<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16525" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2>*************************************************************<BR>
THE TANACH STUDY CENTER
[http://www.tanach.org]<BR>
In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag<BR> Shiurim in
Chumash & Navi by Menachem
Leibtag<BR>*************************************************************</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
PARSHAT NITZAVIM</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Can man return to Gan
Eden?<BR> Even though Parshat Breishit may have left us
with the<BR>impression that the Garden's gates (guarded by the "keruvim"<BR>and
a fiery sword /see Breishit 3:24) remain inaccessible to<BR>man forever, Parshat
Nitzavim may allude to the possibility
of<BR>'return'.<BR> To explain how (and why), this
week's shiur discusses the<BR>significance of the speech delivered by Moshe
Rabeinu in<BR>Parshat Nitzavim, and how it fits beautifully into the
rubric<BR>of Sefer Devarim.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>INTRODUCTION<BR> In case
you hadn't noticed, Parshat Nitzavim contains yet<BR>another speech given by
Moshe Rabeinu, the last of his four<BR>speeches in Sefer Devarim. In fact,
this final speech<BR>actually began at the end of Parshat Ki-tavo (see
29:1-8,<BR>noting how 29:1 forms the introduction to this
speech).<BR> In the following shiur, we first discuss
how this final<BR>speech relates to the "tochacha" (in Parshat
Ki-tavo);<BR>afterwards we fill focus on what's so special about
its<BR>'finale'.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>FOUR SPEECHES<BR> The
following table will help clarify the location of<BR>Moshe's Rabeinu's speech in
Parshat Nitzavim in relation to<BR>the rest of Sefer Devarim, as it summarizes
his four speeches:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> CHAPTERS
TOPIC<BR>1) 1->4 Introductory speech (why 40
years have passed)<BR>2) 5->26 The main speech - the
"mitzvot" to keep in the land<BR>3) 27->28 Brit Har Eival
and the Tochacha<BR>4) 29->30 The final speech = Parshat
Nitzavim</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Even though our shiur will
focus on the 'final speech'<BR>(#4), to appreciate its content, we must first
review the<BR>primary topic of speech #3.<BR>
Recall how chapter 27 described a ceremony that Bnei<BR>Yisrael are instructed
to conduct on Har Eival, upon entering<BR>the land. That ceremony was to
include both the teaching of<BR>the laws (i.e. those of the main speech) and
some festivities.<BR>The Torah's description of that ceremony continued in
chapter<BR>28 with the "tochacha", i.e. the 'blessing and the curses',
as<BR>they were to be read in public at the conclusion of
that<BR>ceremony.<BR> Hence, the order of Sefer Devarim up until this
point makes<BR>perfect sense. Speech #2 details the laws that Moshe
taught,<BR>while speech #3 explains how these laws were to be taught
once<BR>again when Bnei Yisrael enter the land, at a special ceremony<BR>that
concluded with a public warning of both the reward and<BR>punishment should Bnei
Yisrael obey/or disobey these laws.<BR> However, when
one reads the fourth speech, it appears to<BR>be superfluous, for in it we find
once again Moshe's rebuke of<BR>Bnei Yisrael - in a manner which doesn't differ
much from the<BR>numerous rebukes in his earlier speeches. [For
example,<BR>compare 29:11-14 with 5:2-3; 29:4-5 with 8:4; and 30:1-3
with<BR>4:26-29.]<BR> However, if we take a closer look
at its content, we can<BR>explain its function and the reason for its
location.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>THE STARTING & FINISH
LINES<BR> Our first step is to delineate more precisely
where this<BR>speech begins and ends. Note how it begins at the end
of<BR>Parshat Ki-tavo in 29:1 and concludes at the end of Parshat<BR>Nitzavim
(as indicated by the sudden shift to third-person<BR>narrative right at the
beginning of Parshat Vayelech (31:1).<BR> Using a Tanach Koren, note
as well how it contains five<BR>distinct 'parshiot': 29:1-8; 29:28; 30:1-10;
30:14 & 30:15-20.<BR> Let's take a look at each one
of these parshiot, and<BR>explain what is problematic about each.
