prayer leader for Mussaf does
not. In other words, at both times the change is made during Mussaf. This means that there is
almost no point in the festival during which rain is mentioned rather do is basically mentioned all
of the time. This is because dew, which falls during the summer months, is a blessing during the
festival because it doesn’t disrupt people’s travel. While rain is good for the land, we all still love
a bright sunshine day!

Up until when do they request rain? Rabbi Judah says: Until Pesah is over.
Rabbi Meir says: Until Nissan is over, as it says, “Now He makes the rain fall
in the first month, early rain and late rain” (Joel 2:23).

In this section two sages disagree with regard to how long in the season we ask for rain. Rabbi
Judah says that we ask until Pesah is over. We should note that Rabbi Judah’s opinion in this
section seems to disagree with what he said before that we stop mentioning rain on the first day of
Pesah. The Talmud resolves this problem by saying that there are two different versions of Rabbi
Judah’s opinion within this mishnah. Rabbi Meir says that we ask for rain until the entire month
of Nissan is over. He uses the verse from Joel as a prooftext that rain is a blessing in the entire first
month, the month of Nissan.

A whimsical and philosophical daf today - at least according to me.2

We begin with a Mishna about praying for rain. When do we stop saying our prayer for

2
http://dafyomibeginner.blogspot.com/2014/06/

8
rain? Rabbi Yehuda says that we say this prayer until the end of Passover. Rabbi Meir says that
we say this prayer until the end of the month of Nissan based on a proof text from Joel (2:23).

The Gemara begins with descriptions of the year that rains fell in Nissan. The rabbis speak about
times of draught; of thirst and hunger. A story is told about a miracle: after those first rains in
Nissan, the second rains fell only days later. The people had followed the advice of their prophets
and had sown the land in time to reap the benefits. The story ends with a lesson: those who went
out in tears came back with joy.

We may believe that our efforts are for nought. We may sow our fields, put in the hard work that
is demanded of us, and not expect to be rewarded. But in the end, we can trust that our work will
yield a crop; we will eat on our ways home. A lovely idea.

Rabbi Nachman and Rabbi Yitzchak discuss a story told by Rav Yochanan. In Kings, when there
was a famine for seven years, what did the people eat? Rabbi Yochanan names the food for each
year, ending in horror as taught in Isaiah (9:19) in the seventh year they ate their sons and
daughters; in the seventh year they ate the flesh of their own arms. Steinsaltz does not comment
specifically on this travesty. A note mentions that this was said to have happened as it was
recorded in Kings II.

We then switch tracks and learn about Jerusalem as a city below, on Earth, which is attached to a
Jerusalem above, in the World-to-Come (Psalms 122:3). When the rabbis wonder why G-d might
not be able to enter the sacred city of Jerusalem (Hosea 11:9), they consider the possibility that G-
d cannot enter G-d's own city of Jerusalem above until Moshiach comes. This suggests that G-d
is like those of us in the diaspora who are exiled from Jerusalem for now.

Rabbi Nachman and Rabbi Yitzchak continue their discussion. Like the city of Jerusalem below
and above, they look at another instance of "two in one". This time the discussion is about idolatry,
which they agree is one sin that counts as two sins. They name a number of ways that this can be
proven. One describes the Kittites who worship fire thought it can be extinguished by water -
which is idolized by another sect. They also speak of our first two commandments which both
allude to idolatry.

These two rabbis now speak about King Samuel, who was righteous and yet died young, at age
52. Could he have been punished for an unknown sin with karet? No-one wants to believe that
this could be possible. Instead they decide that a person who dies at 52 has not died before his/her
years and thus karet refers to an even younger death.

Once Rabbi Nachman and Rabbi Yitzchak were eating together and one asked the other to begin

9
a conversation about Torah. The other reminded him not to speak - even of Torah - during a meal
to protect one's health, for food could become lodged in the wrong place. Perhaps the rabbis were
simply tired of talking to each other? But in all seriousness, we learn in a note that this is still
practiced in some communities today. It is quite difficult for me to imagine Jews silent during all
meals.

After the meal, they discussed Rabbi Yochanan's notion that Jacob did not die. How could this be
possible? Well, he lives on through his seed. And because he was a flawless person, we can
expect great things from his children, as well.

Two last stories about these rabbis. The first is disturbing to me. Rabbi Yitzchak tells Rabbi
Nachman that any man just saying the name of a particular woman: Rachav, Rachav, will have a
seminal emission right then. When Rabbi Nachman challenges this based on his own experience,
Rabbi Yitzchak modifies his statement: I was referring to a man who knew her [in the Biblical
sense] and who recognized her.

Is Rabbi Yitzchak married to Rachav? Is he suggesting that he had sexual relations with her? Was
this a socially acceptable topic of conversation after dinner? What were the circumstances of this
woman? Such a bizarre statement reminds me that our Sages were simply people of their time,
with similar character flaws in imperfections as we have today.

Finally, Rabbi Nachman asks Rabbi Yitzchak to bless him. Rabbi Yitzchak tells the story of a
man in the desert - hungry, thirsty, tired. He comes across a tree by water that offers him fruit,
shade, and drink. The man wishes to offer the tree a blessing. But it has sweet fruit, wonderful
shade, and thirst-quenching water already! So the man blesses the tree saying, may it be G-d's will
that your saplings that plant from you be just like you. In this way, Rabbi Yitzcha blesses Rabbi
Nachman by asking that G-d make his children just like him.

Today we observe the relationship between two rabbis and the wisdom - and folly! - that comes
from their conversations. A beautiful blessing to end a truly esoteric, interesting daf.

Rav Avrohom Adler writes:3

CEASE REQUESTING RAIN

The Mishna presents a dispute regarding the date that we cease asking for rain. Rabbi Yehudah
maintains that v’sen tal u’matar is recited until Pesach is over and Rabbi Meir holds that it is recited
until the end of the month of Nissan. Rabbi Meir cites a Scriptural verse proving that it can be
recited in the month of Nissan. The Gemora asks on the verse which Rabbi Meir had cited to prove

3
http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Taanis_5.pdf

10
that we request rain throughout the month of Nissan. Rav Nachman asked that the word ‘yoreh’
which Rabbi Meir explained to be referring to the yoreh rain of Nissan is seemingly incorrect. He
cites a braisa which explicitly states that yoreh rain falls in the month of Mar-Cheshvan and
malkosh rain falls in the month of Nissan. Rabbi Yitzchak answered that in the times of Yoel, there
was yoreh rain which fell in the month of Nissan and that is what the verse is referring to.

