Wednesday, February 7, 2018

Tiyul to Sataf!!! -Batya Salomon

Wednesday February 7, 2018 Kitat Keshet, along with the other classes, hiked to and around the ancient village of Sataf. 
We’ve been learning about the story of Exodus and how the Israelites had been walking for a long time to reach Israel. At Sataf, we got to see close to what the Israelites would have seen and how they adapted to their new environment.  People don’t often think about walking into the land of Israel for the first time as being so hard. Yes, they finally got to where they were going, and yes, they must have been glad, but they came into a totally new place and had to completely change their way of life. Imagine having to start your life over and relearn everything. How hard would that be? For the past forty years, they had been traveling nonstop and relying on food to be given to them by G-d in the form of manna. Suddenly, they had a place to stay and land to make their own food. Israel was called the land of milk and honey, so it couldn’t have been too hard, though, right? Definitely NOT right. 

A big problem was that the entire area is mountainous and, therefore, sloped and made of stone. They found a way around that, though, through the practice of terrace agriculture. They had to break through and clear away all the stone to form levels, like shelves. 
(←Terrace farming)
There were seven species of plants that grew really well in the land of Israel: dates, olives, figs, grapes, barley, wheat, and pomegranates. Even with these growing well, another main problem was water. They started following what others were doing, and they prayed to the Canaanite god of rain, Ba’al. That’s why this form of farming is called Ba’al agriculture. Although the name lasted, the practice didn’t, as praying to another god is against the ten commandments, and it angered G-d. They ended up with a really advanced irrigation system, digging down into the rock and making water caves which branched off into small streams that spread over the whole area. 
 (←One entrance to a water cave)
We got to go into one of the water caves as a class, and crawl through it. The inside of the cave was pretty basic, but the tunnel was tiled and honestly beautiful. It was a real bonding experience being thrown into a tiny space with each other and wading through water to get out. Another piece of technology we got to see was the wine press. It was really cool to see how they used to make wine with their feet or stones, and how they used the mosaic flooring to keep the wine from touching the ground. Overall, the trip was an eye-opener into the struggle the Israelites went through even after they made it to the land of Israel. 
 (←Wine press)

On that note, my question for all of you is...   Do you think that it would've been easier or turned out better for the Israelites if Moses was the one to lead them into Israel rather than Joshua?

14 comments:

  1. Theoretically speaking, had Moses led the Jews into Israel, they would have had an easier time. This is due to the fact that for a long time, Jews relied on polytheism as a way of explaining events such as rain, but without polytheism, Moses would have likely sped up the change from Ba'al farming to Irrigation farming. However, one could argue that this would be harmful to the Jewish people. This is because Irrigation farming requires a lower altitude, leading Jews closer and closer to more powerful enemies before they had the technology and capability to defeat them.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think that in one way it would have turned out worse for the Isreaites if Moses was the one to lead them into Israel becuase he can be seen as an arrogant self-centred leder. I can also argue that Moses would have made things easier because he would have sped up the agricultural changes. This is a hard question to answer because we can not change the past and the Israelites turned out well under Joshua's lead.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It would seemingly be extremely difficult if Moses had led the Israelites into the promised land, rather than Joshua. On one hand, the Jews would most likely not have turned to polytheism again, due to the fact that Moses was there. Moses communicated with God in the most direct way and more than any other prophets. Joshua leading the Israelite resulted in an advanced and successful agriculture system. However, with Joshua as the leader, the Israelites did resort to practicing polytheism in hopes of improving their agriculture. Overall, it all occurred the way it did and there isn't a way to change it. Under Joshua the Israelites were able to thrive as an agricultural people, which would lead to later successes for the Jewish nation.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Since Moses was the closest prophet to God, I think the Israelites would have had an easier time if he led them into Israel rather than Joshua. Moses would have had been able to rely on God to tell him what to do and how to lead the Israelites, and could always ask for help if he had a problem. Regardless of Joshua's skills, being forced to abruptly switch leaders in a time of great struggle and change is always going to make things more difficult.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The switch of power usually isn't an easy process, especially in ancient times. That's why I think it would've been easier for the Israelites if Moses had led them into Israel instead of Joshua. Nothing against Joshua, but due to the fact that Moses was not only the closest prophet to God, he was the closest to the Israelites themselves. Even though there were many problems between Moses and the people, he knew them. That alone is more than any other person.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Had Moses led the Israelites to the land of Israel instead of Joshua, the connection between their community would have been stronger. Moses was God’s first hand man/ messenger, meaning that he would have given more genuine inspiration to the people he would have been leading. Also, since Moses was pretty much the poster boy for Judaism, it just would have made more sense and been more realistic if he had been the one to lead the people to Israel instead Joshua.

    ReplyDelete
  7. No two people lead the same as the other. The difference between Moses and Joshua is that we see more of a connection between God and Moses. Because of what we are told, I believe Moses is better fit to lead the people because of his higher sense in knowledge of what God expects of the people. I also believe that the people would listen to Moses over Joshua because they were used to being under his rule and influence. Switching leaders is always hard, even now adays.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I dont think Moses would have necessary been better. If the torah says this is what happened, its like this for a reason. If you look at the historicity, the torah may be a story to livy by, with morals and values. Moses was chosen by g-d but he may not be foing alk this work for
    the people. He may only be doing this for himsef. If you look at whether who would be better it is unlcear, but it seems like Joshua took over for a reason

    ReplyDelete
  9. It would have been easier for the Israelites to go into Israel with Moses because they were used to having him as there leader. As with any group of people it is easier to follow a leader that you know and trust. Instead of having to gain the Israelites trust in addition to leading them like Joshua, Moses would have been able to lead the Israelites into being a more prosperous group of people.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I think that both Joshua and Moses were great leaders but the Israelites needed a new, young leader to help them in the promised land. Even though Moses helped the Israelites escape from Egypt and gave them strength to continue through the desert, at the end of his leadership he lost his temper. Moses was angry that the water God promised was not coming out of the rock and lost his faith in God. The Israelites needed a leader who would have complete faith in God. Yes, it did turn out better with Joshua as their new leader.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I do not think it would have been better for Moses to lead the Israelites into israel. Moses was an old man by the time the Jewish people reached israel and was close to dying anyway. If he had led them into Israel then died soon after the transition would have been even harder in the new land.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Where does the term "land of milk and honey" come from? the abundance of goats (milk) and date palms (honey). This seemingly meaningless term actually tells a lot about Cannon. Goats live in mountainous areas and palms grow in sandy or dry areas, thus it can be assumed that Cannon is comprised of mountains and desserts. Also, goats offer two sources of sustenance, dairy and meat. Dates were (are) a common sources of food, as well. The phrase "land flowing of milk and honey" offered an idea of the landscape and resources in Cannon to the Hebrew people.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I believe Joshua was the right choice because he could provide fresh leadership, but he understands what the Hebrews haves gone through. Moses was old and he treated the people like he was more superior and they were in debt to him. Likewise, he never questioned the command of God. To be a good leader, you have to question and make decisions on your own. Joshua was the better choice to lead the Hebrews into the new land because he provided a new perspective in a new land.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I do think that Moses would have been a better person to lead the israelites into the promised land. Moses would have provided stronger leadership that would have helped the Israelites while they were starting this new society. Moses also has the whole influence of g-d thing going for him which could have helped. Joshua wasn't bad he just didn't have the influence Moses had.

    ReplyDelete

Security Tiyul - Caleb Ernst   Last Wednesday, Kitat Keshet had it's final real tiyul which focused on three main things, Second Intif...