Afterward, we will<BR>explain the logic of their internal progression, and how
each<BR>of these parshiot relates to the previous speech, and overall<BR>theme
of covenant in Sefer Devarim.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>PARSHIA #1 (29:1-8)<BR>
Moshe's opening statements in this 'parshia' raise<BR>numerous questions. To
understand these difficulties, let's<BR>take a look:<BR> "Moshe
called together Bnei Yisrael and said to them: You<BR> have seen
with your own eyes what I did to Pharaoh in the<BR> land of Egypt...
YET, until this day, God has not given you<BR> a 'heart to know,'
'eyes to see,' or 'ears to listen.' I<BR> led you for forty years in
the wilderness...[Therefore]<BR> observe faithfully the words of
this covenant [DIVREI<BR> HA'BRIT HA'ZOT] in order that you succeed
in all that you<BR> now undertake." (see 29:1-8)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> First of all, why is he
talking to this generation as<BR>though they themselves left Egypt? Granted,
some of the elder<BR>members of the nation may have been under the age of twenty
at<BR>the time of the Exodus (and hence not included in the<BR>punishment).
However, the vast majority of the current<BR>generation did not witness those
events. But even more<BR>puzzling is 29:3. How can Moshe possibly say, "Until
this day,<BR>God has not given you a 'heart to know,' 'eyes to see,' or<BR>'ears
to listen'"? To what could Moshe Rabeinu possibly
be<BR>referring?<BR> Finally, why does Moshe conclude
these comments by once<BR>again reminding Bnei Yisrael of the "brit" (see 29:8)?
Was<BR>that not the topic of his previous speech? [See 5:2-3!]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>PARSHIA #2 - see
29:9-28<BR> In this section, Moshe reiterates the
purpose of this<BR>gathering - i.e. to establish the covenant through which
Bnei<BR>Yisrael are to become God's nation. He then emphasizes
the<BR>eternal nature of this covenant, i.e. its mandatory<BR>application to all
future generations as well (see 29:9-14).<BR> But once again we must ask,
is this not the same point that<BR>Moshe Rabeinu had already stated in the
opening remarks of his<BR>main speech? (See 5:2-3, read
carefully.)<BR> Furthermore, why does Moshe suddenly
raise the<BR>possibility that an individual, family, or possibly an
entire<BR>tribe may consider 'breaking out' of this covenant (see
29:17-<BR>25)?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>PARSHIA #3 - see
30:1-10<BR> Moshe now 'comforts' Bnei Yisrael, telling
them that even<BR>in the event of exile, there will always remain
the<BR>possibility for "teshuva" and the nation's return to the<BR>Promised
Land. Why would Moshe, while addressing the people<BR>prior to their entry into
the land, prematurely inform them of<BR>their return to the land from
exile? They haven't reached the<BR>land yet, and already they are being
promised the ultimate<BR>gathering of the Diaspora? Furthermore, why aren't
Moshe's<BR>earlier comments on this topic (see 4:25-31 & Vayikra
26:41-<BR>45) sufficient?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>PARSHIA #4 - see
30:11-14<BR> Here we find Moshe Rabeinu's famous
insistence that<BR>keeping the Torah is 'not as hard' as it seems.