MIRACLE IN THE DAYS OF YOEL

The Gemora provides the details of the miracle that transpired in the times of Yoel. That year, the
month of Adar passed and there was still no rainfall. The first rain fell on the first day of Nissan.
The prophet Yoel told Klal Yisroel to go and plant their fields. The people protested that since
they have a small amount of wheat and barley, they should eat it and not plant it. If they would
plant it, they would die from starvation waiting for the new crop to grow. Yoel persisted and told
them to plant the grain which they had. A miracle occurred and they found grain in the walls and
in the ant holes. They planted on the second, third and fourth day of Nissan from the grain with
which they had, and the second rainfall came down on the fifth day of Nissan. They miraculously
were able to bring the korban omer on the sixteenth of Nissan from the new crop which grew. It
emerges that grain which normally grows in six months grew in eleven days. Regarding this
generation, it is said “Those who plant with tears will harvest with bliss.”

SEVEN YEARS OF FAMINE

The Gemora discusses what Klal Yisroel ate during the seven years of famine prior to that
miraculous harvest. Rabbi Yitzchak stated in the name of Rabbi Yochanan that in the first year
they ate the food that they had stored in their houses. The second year, they ate from the food
which was in the fields. The third year, they ate from kosher animals. During the fourth year, they
ate from non-kosher animals. The fifth year, they ate from non-kosher creeping creatures. During
the sixth year, they ate from the flesh of their children. In the seventh year, they ate from the flesh
of their own arms.

RABBI YOCHANAN’S INTERPRETATIONS

The Gemora cites questions which Rav Nachman inquired of Rabbi Yitzchak and Rabbi
Yitzchak’s responses in the name of Rabbi Yochanan. Rabbi Yochanan explained a verse in
Hoshea to mean that Hashem said that He will not enter the Yerushalayim located in heaven until
He enters the Yerushalayim on earth. Rabbi Yochanan explained a verse in Yirmiyahu to mean
that that there is one sin that causes the evil people to be burned in Gehinom and that is idolatry.

SHMUEL

Rabbi Nachman asked Rabbi Yitzchak another question. It is written in Shmuel that Shmuel was
old. How can this be when we know that Shmuel died when he was fifty-two years old? Rabbi
Yitzchak answered in the name of Rabbi Yochanan that Shmuel became old-looking suddenly.

SHMUEL, SHAUL AND DOVID

11
Rabbi Yochanan elaborates on what transpired towards the end of Shmuel’s life. Hashem related
to Shmuel that it was time for King Shaul to die and for Dovid to replace him as king. Shmuel said
that it was improper for Shaul, who was anointed to be king by Shmuel, to die while he, Shmuel,
was still alive. Hashem said that he cannot cause Shmuel to die young because people will claim
that he died young because of a sin that he committed. He cannot keep Shaul alive since once it is
time for Dovid to become king, one reign cannot impinge upon another even by a hairbreadth.
Hashem said that he will make Shmuel appear old and this way Shmuel can die without anyone
alleging that he sinned and then Shaul can die in order for Dovid to become king.

A SPECIAL BLESSING

Rabbi Nachman and Rabbi Yitzchak were eating together. Rabbi Nachman asked Rabbi Yitzchak
to relate some Torah words. Rabbi Yitzchak said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan that one should
not talk while he is eating since food might enter the windpipe causing him to choke. After they
finished eating, Rabbi Yitzchak said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan that Yaakov Avinu never
died, and he cited a Scriptural verse proving this. When Rabbi Nachman and Rabbi Yitzchak were
leaving each other, Rabbi Nachman asked Rabbi Yitzchak to give him a blessing.

Rabbi Yitzchak responded with a parable. A person was walking in a desert, and he was hungry,
tired, and thirsty. He happened upon a tree which had sweet fruits, a pleasing shade and a spring
of water flowing beneath it. The man ate from the fruits, drank the water, and sat in its shade.
When he was leaving the tree, he pondered as to how he can bless the tree. He could not bless the
tree that its fruits should be sweet, its shade should be nice or that it should have a stream of water
flowing beneath it since it already possessed all these things. The blessing he gave was that it
should be the will of Hashem that all the shoots planted from this tree should be just like it. Rabbi
Yitzchak explained to Rabbi Nachman that he cannot bless him with Torah, riches, or children
since he already had all that. Rabbi Yitzchak blessed Rabbi Nachman that all his children should
be just like him.

GRAIN FROM THE ANT HOLES

The Gemora provides the details of the miracle that transpired in the times of Yoel. That year, the
month of Adar passed and there was still no rainfall. The first rain fell on the first day of Nissan.
The prophet Yoel told Klal Yisroel to go and plant their fields. The people protested that since
they have a small amount of wheat and barley, they should eat it and not plant it. If they would
plant it, they would die from starvation waiting for the new crop to grow. Yoel persisted and told
them to plant the grain which they had. A miracle occurred and they found grain in the walls and
in the ant holes. They planted on the second, third and fourth day of Nissan from the grain with
which they had, and the second rainfall came down on the fifth day of Nissan. Rashi learns that
they planted from the grain with which they had and ate the grain from which they found. Rabbeinu
Chananel learns exactly the opposite. They ate from the grain from which they had, and they
planted from the grain with which they found. What compelled Rashi to learn his way?

12
The Rif in the Ein Yaakov asks on Rashi that how was the verse “Those who plant with tears will
harvest with bliss” fulfilled? Rashi learns that they were crying since they didn’t have what to eat.
Why should they be planting with tears if they had grain which they found in the walls? The Rif
answers that Hashem did not perform the miracle of providing them with the grain in the walls
until they showed their faith in Hashem by planting from the grain with which they had. The Yad
Yosef answers that the grain from the ant holes would not be suitable for planting. The saliva from
the ants and mice destroys all the moisture in the grain and therefore they ate from that grain and
planted the old grain. Sefer Tehilla L’yonah found an answer that since they would be bringing
the grain with which they planted for the korban omer; grain from a miracle is not fitting to be
used for a korban.

