Parashah & Haftarah Study

Parashat Behar–Bechukotai & Haftarah

When the Land Keeps Shabbat

In this lesson on Parashat Behar–Bechukotai, we explored one of the Torah’s most powerful theological and social ideas: the land itself must keep Shabbat.

The laws of Shmittah and Yovel challenge the human illusion of ownership, control, and permanence. The Torah teaches that the land does not ultimately belong to us. We may live on it, work it, inherit it, buy and sell rights within it — but the land belongs to God.

We then connected Parashat Behar to Parashat Bechukotai through the warning that if Israel refuses to let the land rest, the land will eventually receive its Sabbaths through exile. Finally, we turned to the Haftarah in Jeremiah, where the prophet deepens the same idea: the true question is not only how we treat the land, but where we place our trust.

This class combines close reading of the Hebrew text, Biblical grammar, legal and poetic structures, and the theological meaning of Shabbat, land, freedom, ownership, and trust.
Video 1

Leviticus 25:2–4

When the Land Keeps Shabbat

In this opening section, we studied Leviticus 25:2–4, the foundational verses introducing the laws of Shmittah: when Israel enters the land, the land itself must observe a Shabbat to the LORD.

  • The repeated use of דַּבֵּר and וְאָמַרְתָּ — “speak” and “say” — and how these verbal formulas function in Biblical Hebrew.
  • The word כִּי and its many possible meanings in Biblical Hebrew.
  • The rabbinic tradition that describes כִּי as having “four usages,” alongside the fact that Biblical dictionaries identify even more functions for the word.
  • The contrast between וְאָמַרְתָּ — second person masculine singular — and וְשָׁבְתָה — third person feminine singular.
  • The similarity in sound between forms that are grammatically very different.
  • The phrase שַׁבַּת שַׁבָּתוֹן and its intensified meaning: not merely rest, but complete rest.
  • The phrase שַׁבָּת לַיהוָה and the presence of a quiescent letter in Biblical Hebrew forms.
  • The structure of Leviticus 25:4 and the unusual word order of its clauses.
  • The two main views regarding standard Biblical Hebrew word order: Verb → Subject → Object, or Subject → Verb → Object.
  • Why this verse does not simply follow either expected pattern.
  • The opening time phrase: וּבַשָּׁנָה הַשְּׁבִיעִת — “But in the seventh year.”
  • The fronting of objects in the phrases שָׂדְךָ לֹא תִזְרָע and וְכַרְמְךָ לֹא תִזְמֹר.
  • The concept of topicalization or fronting, where the Torah places the field and vineyard first in order to highlight them as the focus of the command.
  • The core theological idea: the land is not merely a resource to be worked; it participates in sacred time.
Video 2

Leviticus 25:10

Jubilee, Liberty, and Return

In this section, we studied Leviticus 25:10, one of the most famous verses in the Torah’s social vision: the proclamation of liberty in the Jubilee year.

  • The command to sanctify the fiftieth year: וְקִדַּשְׁתֶּם.
  • The second person masculine plural verbal forms: וְקִדַּשְׁתֶּם, וּקְרָאתֶם, and וְשַׁבְתֶּם.
  • The meaning of יוֹבֵל and the significance of the Jubilee year.
  • The concept of דְּרוֹר — liberty or release.
  • The story of the Liberty Bell and its connection to the words “proclaim liberty throughout the land.”
  • The chiastic structure at the end of the verse: each person returns to his property, and each person returns to his family.
  • The similarity between legal language and poetic or prophetic language.
  • How Biblical law can use balanced, elevated, almost poetic structures — especially when it speaks in commands rather than narrative.
Video 3

Leviticus 25:23–24

The Land Is Mine

In this section, we studied the theological heart of Parashat Behar: the land cannot be sold permanently, because the land belongs to God.