Again,<BR>although this constitutes a most critical message, the<BR>question
remains: why now and why here in Sefer Devarim?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>PARSHIA #5 - see
30:15-20<BR> As we will explain in Part Two, these
soul-stirring<BR>psukim depict life in Eretz Yisrael as comparable to
the<BR>ideal, spiritual environment of Gan Eden. But once again, why<BR>is this
topic mentioned specifically in this speech, and at<BR>its
conclusion?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>POTENTIAL 'CONCLUSIONS'<BR>
To resolve these questions, we must consider the<BR>centrality of the concept of
'covenant' ["brit"], which has<BR>emerged thus far as a primary theme in every
speech thus far<BR>in Sefer Devarim.<BR> Recall that
Moshe Rabeinu began his main speech by<BR>underscoring the relevance and
application of the covenant of<BR>Sinai to the present
generation:<BR> "The Lord your God made with you a COVENANT at
SINAI. It<BR> was not [only] with your fathers that God made
this<BR> covenant, but with US, those of us who are HERE,
ALIVE<BR> TODAY..." (see Devarim 5:1-3)<BR>
[Notice that the opening phrase of that speech (5:1) is<BR>
identical to that of ours (29:1), thus suggesting a<BR>
thematic connection between the two.]<BR>
<BR> In both his main speech and finale, Moshe
Rabeinu<BR>addresses the new generation as though THEY themselves left<BR>Egypt
and stood at Har Sinai. He emphasizes their inclusion in<BR>the covenant of Har
Sinai. Yet, in his third speech Moshe had<BR>instructed Bnei Yisrael to enter
into a similar covenant at<BR>this time (see 28:69 - the final pasuk of that
speech!). Why<BR>is another covenant necessary if 'everyone' was considered
to<BR>have participated in the covenant at Har
Sinai?<BR> In fact, this 'extra' covenant at Arvot Moav,
as detailed<BR>in chapter 27 in Parshat Ki-tavo, could easily lead
Bnei<BR>Yisrael to several incorrect conclusions:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> 1) The necessity of a new covenant for
this generation<BR>implies that the covenant at Har Sinai does not bind
all<BR>future generations. Why else would they require a 'new'<BR>covenant at
Arvot Moav?<BR> Evidently, one could conclude, the laws
of the Torah are<BR>binding only upon a generation (or individual) who
formally<BR>accepts this covenant, but not upon subsequent
generations<BR>(unless formally accepted)!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> 2) An individual (or possibly even a
larger group) may<BR>decide that he doesn't want either side of the covenant
-<BR>neither its reward NOR its punishment! Some people may gladly<BR>forego any
potential reward for keeping the mitzvot of the<BR>"brit", so long as in turn
they would not be bound by its<BR>strict demands or threatened by the harsh
punishment for its<BR>neglect.<BR> In other words, Bnei
Yisrael may conclude that each<BR>person or family in any generation has the
'option' to either<BR>be part of the "brit" or to 'back out' ("chas
veshalom"!).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>
<DIV><BR> 3) Just as any given individual may reserve the right
to<BR>'back out' of the covenant, God as well may be enabled to<BR>exercise His
right to 'retract' His covenant should He see<BR>fit. In other words, Bnei
Yisrael could potentially infer from<BR>the closing section of the Tochacha in
Ki-tavo that exile<BR>signifies the very annulment of this covenant. In
other<BR>words, if exile is understood as God 'nullifying' His side of<BR>the
covenant, then Bnei Yisrael (once in exile) could reach<BR>the logical
conclusion that their 'special relationship' with<BR>God is over (chas
veshalom!).<BR> [See Yechezkel 20:32 and its context, where
Bnei Yisrael<BR> in the Babylonian Exile raise this very
possibility!]</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>PUTTING THE PIECES TOGETHER<BR> With this
background, let's now take another look at the<BR>various components of Moshe's
final speech in an attempt to<BR>explain why they from this
'finale'.<BR> In PARSHIA #1, Moshe Rabeinu first