TIME TO BECOME ROOTED

The Gemora relates that in the times of Yoel, Klal Yisroel planted on the second, third and fourth
day of Nissan from the grain with which they had, and the second rainfall came down on the fifth
day of Nissan. They miraculously were able to bring the korban omer on the sixteenth of Nissan
from the new crop which grew. It emerges that grain which normally grows in six months grew in
eleven days. The Maharsha comments that it was necessary for the grain to take root three days
before the second rainfall. This is because the Gemora in Rosh Hashanah (10b) states that in order
for grain to be considered from the previous year, it is required to be rooted into the ground and
that takes three days.

The Metzapeh Eisan asks that this is only correct according to Rabbi Yehudah; however Rabbi
Yosi and Rabbi Shimon disagree and maintain that it takes two weeks to become rooted in the
ground and the halachah is in accordance with their opinion. Shulchan Aruch (Y”D 293) rules that
grain which took root before the sixteenth of Nissan becomes permitted for consumption with the
korban omer offered on the sixteenth. The Shach cites the Terumos Hadeshen (191) who states
that it takes three days for the grain to become rooted into the ground.

The Dagul Meirvova asks that this is only correct according to Rabbi Yehudah; however Rabbi
Yosi and Rabbi Shimon disagree and maintain that it takes two weeks to become rooted in the
ground and the halacha is in accordance with their opinion. The Metzapeh Eisan answers that the
Terumos Hadeshen relied on our Gemora that would seem to indicate that three days is sufficient
time for the grain to take root into the ground.

The Gr”A states that perhaps there is a distinction between trees and grain as to the amount of time
it takes for them to become rooted in the ground. He cites a Yerushalmi that makes such a
distinction. The Chasam Sofer (Y”D 284) answers that in truth, there is not a factual dispute as to
how many days it takes for a tree to take root since everyone holds that it takes root in three days
or less and the facts can attest to this. The argument amongst the Tannaim is regarding a case
where for some reason the tree did not take root; after how long can it be stated with a certainty
that the tree will not take root any longer? Regarding Shemitah, which is a Biblical transgression,
we must rule stringently that grain which is planted two weeks prior to Shemitah receives the

13
sanctity of Shemitah. The prohibition of eating from the new crop outside of Eretz Yisroel is only
Rabbinical and therefore we can rule leniently, and three days will be sufficient.

"Va'yiko'lei ho'om mei'hovi" - And the nation stopped bringing –

The word "va'yiko'lei" appears in Breishis 8:2 as well, "Va'yikolei ha'geshem min hashomayim."
These two verses can be linked as follows: Our Gemora says that drought is caused by people
pledging donations and not fulfilling their commitment. This is derived from the verse in Mishlei
25:15, "N'siim v'ruach ayin ish mis'ha'leil b'matas sho'ker," - clouds and a storm wind, but there is
not (rain), similar to a person who prides himself with a false donation, i.e. a pledge that is not
honoured. The pledge gives a false feeling of a donation about to be given.

Similarly, not only is there no rain, but there are clouds and a storm wind, which give rise to an
expectation that becomes naught. When is there "va'yiko'lei ha'geshem," there is no rain? It is when
"va'yiko'lei ho'om mei'hovi," when the nation does not bring its donation. (Kli Yokor)

ONE SIN WHICH IS CONSIDERED LIKE TWO

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:4

Rav Nachman asked Rebbi Yitzchak what the verse means when it says, "My nation committed
two evils" (Yirmeyahu 2:13). Rebbi Yitzchak answered that the verse means that the nation
committed one evil which is equal to two. This refers to the sin of Avodah Zarah.
In what way is the sin of Avodah Zarah considered like two sins?

(a) RASHI says that Rebbi Yitzchak's teaching relies on the verse cited by the Gemara shortly
afterwards. The verse (Yirmeyahu 2:10) states that the people of the islands of the Kitiyim and the
people of the land of Kedar never deserted their gods even though they were worthless. "One
transgression which is equal to two" means that the Avodah Zarah of the Jews at that time was
worse than the two idols of the Kitiyim and the Kedarim combined. When those nations went into
exile, they brought their idols with them and remained loyal to them. In contrast, when the Jewish
people went into exile, they deserted Hash-m and they began to serve Avodah Zarah.

(b) RABEINU GERSHOM also explains that Rebbi Yitzchak's teaching refers to the verse cited
later. He explains that the two evils contained within one transgression were that the Jews served
the idol of the Kitiyim and the idol of the Kedarim.

(c) The ETZ YOSEF and AHAVAS EISAN (in the EIN YAKOV) explain that the sin of
Avodah Zarah was equal to two sins because one who commits idolatry transgresses both the
Mitzvas Aseh of "Anochi Hash-m Elokecha" and the Lo Ta'aseh of "Lo Yiheyeh Lachem Elohim
Acherim." In that sense, Avodah Zarah is one sin which includes two.
Moreover, the first commandment of the Aseres ha'Dibros, "Anochi Hash-m Elokecha," is the root
of all Mitzvos Aseh, and the second commandment, "Lo Yiheyeh Lachem Elohim Acherim," is

4
https://dafyomi.co.il/taanis/insites/tn-dt-005.htm

14
the root of all Mitzvos Lo Ta'aseh. The sin of Avodah Zarah is equal to the two Mitzvos which are
the root of the entire Torah.

(d) The MAGID of DUBNO explains as follows. When other nations served Avodah Zarah and
exchanged their god for another one, it was not so terrible. They merely exchanged nothing for
nothing. Since they were justifiably disappointed with their first god and his failure to respond to
their prayers, they changed their allegiance to a new god. In contrast, it was a terrible transgression
for the Jewish people -- who saw the great power of Hash-m and were the beneficiaries of His
great kindness -- to give up Hash-m in order to serve useless and powerless idols. Accordingly,
there were two evils in their sin of Avodah Zarah: they left the Almighty Hash-m, and they changed
their allegiance to entirely worthless idols in His place.