  • The phrase וְהָאָרֶץ לֹא תִמָּכֵר לִצְמִתֻת — the land must not be sold permanently.
  • The reason given by the Torah: כִּי־לִי הָאָרֶץ — “for the land is Mine.”
  • The idea that Israel lives in the land as גֵּרִים וְתוֹשָׁבִים — strangers and residents with God.
  • The comparison to Deuteronomy’s concern for those without permanent land security: the stranger, the orphan, and the Levite.
  • The social and theological meaning of landlessness in the Torah.
  • The word גְּאֻלָּה — redemption — and its wide range of meanings.
  • The difference between redemption as a broad theological idea and redemption as a specific legal mechanism.
  • How גְּאֻלָּה in this context refers to the right to redeem or repurchase family land that had been sold.
Video 4

Leviticus 26:3–4

Covenant, Rain, and Produce

In this section, we moved from Parashat Behar into the opening of Parashat Bechukotai, where the Torah describes the blessings that come when Israel walks in God’s statutes and keeps His commandments.

  • The opening conditional structure: אִם־בְּחֻקֹּתַי תֵּלֵכוּ — “If you walk in My statutes.”
  • The connection between obedience to the covenant and the agricultural blessing of the land.
  • The parallel structure of reward and consequence in Biblical covenant language.
  • The repeated importance of the root נת״ן — “to give.”
  • The meaning of names built from this root, including Netanyahu, Yonatan / Jonathan, and Natan / Nathan.
  • The connection to Benjamin Netanyahu, his grandfather, and his brother through names based on this Biblical root.
  • The ordinary Biblical pattern of reward and punishment through rain, agricultural produce, and the fruitfulness of the land.
  • How the Torah presents the land as responding to the covenant.
Video 5

Leviticus 26:34–35, 43

The Land Remembers Its Sabbaths

In this section, we studied the powerful connection between Parashat Behar and Parashat Bechukotai: the land was commanded to rest in Behar, and in Bechukotai the Torah warns that if Israel does not allow the land to rest, the land will eventually receive its Sabbaths through exile.

  • The haunting phrase from Leviticus 26: אָז תִּרְצֶה הָאָרֶץ אֶת־שַׁבְּתֹתֶיהָ — “Then the land will enjoy / make up for its Sabbaths.”
  • The verb רצה and its range of meanings: to desire, to be pleased, to appease, to make up for something, or to complete a penalty.
  • The modern Hebrew idea of a person “serving” a prison sentence, connected to the idea of paying a debt or satisfying a requirement.
  • The special use of language in the Torah’s description of the land “making up” its missed Sabbaths.
  • The phrase יַעַן וּבְיַעַן and how it emphasizes measure-for-measure justice.
  • The connection between the end of Bechukotai and the beginning: אִם־בְּחֻקֹּתַי תֵּלֵכוּ versus בְּמִשְׁפָּטַי מָאָסוּ וְאֶת־חֻקֹּתַי גָּעֲלָה נַפְשָׁם.
  • The contrast between walking in God’s statutes and rejecting them.
  • The deeper logic of the Torah’s system of reward and consequence: the land belongs to God, and if Israel violates the covenantal rhythm of the land, the land itself becomes a witness.
Video 6

Jeremiah 17:5–8

Trust, Control, and the Tree by Water

In this final section, we turned to the Haftarah from Jeremiah 17, where the prophet moves the discussion from land law and covenant consequences to the deeper spiritual question of trust.

  • The contrast between the one who trusts in man and the one who trusts in the LORD.
  • The connection between the Parashah and the Haftarah: both challenge the illusion that human beings are the true owners and controllers of reality.
  • The relationship between reward and punishment in the Parashah and the Haftarah.
  • The deeper reason behind the illusion of ownership: when people think the land belongs absolutely to them, they also begin to believe that security comes from human control alone.
  • Jeremiah’s image of the person who trusts in God as a tree planted by water.
  • The idea that true security is not the absence of heat or drought, but having a constant source of life beneath the surface.
  • How this image connects back to Shmittah: the farmer stops working the land, the land rests, and the person must discover where his trust is really rooted.
  • The final theological movement of the class: the land belongs to God, the future belongs to God, and security comes not from control, but from rooted trust.