explains WHY this<BR>'new' covenant (as described in the third speech)
is<BR>necessary. True, a covenant had already been made with the<BR>previous
generation. However, because of their sins and<BR>subsequent demise in the
desert, it is only now that the<BR>original intention of BRIT SINAI becomes
applicable.<BR> To emphasize upon this new generation
that THEY must<BR>fulfill the destiny originally planned for their parents,
God<BR>recreates the 'atmosphere' of Har Sinai, allowing the new<BR>generation
to 'relive' the experience. Although most of them<BR>were NOT at Har Sinai, it
is important that this entire<BR>generation feel as though they actually stood
at the foot of<BR>the mountain. They will soon enter the land and face
the<BR>challenge of establishing God's special nation, and they
must<BR>therefore bring with them the Sinai experience and
covenant.<BR> As Seforno on 29:3 explains, it is only
NOW that Bnei<BR>Yisrael are finally ready to, for the first time,
fulfill<BR>God's covenant. Moshe thus explains to this generation that<BR>'this
is THE day' for which He has been waiting. Now, God has<BR>a nation that
can truly KNOW, SEE, and LISTEN (see 29:3,<BR>Seforno and
Rashi).<BR> Thus, there is nothing 'new' about this
covenant. In<BR>fact, it serves an opposite function: i.e. to reaffirm
the<BR>relevance and application of the original covenant at
Har<BR>Sinai.<BR> With this in mind, we can now explain
the need for the<BR>second parshia.<BR> Once this
'renewed' "brit" becomes necessary, Moshe<BR>Rabeinu must disaffirm the possible
conclusion that every<BR>generation and every individual has the option of
accepting or<BR>refusing the terms of the covenant (as we explained
above).<BR>Therefore, in PARSHIA #2 Moshe reminds Bnei Yisrael of the<BR>purpose
of that covenant (to become God's nation, see 29:9-14)<BR>and then threatens
severe punishment for any person or group<BR>considering the option of 'backing
out' (see 29:17-25).<BR> Afterward, in PARSHA #3, Moshe
Rabeinu reassures Bnei<BR>Yisrael that just as this covenant is binding upon
Bnei<BR>Yisrael for ALL generations, so is it eternally binding upon<BR>God
Himself. Therefore, even in the advent of exile, God will<BR>(sooner or
later) ensure Bnei Yisrael's return to their land<BR>to keep His mitzvot and
become His nation. [Note that other<BR>religions (which evolved from Judaism)
reject specifically<BR>this point!]<BR> Moshe then
proceeds to repudiate another likely<BR>conclusion of one who hears the terms of
this covenant (and<BR>its almost innumerable obligations), the claim that
it's<BR>simply 'impossible' to be an 'observant Jew.' Moshe Rabeinu<BR>explains
in PARSHIA #4 that in truth, it's not as hard as it<BR>may seem. For if one has
the proper attitude of "ahavat<BR>Hashem" (the opening theme of the main
speech), then the 'way<BR>of life' which the Torah demands lies well within his
reach.<BR> Finally, in PARSHIA #5, Moshe concludes his
speech with<BR>the axiom of "bechira chofshit" (freedom of choice), the
God-<BR>given ability to choose the 'path of life' [or 'death'], which<BR>will
now be discussed in Part Two.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> ===========</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>PART TWO - Between Gan Eden and Eretz
Yisrael<BR> Before we begin Part Two, review 30:15-20,
and notice<BR>that this 'parshia' forms the concluding section of
this<BR>speech. As you read, note how Moshe Rabeinu summarizes in
this<BR>conclusion some of the primary themes of the main speech<BR>(which we
have discussed in previous shiurim):<BR> "See, I set before you
today CHAYIM (life) and TOV<BR> (prosperity), MAVET (death) and RA
(adversity).<BR> For I command you
today to LOVE God and walk in His<BR> ways [referring to the MITZVAH
section/ 6->11] and to keep<BR> His CHUKIM u'MISHPATIM [referring
to the 2nd part of the<BR> main speech/ 12->26)] that you may
thrive and increase and<BR> that God will bless you in the Land that
you are about to<BR>
conquer...<BR> Should you turn your