YAKOV AVINU DID NOT DIE

(a) The CHOCHMAS MANO'ACH explains that Rebbi Yitzchak does not mean that Yakov is
still alive today. Rather, it means that he was still alive when he was returned to Eretz Yisrael for
burial in the Me'aras ha'Machpelah. The people mistakenly thought that he was dead and thus they
eulogized him and embalmed him (just with fragrances, as Rashi points out in Bereishis 50:2).
The reason he remained alive until his return to Eretz Yisrael is because Hash-m promised that He
would bring him back to Eretz Yisrael. In fulfillment of His promise, Hash-m ensured that Yakov
Avinu was brought back to Eretz Yisrael before his Neshamah left his body. Similarly, the Gemara
in Sotah (13b) explains how Rivkah's prophecy, "Why should I be bereaved of both of you in one
day?" (Bereishis 27:45), was fulfilled. Just before Yakov Avinu was buried, Chushim ben Dan
killed Esav, and his head rolled onto Yakov's lap and Yakov smiled.

(b) The KLI YAKAR (Bereishis 47:29) explains Rebbi Yitzchak's statement based on the
principle that "Tzadikim are called alive even in their deaths, and Resha'im are called dead even
when they are alive" (see Berachos 18a-b). When the Gemara here says that Yakov "did not die,"
it means that even though he died he was considered still alive because he was a Tzadik. The
Gemara specifically mentions Yakov, and not Avraham or Yitzchak, because he was a Tzadik and
all of his children were Tzadikim (in contrast to Avraham and Yitzchak, who each had a son who
was not a Tzadik). Since children are considered a continuation of their father as long as they are
alive, their father is considered alive as well. If, however, one's child is a Rasha, his father is not
considered alive because "Resha'im are called dead even when they are alive."

This is also the intention of Rashi (in Bereishis 18:19) when he says that one who dies and leaves
behind a child who is a Tzadik is considered alive. Indeed, Rebbi Yitzchak derives his teaching
from an inference in the verse which compares Yakov to his children. Yakov Avinu is considered
alive because he lives on through his children, who are Tzadikim.

15
Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:5

The Gemara describes a meal shared by Rav Nachman and Rabbi Yitzhak (there were
two Amoraim named Rabbi Yitzhak who were students of Rabbi Yochanan, one of whom was
proficient in halakha, and the other in aggadah. As we will see, the Rabbi Yitzhak in our story is
the aggadist, who was known as Rabbi Yitzhak bar Pinchas. It appears that he traveled
to Bavel where he spread the Torah of the Land of Israel, and, in particular, the teachings of his
teacher, Rabbi Yochanan.). Rav Nachman asked Rabbi Yitzhak to share some words of Torah, and
Rabbi Yitzhak responded with a teaching of Rabbi Yochanan – that it is not appropriate to talk
during the meal.

Upon completion of the meal Rabbi Yitzhak shared another one of Rabbi Yochanan’s teachings.
He quoted his teacher as saying that Ya’akov Avinu – our forefather Jacob – never died. Rav
Nachman reacted with shock: How could it be that the Torah records the eulogies said over Yaakov
and describes his eventual burial in the Land of Israel, along with the related preparations, if he
never died?! Rabbi Yitzhak simply brings a passage from Yirmiyahu (30:10) in which God tells
Yaakov that he need not fear, for both he and his descendants would be saved, interpreting it to
mean that both the Jewish people, and their forefather Yaakov, are alive.

Even with the pasuk in Yirmiyahu, the statement that Yaakov Avinu did not die deserves an
explanation. Some commentaries (the Ri”af, for example) suggest that Yaakov fainted away and
was in a comatose state, and only upon his return for burial in Israel did he die. Nevertheless, this
does not appear to be the intention of Rabbi Yitzhak’s teaching. Most likely, the statement
“Yaakov Avinu never died” has mystical significance, something that Rav Nachman at first did
not understand.

One explanation is put forward by the Rashba, who suggests that the statement points to the fact
that unlike Avraham and Yitzhak, both of whom had one son who was chosen and another who
was rejected, all of Yaakov’s children continued with his covenant with God. In this way, his
legacy – and, indeed, he himself – never died.

As they were sitting at a meal together, R’ Nachman asked R’ Yitzchok to say a Torah thought.6
R’ Yitzchok deferred, telling R’ Nachman that R’ Yochanan had taught ‫—בסעודה משיחין אין‬one
should not [cause one to] speak at a meal,” lest one choke. After they finished eating, R’ Yitzchok
said his words of Torah which he had heard from R’ Yochanan: “Yaakov Avinu never died,” he
said. R’ Nachman was shocked. He immediately questioned the comment and begged for an

5
https://www.ou.org/life/torah/masechet_taanit410/
6 https://www.dafdigest.org/masechtos/Taanis%20005.pdf

16
explanation, which was provided. Torah Temima notes that it is usually commendable to say words
of Torah while sitting at a meal.7

As far as the danger of choking is concerned, a speaker can generally clear his mouth before
speaking. Rather, the rule here is that one should not say a provocative idea to another during a
meal, due to the danger that the listener might choke upon hearing an unusual thought, because he
might have food in his mouth while listening. Here, R’ Yitzchok knew that his lesson that Yaakov
Avinu never died would seem shocking to R’ Nachman, so he warned R’ Nachman that he did not
want to say it over until the meal was over. What does it mean that “Yaakov Avinu never died?”
HaGaon HaRav Yechezkel Avramsky explains that Hashem promised Yaakov that his son Yosef,
who was the ruler and commander over all Egypt, would follow the lead of his father. “I shall
descend with you to Egypt, and I shall also surely bring you up. And Yosef shall place his hand
on your eyes.” (Bereshis 46:4) This meant that whenever Yosef would raise his hand to implement
a decision, he would first look towards Yaakov to determine whether the actions met with his
approval.

If the decision was favorable in the eyes of Yaakov, Yosef would follow through. If the matter
was not favorable to Yaakov, Yosef would not do it. Even after Yaakov died, Yosef continued to
weigh every move and evaluate each decision in terms of how Yaakov would have judged it. This
Torah perspective, which was instilled in him by his father, was what guided his actions. The
image of Yaakov continued to appear before Yosef at all times, as he envisioned his father's
presence in his mind. This is a possible explanation of “Yaakov Avinu never died.”

R’ Yitzchok said: Whoever says, “Rachav Rachav” will immediately have a seminal emission.

R’ Nachman said, “I say it and it doesn’t affect me.” He [R’ Yitzchok] said back, “I refer to one
who knew her and recognized her.” Poskim (1) question whether the interdiction against listening
to a woman sing applies if one does not see the woman who is singing. In the opinion of some
Poskim the sound of a woman’s voice in and of itself will not generate improper thoughts whereas
other Poskim maintain that the sound of a woman’s voice has the capacity to generate improper
thoughts even if the man cannot see the singer.