heart (not listen)... I declare<BR> today that you shall certainly
perish and not endure on the<BR> Land... that you are to
conquer." (see 30:15-18)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> Clearly, Moshe refers once again to the two
sections of<BR>the main speech. However, these verses may relate as well
to<BR>a fundamental theme in Sefer Breishit, as suggested by several<BR>key
phrases in this section. Let's explain.<BR> Recall the
usage of the terms 'CHAYIM and TOV' and 'MAVET<BR>and RA' in 30:15, cited
earlier. Let's identify the precise<BR>definition of these expressions in the
final two psukim:<BR> "I call Heavens and Earth to testify that I am
presenting<BR> you the CHOICE of CHAYIM or MAVET - the "bracha"
or<BR> "klalla" - and you should choose CHAYIM in order that
you<BR> live... on this Land that I promised to your
ancestors..."<BR> (30:19-20)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> In this beautiful finale, the Torah equates the
concept<BR>of BRACHA & KLALA, as detailed by the "tochacha" (see
28:1-<BR>7,15-20!), with CHAYIM & MAVET:<BR> BRACHA
= CHAYIM (life); KLALLA = MAVET (death).<BR>Recall however, that the concepts of
CHAYIM & MAVET as well as<BR>TOV & RA were first introduced in the story
of Gan Eden:<BR> "And God brought forth from the ground every
tree... and<BR> the ETZ
HA'CHAYIM<BR> [the Tree of Life] in
the middle of the garden, and<BR> the:<BR> ETZ Ha'DAAT
TOV V'RA<BR> [the Tree of Knowledge of
good and evil...]<BR> and from the ETZ HA'DAAT TOV v'RA do not eat,
for on the<BR> day you eat from it - MOT TA'MUT - you will surely
die!"<BR>
(see Breishit 2:8-9, 2:15-17)<BR> This textual parallel
is strengthened by yet another<BR>resemblance to the story of Creation. Note
that the Heavens<BR>and Earth - SHAMAYIM v'ARETZ - are called upon as witnesses
to<BR>this covenant (see 30:19, as well as 31:28 &
32:1).<BR> This special call upon "shamayim" and "aretz"
to witness<BR>the "brit" may relate not only to the introduction of the<BR>story
of Creation (Br. 1:1), but also to the opening pasuk of<BR>the Gan Eden
narrative in Breishit - see 2:4!</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>A GAN EDEN CLOSE TO HOME<BR> This textual parallel
suggests a conceptual relationship<BR>between life according to the Torah's
ideals in the Land of<BR>Israel and existence in Gan Eden. In fact, the
spiritual<BR>environment of Gan Eden strongly resembles the
spiritual<BR>environment that Sefer Devarim wishes to create in the Land
of<BR>Israel.<BR> Recall how the Gan Eden narrative
described a special<BR>environment between man and God, with an emphasis on
"schar<BR>v'onesh" [reward and retribution]. God promises Man
a<BR>prosperous physical existence [CHAYIM] should he OBEY, while<BR>threatening
death [MAVET] should Man DISOBEY (see Br. 2:15-<BR>17). In a very similar
manner, the "tochacha" describes a<BR>parallel reality in the land of
Israel:<BR> Should Bnei Yisrael keep the mitzvot, God
will reward<BR>them with prosperity (see 29:1-14); if they sin, God
will<BR>punish them severely (see 29:15-26).<BR> [Note as well
Devarim 11:13-20 (from daily kriyat shma).]<BR>
<BR> Furthermore, EXILE emerges in both settings as the
most<BR>severe punishment. Adam is banished from the Garden as a<BR>consequence
of his sin (see Br. 3:22-24). Similarly, the<BR>"tochacha" threatens that should
Am Yisrael continue to sin<BR>they will driven from the land by their enemies
(see 28:64-68)<BR>and remain in Exile until they perform proper
Teshuva<BR>(repentance / see Devarim 30:1-10).<BR> [Interestingly,
God's original death sentence for eating<BR> from the Tree was
translated into Adam's EXILE from the<BR> Garden (3:23) when he
actually partook of the Tree's fruit.<BR> Considering that Gan Eden
reflects an ideal spiritual<BR> environment, exile may be accurately
equated with death.<BR> Whereas the biblical purpose of LIFE is to
develop a<BR> connection with God, biblical DEATH refers to life
without<BR> any such connection, an exile into an
environment<BR> characterized by God's absence.]</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> This parallel takes on additional meaning when
we<BR>consider the location of these two sources: at the BEGINNING<BR>of Chumash
and towards the very END of Chumash.<BR> One could
suggest that in this manner Chumash underscores<BR>the basic nature of man's
relationship with God. First, we are<BR>told of God's creation of Man and his
placement in Gan Eden -<BR>the ideal spiritual environment. As punishment for
his sin,<BR>God expels man from Gan Eden, appointing the "keruvim" to<BR>guard
against any attempt to return (see Br. 3:24).<BR>
Nonetheless, the presence of the "keruvim" who guard the<BR>'way to the Tree of
Life' does not necessarily indicate the<BR>permanent closure of this path. To
the contrary, it becomes<BR>man's duty to STRIVE to return. The "keruvim" do not
restrict<BR>entry; rather they protect the Garden from the intrusion of<BR>those
undeserving of return. But once man proves himself<BR>worthy, the DERECH ETZ
HA'CHAYIM - the PATH to the Tree of<BR>Life - no matter how formidable it may at
first appear,<BR>suddenly opens and invites man
inside.<BR> Correspondingly, Sefer Devarim describes
Eretz Yisrael as<BR>both a physical and spiritual environment where Am Yisrael
can<BR>rebuild this spiritual connection with God.<BR>
For example, Parshat Ekev illustrates how the climate of<BR>Eretz Yisrael
contributes to this environment:<BR> "...always, God's EYES are upon
it [the Land], from the<BR> beginning of the year until the end of
the
year."<BR>
(see Devarim 11:10-12)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>FROM GAN EDEN TO 'JERUSALEM'<BR> But perhaps the
most meaningful parallel between Gan Eden<BR>and Eretz Yisrael arises in the
CHUKIM & MISHPATIM section.<BR>Recall that Parshiyot Re'ay, Shoftim, and
Ki-tavo present<BR>numerous mitzvot relating to HA'MAKOM ASHER YIVCHAR
HASHEM,<BR>the Bet Ha'Mikdash, which will be built on the site chosen by<BR>God.
As explained in our shiur on Parshat Re'ay, Sefer Devarim<BR>demands that every
Jew frequent that site regularly, be it for<BR>"aliyah le'regel" on the
holidays, to offer korbanot or<BR>bikurim, to eat "ma'aser sheni," to appear in
court, etc.<BR> Situated at the focal point of that site
[i.e. the Bet<BR>Ha'Mikdash] is the KODESH KEDOSHIM, the permanent location
of<BR>the ARON, covered by the KAPORET and protected by KERUVIM,<BR>both on the
KAPORET and on the PAROCHET! [See Shmot 25:16-22
&<BR>26:31-34.]<BR> Given that the concept of
KERUVIM arises nowhere else in<BR>Chumash outside of these two contexts - the
Mishkan/Bet<BR>Hamikdash and Gan Eden - a thematic connection between the
two<BR>is implied. Just as the KERUVIM of Gan Eden protect the path<BR>to
the ETZ HA'CHAYIM, so do the KERUVIM of the Mikdash guard<BR>the path to true
CHAYIM: i.e. they protect the ARON which<BR>contains the LUCHOT HA'EIDUT - the
symbol of the TORAH and our<BR>covenant with God at Har
Sinai.<BR> By placing the LUCHOT - a powerful symbol of
MATAN TORAH<BR>- at the focal point of our lives in Eretz Yisrael,
Sefer<BR>Devarim urges us to strive to return to the environment of Gan<BR>Eden
by observing the laws of the TORAH.<BR> This
interpretation is supported by the famous pasuk in<BR>Mishlei, recited each time
we return the SEFER TORAH to the<BR>ARON HA'KODESH:<BR> "ETZ CHAYIM
HI - She is a Tree of Life - for those who hold<BR> on to her, and
whoever holds her is fortunate." (Mishlei<BR>
3:18)<BR> [Even though this pasuk seemingly refers to wisdom
in<BR> general (see 3:13), in the overall context of the
perek<BR> "wisdom" refers specifically to Torah (see
3:1-8!).]</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> Thus, Chumash 'ends' with a theme which quite
parallel to<BR>the theme of its opening narrative. God's original
intention<BR>may have been for man to enjoy a close relationship with Him<BR>in
Gan Eden. Even though that goal seems to have 'failed' in<BR>Sefer
Bereishit, Sefer Devarim concludes with the possibility<BR>that the Nation of
Israel can indeed return to such an<BR>existence, in the Land of Israel.