Our daf states that the concern related to mentioning Rachav’s name applies to those, “who knew
her and recognized her.” Commentators note the use of a double expression and explain its
significance differently. Rashi (2) explains that the terms are synonymous and nothing new is
added by the second expression. Tosafos (3), on the other hand, indicates that the terms describe
different parts of their relationship. As a result of the fact that he knew her, i.e. they had an intimate
relationship, he now recognizes her. This indicates that if he merely recognizes her, but they did
not have an intimate relationship the prohibition would not apply.

7
https://www.dafdigest.org/masechtos/Taanis%20004.pdf

17
Rav Yaakov Reisher (4), the Shvus Yaakov, explains that the double expression teaches that even
if he doesn’t know her personally but has merely seen an image of her it is nonetheless enough for
the restriction to apply.

Although there are Poskim who maintain that if one does not see the woman singing the prohibition
does not apply, nevertheless, Rav Ovadiah Yosef (5) rules, based on this interpretation of Shvus
Yaakov, that if one has seen her, even in a picture, it is prohibited to listen to her sing.

Rav Chaim Kreisworth, zt”l, was once on a flight with Rav Leib Gurvitz, zt”l, and Rav Leib
Lopian, zt”l, and a question arose during the course of their conversation.

Why do we find that so many young men learn assiduously and with great interest until about the
age of eighteen but then forsake their studies? What makes them lose the tremendous interest in
learning that they once clearly had?

Rav Chaim offered his perspective on the phenomenon. “In Taanis 5b we find that when Rav
Nachman and Rav Yitzchak parted, Rav Nachman asked Rav Yitzchak for a blessing. Rav
Yitzchak responded with a parable about a starving traveler who benefits from a tree and can bless
it only that its offspring should be as wonderful as it is. Since Rav Nachman already had Torah,
wealth, and children, Rav Yitzchak blessed him that his descendants should have the same.

This seems quite enigmatic, though. Is the Torah so finite that one could ever be said to ‘have’ the
Torah and no longer stand in need of a blessing? The answer is that when one is young, he receives
a special degree of Divine assistance. He is granted the burning desire for Torah for a little while
as a gift to know what true learning feels like. Afterward, the blessing is revoked, and that taste
has to provide the motivation he will need to continue to exert himself in his studies. This is what
Rav Yitzchak was saying to Rav Nachman. How can I bless you? You already feel enough of the
Torah’s sweetness so that you are willing to exert yourself to acquire the entire Torah. With what
more can I bless you? Whether you will do the work to learn it or not is up to you, not to my
blessing!”

Rav Chaim concluded, “Similarly, the bochurim who fall away only merited to learn passionately
when they were still receiving special heavenly help. When they become 18 or 19 and the

18
blessing is removed and they have to go on their own steam, most fail to rise to the challenge.
For this reason they seem to change. It’s time for them to work for the sweetness, and
unfortunately most are not willing!” Rav Chaim’s traveling companions both agreed that this
interpretation was completely correct.

Weathered Debates

Rabbi Seth Goren

You know the saying that Inuit have a hundred words for snow? It’s not true. But Hebrew has
several words for rain, and today’s daf gives us a chance to explore three of them.

At issue is how far into spring one should include prayers for rain in the Amidah. The
mishnah on today’s daf quotes two opinions:

Rabbi Yehuda says: We request rain until Passover has passed.

Rabbi Meir says: Until the month of Nisan has ended, as it is stated: “And He causes to
come down for you the rain [geshem], the first rain [moreh] and the last rain [malkosh],
in the first month.” (Joel 2:23 ). Since the verse states that it rains in Nisan, the first month,
this indicates that the entire month is considered part of the rainy season.

The verse from Joel uses three words for rain: geshem, which refers to rain
generally; yoreh (sometimes moreh), which refers to the season’s “first rain” or a “soaking
rain,” which typically falls in autumn; and malkosh, or “last rain,” which comes in the
spring. Tomorrow’s pagedives to the supposed etymology of each of these words, so we’ll
limit ourselves to understanding the implications of this verse for prayer.

The Gemara challenges Rabbi Meir’s use of the verse from Joel to justify his position:

Rav Nahman said to Rabbi Yitzhak: Is the first rain in Nisan? The first rain is in
Marheshvan, as we learned in a beraita: The first rain is in Marheshvan and the last rain
is in Nisan.

Rav Nahman reads Joel as saying that God causes all three types of rain — geshem, yoreh
and malkosh — to fall for all of the spring month of Nisan, which was the “first month” of
the year in talmudic times. This would be quite odd, to say the least. While rain in Israel
typically arrives in mid-fall, continues through winter, and ends in the early spring, if the first
rain really didn’t come until Nisan — around Passover — it would be remarkable. Therefore,
the verse cannot be saying what Rabbi Meir suggests it does. Or if it does, it represents an
extreme and unprecedented climatological event.

19
 Rabbi Yitzhak responds to the challenge by relating a story about a year in which this is
precisely what happened: All three three types of rain — first, last and regular — fell in Nisan.
Given the potentially catastrophic implications of this for the food supply, the people
questioned whether it was even worth it to sow what seeds they had. But the prophet Joel tells
the people to sow anyway.

They went out and sowed on the second, third, and fourth days of Nisan, and the rain of
the second rainy season fell for them on the fifth of Nisan. The crops grew so quickly that
they were able to sacrifice the omer offering in its proper time, on the sixteenth of Nisan.
Consequently, grain that normally grows in six months grew in eleven days, and
consequently, the omer that is generally sacrificed from grain that grows in six months was
sacrificed that year from grain that grew in eleven days.

And with regard to that generation the verse says: “They who sow in tears shall reap with
songs of joy. Though he goes on his way weeping, who bears the measure of seed, he shall
come home with joy, bearing his sheaves.” (Psalms 126:6)

Despite the lateness of the rains that year, a miracle occurred and the crops grew sufficiently
in Nisan that there was enough grain to bring the omer offering on Passover, which falls in
the middle of the month.