[For a similar explanation,<BR>see Seforno's introduction to Sefer
Breishit!]<BR> To better appreciate our discussion, I
highly recommend<BR>that you study the Ramban on 30:19. His explanation of
what<BR>man should learn from his contemplation of "shamayim v'aretz"<BR>(what
we call 'nature') that surrounds us will definitely<BR>enhance your appreciation
of Parshat Nitzavim. Furthermore,<BR>it is a most fitting Ramban to study
in preparation for Rosh<BR>Ha'Shana - the day marking God's creation of
"shamayim<BR>v'aretz."</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
shabbat
shalom,<BR>
menachem</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>=================<BR>FOR FURTHER IYUN - on Part One:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>A. The Midrash Tanchuma in Parshat Nitzavim relates that<BR>during the time
of Yechezkel, a delegation of "elder<BR>statesmen" came to Yechezkel and
challenged the obligation to<BR>abide by the Torah. They asked the prophet, "If
a kohen<BR>purchases a servant, does the servant partake from the
kohen's<BR>teruma?" When Yechezkel answered in the affirmative, they<BR>inquired
as to what would happen if the kohen then sold the<BR>servant to a Yisrael. The
prophet replied that, of course,<BR>once the servant is no longer under the
authority of the<BR>kohen, he has no further rights as far as teruma is
concerned.<BR>"We, too," they said, "have already left His authority and
we<BR>will no be like all the gentiles."<BR> Yechezkel
responds (20:32-33), "That which came to your<BR>mind shall not be at all; in
that you say, 'We will be as the<BR>nations, as the families of the countries,
to serve wood and<BR>stone.' As I live, says Hashem, surely with a mighty hand
and<BR>an outstretched arm and with fury poured out I will be king<BR>over
you!"<BR> Explain the relevance of these psukim and
their general<BR>context to Parshat Nitzavim and the above shiur.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>B. One critical question we did not address concerns the<BR>'legal'
mechanism by which the covenant of Har Sinai becomes<BR>binding upon all
generations. It would seem that one cannot be<BR>born into a binding agreement -
he must first express his<BR>consent to the terms
thereof! This question was posed by<BR>the
"scholars of Aragon," as recorded by the Abarbanel. See<BR>his comments in our
parasha, and contrast with the Maharal,<BR>"Netzach Yisrael" 11. According to
the Abarbanel, this eternal<BR>obligation evolves directly from Bnei Yisrael's
privilege of<BR>settling the Land. Needless to say, this beautifully
explains<BR>the context of Parshat Nitzavim: the reenactment of brit Sinai<BR>on
the eve of Bnei Yisrael's entry into Eretz Yisrael.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>C. See Rashi's comments on "v'hu yihye lecha lelokim" (29:12),<BR>and note
its relevance to the bilateral quality of the brit as<BR>discussed in the above
shiur. Rashi continues by citing a<BR>Midrash regarding Bnei Yisrael's sense of
desperation upon<BR>hearing the curses of the tochecha. Moshe reassures them
by<BR>observing, "Atem nitzavim" - you have survived, despite many<BR>incidents
of wrongdoing. Explain how this, too, relates to<BR>this above shiur.