So what do we take away from this? The condensing of a winter’s worth of rain into half a
month, followed by extraordinarily speedy grain growth, constitutes a miracle so unbelievable
that it left the rabbis of later generations (and certainly us today) incredulous and
skeptical. While we can appreciate the creativity behind Rabbi Yitzhak’s story, we can’t rely
on miracles to save us when the climate is out of whack. Better to aspire to fulfill our
obligation to follow God’s commandments and rely on the conditional promise
in Deuteronomy 11:14 that if we do, the first and last rains will fall in season, putting things
back where they belong.

Rabbi Johnny Solomon writes:8

One of the most exquisite teachings in the Gemara is found at the end of today’s daf (Ta’anit 5b)
while spilling over to the beginning of tomorrows daf – Ta’anit 6a). It begins with a seemingly
simple request when Rav Nachman was about to part ways from Rav Yitzchak, and just before
doing so, he asked that Rav Yitzchak bless him. To this, Rav Yitzchak said the following:

‘I will tell you a parable: To what may this be compared? To a man who was travelling in the
desert who was hungry, tired and thirsty. Then he came upon a tree whose fruits were sweet,
whose shade was pleasant, with a stream of water flowing beside it. He ate the fruits, drank its

8
www.rabbijohnnysolomon.com

20
water, and sat in its shade. When he sought to leave he turned to the tree and said: “Tree, O
Tree, how shall I bless you? Shall I bless you that your fruits be sweet? But they are already
sweet! Shall I bless you that your shade be pleasant? But it is already pleasant! Shall I say that
a stream of water run beside you? But a stream of water already runs beside you! Therefore,
my blessing to you is: May it be the will of God that all the future trees which will be planted by
you should be like you!”’.

At this point, Rabbi Yitzchak then turned to Rabbi Nachman and said, “You too! How can I bless
you? Shall I bless you with Torah knowledge? (which, as some commentaries explain, is often
compared to water). But you already have Torah knowledge! Shall I bless you with wealth?
(which, as some commentaries explain, is comparable to shade). But you already have wealth!
Shall I bless you with children? (which, as some commentaries explain, is comparable to fruit).
But you already have been blessed with children! Therefore, my blessing to you is: May it be
the will of God that your children be like you!”

Of course, there are many ways to interpret this parable and Rabbi Yitzchak’s blessing. However,
one simple yet possibly overlooked point which I believe is worthwhile noting is that while the
fruit from the tree, the shade of the tree, and the water near the tree, were beneficial to the tree,
they were also beneficial to others – as understood from the fact that the person who came upon
that tree ate its fruit, drank its water, and sat in its shade.

What this tells us is that if we have water nearby us (which, as noted, is comparable to Torah),
then just as the man was able to drink from that water, we should make our Torah knowledgeable
available to others by sharing it and spreading it.

Similarly, if we are blessed to have shade (which, as noted, is comparable to wealth), then as the
man was able to rest in the shade, so too we should be generous with our wealth by sharing it and
spreading it.

And what of children (which, as noted, is comparable to fruit)? True, parents often take pride in
the fact that their children are similar to them (as the phrase goes, ‘the apple doesn’t fall far from
the tree’). Still, what we learn from this parable is that just as fruit is not the sole possession of a
tree, so too, children are not the sole possession of a parents, and while saplings grow in a similar
way to their parent-tree, nevertheless each tree – and every child - is unique.

Do children take after parents?

Mark Kerzner writes:9

Until when should one pray for rain? – Till the end of the proper rainy season, when rain is still
beneficial, that is, until the end of Passover. Some say, until the very end of the month when
Passover occurs, that is, Nissan – just as it happened once when “God made rainfall, early and late,
in Nissan.”

9
https://mkerzner.blogspot.com/search?q=taanit+5

21
But we learned that the proper time for the early rain is a few months before, in Marcheshvan!? –
this event happened only once, in the time of Joel, after the seven-year drought. People asked Joel,
should they plant the little seed they had – and die before the crop sprouts? He told them to plant,
nevertheless. A miracle happened to them, and new wheat grew in just eleven days, so that they
could bring the Omer sacrifice – and start eating the wheat right away. This is what the phrase
“Those who sow with tears will reap with joy” means. In fact, as an ox drew the plow going one
way and sowing, the grain already began to grow, so on the way back it could already eat the new
growth. The ears of grain were then two time longer that the stalk.

Rav Yitzchak was sitting at a meal with Rav Nachman, and Rav Nachman asked him to say
something, but Rav Yitchak replied, “One should not talk during a meal, so as not to choke.” After
the meal he said, “Jacob never died.” Rav Nachman jumped in surprise, “But they embalmed and
buried him!” Rav Yitzhak replied, “I am just interpreting the phrase, 'I will redeem Israel and
Jacob'. Just as Israel must be alive to be redeemed, so too Jacob.”

When they were parting, Rav Nachman asked Rav Yitzchak to bless him. The latter replied,
“Imagine someone in a desert who finds a tree with a well. After he is refreshed, he says to the
tree, 'How can I bless you? You have everything. May your saplings be like you.' You too, you
have Torah, and riches, and children. Therefore, I wish that they all may be like you.”

22
 Each one of us is like the tree of the field
Rabbi Avi Weiss writes:10

10
https://www.sun-sentinel.com/florida-jewish-journal/fl-xpm-2013-08-06-fl-jjps-torah-0807-20130806-story.html

23
The Torah's sympathetic attitude toward ecology surfaces in a law legislating conduct during
war. This week's portion states: "When you besiege a city for many days to wage war against
it, to seize it, do not destroy its trees by swinging an axe against them, for from it you will eat,
and you shall not cut it down." The Torah then offers a rationale explaining why the tree should
not be cut down: "Ki ha-Adam etz ha-sadeh lavoh mi-panekha be-matzor." (Deuteronomy
20:19) What do these words mean?

Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra offers a simple answer. Human beings depend upon trees to live. We
eat their produce. Cutting down a tree is, therefore, forbidden, as it would deny the human being
food which is essential for life. For Ibn Ezra, the explanation should be read as a declarative
statement. Don't cut down the fruit tree for a person is the fruit tree, depending upon it for
sustenance.

Rashi understands the rationale differently. For Rashi, "Ki ha-Adam" should be read as a
rhetorical question. "Is a tree a person with the ability to protect itself?" In other words, is the
tree of the field a person that it should enter the siege before you?

A fundamental difference emerges between Ibn Ezra and Rashi. For Ibn Ezra, the tree is saved
because of the human being, i.e., without fruit trees it would be more difficult for people to find
food. Rashi takes a different perspective. For him, the tree is saved for the tree's sake alone,
without an ulterior motive. Human beings can protect themselves; trees cannot. The Torah,
therefore, comes forth offering a law that protects the tree.

The Torah's tremendous concern for trees expresses itself powerfully in numerous parables. One
of the most famous is the story of a traveler in the desert. Walking for days, he's weary and tired,
when suddenly he comes upon a tree. He eats from its fruit, rests in the shade and drinks from
the small brook at its roots.

When rising the next day, the traveler turns to the tree to offer thanks. "Ilan, Ilan, bameh
avarkheka, Tree oh Tree, how can I bless you? With fruit that gives sustenance. With branches
that give shade. With water that quenches thirst. You have all of this!"

In a tender moment, the traveler looks to the tree and states, "I have only one blessing. May that
which comes from you be as beautiful as you are." (Ta'anit 5b, 6a)

This story has become a classic in blessing others with all that is good. Our liturgy includes the
classic Talmudic phrase, "These are the precepts whose fruits a person enjoys in this world."
(Shabbat 127a) Trees and human beings’ interface as trees provide us with metaphors that teach
us so much about life.

To those who disparage the environment, our Torah sends a counter message. Trees must be
protected, not only for our sake, but for theirs — and for the message they teach about life. One
Shabbat, as I walked with my eldest granddaughter Ariella, greeting everyone with Shabbat
Shalom, she saw a tree, embraced it, and said, "Shabbat Shalom Tree." Ariella certainly has
internalized the message of the importance of the tree, may we all be blessed with this lesson as
well.

24
In the article below Julia Watts Belser writes:11

11
file:///Users/julian/iCloud%20Drive%20(Archive)/Desktop/Crying_Out_for_Rain_The_Human_the_Holy_a.pdf

25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
 Sorek Desalination Plant, Israel

Israel Proves the Desalination Era Is Here

Rowan Jacobsen writes:12

Ten miles south of Tel Aviv, I stand on a catwalk over two concrete reservoirs the size of football
fields and watch water pour into them from a massive pipe emerging from the sand. The pipe is so
large I could walk through it standing upright, were it not full of Mediterranean seawater pumped
from an intake a mile offshore.

“Now, that’s a pump!” Edo Bar-Zeev shouts to me over the din of the motors, grinning with
undisguised awe at the scene before us. The reservoirs beneath us contain several feet of sand
through which the seawater filters before making its way to a vast metal hangar, where it is
transformed into enough drinking water to supply 1.5 million people.

12
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/israel-proves-the-desalination-era-is-here/?wt.mc=SA_Facebook-Share

40
We are standing above the new Sorek desalination plant, the largest reverse-osmosis desal facility
in the world, and we are staring at Israel’s salvation. Just a few years ago, in the depths of its worst
drought in at least 900 years, Israel was running out of water. Now it has a surplus. That remarkable
turnaround was accomplished through national campaigns to conserve and reuse Israel’s meager
water resources, but the biggest impact came from a new wave of desalination plants.

Bar-Zeev, who recently joined Israel’s Zuckerberg Institute for Water Research after completing
his postdoc work at Yale University, is an expert on biofouling, which has always been an Achilles’
heel of desalination and one of the reasons it has been considered a last resort. Desal works by
pushing saltwater into membranes containing microscopic pores. The water gets through, while
the larger salt molecules are left behind. But microorganisms in seawater quickly colonize the
membranes and block the pores and controlling them requires periodic costly and chemical-
intensive cleaning. But Bar-Zeev and colleagues developed a chemical-free system using porous
lava stone to capture the microorganisms before they reach the membranes. It’s just one of many
breakthroughs in membrane technology that have made desalination much more efficient. Israel
now gets 55 percent of its domestic water from desalination, and that has helped to turn one of the
world’s driest countries into the unlikeliest of water giants.

Driven by necessity, Israel is learning to squeeze more out of a drop of water than any country on
Earth, and much of that learning is happening at the Zuckerberg Institute, where researchers have
pioneered new techniques in drip irrigation, water treatment and desalination. They have
developed resilient well systems for African villages and biological digesters than can halve the
water usage of most homes.

The institute’s original mission was to improve life in Israel’s bone-dry Negev Desert, but the
lessons look increasingly applicable to the entire Fertile Crescent. “The Middle East is drying up,”
says Osnat Gillor, a professor at the Zuckerberg Institute who studies the use of recycled
wastewater on crops. “The only country that isn’t suffering acute water stress is Israel.”

That water stress has been a major factor in the turmoil tearing apart the Middle East, but Bar-
Zeev believes that Israel’s solutions can help its parched neighbors, too — and in the process,
bring together old enemies in common cause.

Bar-Zeev acknowledges that water will likely be a source of conflict in the Middle East in the
future. “But I believe water can be a bridge, through joint ventures,” he says. “And one of those
ventures is desalination.”

DRIVEN TO DESPERATION

In 2008, Israel teetered on the edge of catastrophe. A decade-long drought had scorched the Fertile
Crescent, and Israel’s largest source of freshwater, the Sea of Galilee, had dropped to within inches

41
of the “black line” at which irreversible salt infiltration would flood the lake and ruin it forever.
Water restrictions were imposed, and many farmers lost a year’s crops.

Their counterparts in Syria fared much worse. As the drought intensified and the water table
plunged, Syria’s farmers chased it, drilling wells 100, 200, then 500 meters (300, 700, then 1,600
feet) down in a literal race to the bottom. Eventually, the wells ran dry, and Syria’s farmland
collapsed in an epic dust storm. More than a million farmers joined massive shantytowns on the
outskirts of Aleppo, Homs, Damascus, and other cities in a futile attempt to find work and purpose.

And that, according to the authors of “Climate Change in the Fertile Crescent and Implications of
the Recent Syrian Drought,” a 2015 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
was the tinder that burned Syria to the ground. “The rapidly growing urban peripheries of Syria,”
they wrote, “marked by illegal settlements, overcrowding, poor infrastructure, unemployment, and
crime, were neglected by the Assad government and became the heart of the developing unrest.”

Similar stories are playing out across the Middle East, where drought and agricultural collapse
have produced a lost generation with no prospects and simmering resentments. Iran, Iraq, and
Jordan all face water catastrophes. Water is driving the entire region to desperate acts.

MORE WATER THAN NEEDS

Except Israel. Amazingly, Israel has more water than it needs. The turnaround started in 2007,
when low-flow toilets and showerheads were installed nationwide and the national water authority
built innovative water treatment systems that recapture 86 percent of the water that goes down the
drain and use it for irrigation — vastly more than the second-most-efficient country in the world,
Spain, which recycles 19 percent.

But even with those measures, Israel still needed about 1.9 billion cubic meters (2.5 billion cubic
yards) of freshwater per year and was getting just 1.4 billion cubic meters (1.8 billion cubic yards)
from natural sources. That 500-million-cubic-meter (650-million-cubic-yard) shortfall was why
the Sea of Galilee was draining like an unplugged tub and why the country was about to lose its
farms.

Enter desalination. The Ashkelon plant, in 2005, provided 127 million cubic meters (166 million
cubic yards) of water. Hadera, in 2009, put out another 140 million cubic meters (183 million cubic
yards). And now Sorek, 150 million cubic meters (196 million cubic yards). All told, desal plants
can provide some 600 million cubic meters (785 million cubic yards) of water a year, and more
are on the way.

The Sea of Galilee is fuller. Israel’s farms are thriving. And the country faces a previously
unfathomable question: What to do with its extra water?

42
WATER DIPLOMACY

Inside Sorek, 50,000 membranes enclosed in vertical white cylinders, each 4 feet high and 16
inches wide, are whirring like jet engines. The whole thing feels like a throbbing spaceship about
to blast off. The cylinders contain sheets of plastic membranes wrapped around a central pipe, and
the membranes are stippled with pores less than a hundredth the diameter of a human hair. Water
shoots into the cylinders at a pressure of 70 atmospheres and is pushed through the membranes,
while the remaining brine is returned to the sea.

Desalination used to be an expensive energy hog, but the kind of advanced technologies being
employed at Sorek have been a game changer. Water produced by desalination costs just a third
of what it did in the 1990s. Sorek can produce a thousand liters of drinking water for 58 cents.
Israeli households pay about US$30 a month for their water — similar to households in most U.S.
cities, and far less than Las Vegas (US$47) or Los Angeles (US$58).

The International Desalination Association claims that 300 million people get water from
desalination, and that number is quickly rising. IDE, the Israeli company that built Ashkelon,
Hadera and Sorek, recently finished the Carlsbad desalination plant in Southern California, a close
cousin of its Israel plants, and it has many more in the works. Worldwide, the equivalent of six
additional Sorek plants are coming online every year. The desalination era is here.

What excites Bar-Zeev the most is the opportunity for water diplomacy. Israel supplies the West
Bank with water, as required by the 1995 Oslo II Accords, but the Palestinians still receive far less
than they need. Water has been entangled with other negotiations in the ill-fated peace process,
but now that more is at hand, many observers see the opportunity to depoliticize it. Bar-Zeev has
ambitious plans for a Water Knows No Boundaries conference in 2018, which will bring together
water scientists from Egypt, Turkey, Jordan, Israel, the West Bank and Gaza for a meeting of the
minds.

Even more ambitious is the US$900 million Red Sea–Dead Sea Canal, a joint venture between
Israel and Jordan to build a large desalination plant on the Red Sea, where they share a border, and
divide the water among Israelis, Jordanians and the Palestinians. The brine discharge from the
plant will be piped 100 miles north through Jordan to replenish the Dead Sea, which has been
dropping a meter per year since the two countries began diverting the only river that feeds it in the
1960s. By 2020, these old foes will be drinking from the same tap.

On the far end of the Sorek plant, Bar-Zeev and I get to share a tap as well. Branching off from
the main line where the Sorek water enters the Israeli grid is a simple spigot, a paper cup dispenser
beside it. I open the tap and drink cup after cup of what was the Mediterranean Sea 40 minutes
ago. It tastes cold, clear, and miraculous.

43
 Do we still need to pray for rain?
Yael Shahar writes:13

For the past year, I have been learning Massechet Taanit, the only tractate in the Talmud that
centers around the weather! It discusses when we should pray for rain, what it means if there is no
rain, and why all this is more than just an academic question. Drought is a communal threat and
must be met in solidarity with the community.
Tragedy—such as the harvest that would be lost if there is no rain—has the effect of splintering
society. Suffering sets every man against every other. This is true in particular of famine, because
if I eat, someone else does not eat. The message of Ta’anit is: We will not let this calamity splinter
us into a group of disparate individuals, each fighting for his own survival. We will meet our fate
as a community. We will pray as a community; we will fast as a community. Our strength is in our
unity.

13
https://www.yaelshahar.com/taanit-do-we-still-pray-for-rain/

44
Does desalination change the equation?
For over 3,000 years we’ve been dependent upon seasonal rainfall to sustain human settlement and
agriculture in our arid region. This dependence is expressed by our liturgy. Jews all over the world
pray three times a day for rainfall or dew according to the season in the Land of Israel, regardless
of where they themselves live. The Torah itself makes clear that our land is extremely vulnerable
to even slight variations in rainfall.

Deut 11:10-11
And yet now it would seem that we have finally broken out of that fragile dependence. Thanks
to an extensive waste-water reclamation project, and the building of large desalination plants, for
the first time in history, Israel now has a water surplus!
One of the more philosophical implications of this is in the area of prayer and gratitude. Does the
fact that we now have all the water we need from desalination mean we should change the liturgy?
Does the blessing for rainfall become a bracha batalah (redundant blessing)? I’ve seen this
argument put forth, most recently in a Facebook discussion on whether we should pray for rain in
an era of desalination.
But of course, humans are not the only inhabitants of our land; our existence here is predicated
upon our being good stewards of the land, as well as good citizens of our society. Yes, we can
desalinate the water we drink and reclaim the water used in irrigation. But that does nothing to fill
the streams and cisterns, nor does it nourish the forests that we have so painstakingly planted, nor
prevent fires that can devastate both forests and villages. We have done much to renew the ecology
of our land, but the success of those efforts is still dependent upon the rains coming in their season.
So keep those prayers coming!

Adrienne Rich

45