Additionally, how does this Midrash help<BR>explain the seemingly irrelevant
historical review presented<BR>at the end of Parshat Ki-Tavo (29:1-8)?<BR>
Explain how the final clause of 29:5 reinforces the equation<BR>between this
generation and their parents. [See Shmot 6:7.]</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>D. Different mefarshim have come up with different approaches<BR>to explain
29:3: "YET, until this day, God has not given you a<BR>'heart to know,' 'eyes to
see,' or 'ears to listen.'" In the<BR>shiur, we mentioned the explanations of
Rashi and Seforno.<BR>Other mefarshim explain this pasuk as a continuation
of<BR>Moshe's "musar." For example, Abarbanel places a question mark<BR>at the
end of the pasuk. Before you see his commentary inside<BR>(which I suggest you
do), how does his punctuation change the<BR>meaning of the pasuk? Others
understand "ad hayom hazeh" as<BR>meaning, "even until…" What does the pasuk
meaning according<BR>to this reading?<BR> Other
mefarshim, however, try to explain that Bnei<BR>Yisrael arrived at a unique
awareness of Hashem's power on<BR>"this day," the conclusion of their sojourn in
the wilderness.<BR>Rav David Tzvi Hoffman explains that the forty years
of<BR>wandering and the recent battle against Sichon and Og<BR>magnified this
awareness far more effectively than the wonders<BR>and miracles of Egypt.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>E. Moshe describes the potential attempt by an individual or<BR>group to
breach the covenant as follows: "Perhaps there is<BR>among you some man or
woman… When such a person hears the<BR>words of these sanctions, he may fancy
himself immune [JPS<BR>translation; note the difficulty in interpreting these
words]<BR>thinking, 'I shall be safe, because I follow my own
willful<BR>heart'…"<BR> Many mefarshim address the
problematic word "ki"<BR>(translated here as "because") in this pasuk. Ibn Ezra
[and<BR>JPS] translate "ki" as "even though," while the Ramban, in his<BR>first
suggestion, interprets the word as similar to<BR>"ka'asher." How may we maintain
the standard interpretation of<BR>"ki" as "because," based on the second
erroneous conclusion<BR>Moshe feared, as we discussed in the shiur? See
Ramban's<BR>second interpretation.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>F. As we saw, the psukim in 30:11-14 remind the people that<BR>Torah
observance is not as hard as it may seem. Nowhere do we<BR>find such an explicit
reassurance to the generation of<BR>Yetzi'at Mitzrayim and Matan Torah. Why
would this younger<BR>generation in particular require these words of
encouragement?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>G. Note the difference between the simple reading of 30:12 and<BR>that of
the Gemara in Eruvin, as cited here by Rashi. Show how<BR>the Midrashic reading
of the pasuk addresses the first two<BR>incorrect conclusions that, as we
discussed, Moshe feared, and<BR>contrast this approach with our understanding in
the shiur.<BR> [Point of methodology: Explain the
difficulty<BR>understanding the transition from 30:11 to 30:12 according
to<BR>the Midrashic interpretation. On the other hand, what
other<BR>difficulties does this Gemara resolve? Does the Gemara<BR>necessarily
negate the simple understanding? How do your<BR>answers to these questions
reflect the general relationship<BR>between "pshat" and
"drash"?]<BR>=============<BR>FOR FURTHER IYUN - on Part Two<BR>A. We mentioned
above that the psukim at the end of Parshat<BR>Nitzavim (30:15-20) that allude
to Gan Eden could be<BR>considered the denouement of Moshe's speeches in
Sefer<BR>Devarim. Pay careful attention to the literary style from<BR>chapter 31
onward. In which person is the narrative written<BR>(1st or 3rd)?
What about the previous sections of the sefer?<BR>Is the style of this
concluding section more similar to Sefer<BR>Devarim or to Bamidbar? Might this
unit be considered a<BR>continuation of Sefer Bamidbar?
Explain your answer.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>B. A famous dispute among the commentators surrounds
the<BR>psukim just prior to these that we have discussed. To what<BR>does
"mitzvah hazot" (30:11) refer? See 30:11-14, Rashi (on<BR>pasuk 14), Ibn Ezra
(also pasuk 14), Ramban (pasuk 11) and<BR>Seforno (pasuk 11). If we view these
pesukim as continuing the<BR>previous discussion of teshuva, then perhaps the
pesukim<BR>discussed in the above shiur (30:15-20) also relate to this<BR>theme:
the choice between "life" and "death" in the aftermath<BR>of sin. Explain how
this enhances our association between<BR>these psukim and the return to Gan
Eden. Bear in mind the<BR>Midrash that Hashem banished Adam from Gan Eden only
after<BR>having first offered him the chance to do teshuva (Bereishit<BR>Rabba
21, Bemidbar Rabba 13).<BR> Furthermore, compare 15-20
with the opening psukim of<BR>Parshat Re'ay. Note the difference in terminology:
"bracha"<BR>and "k'lala" as opposed to "chayim" and "mavet." [Notice
that<BR>Moshe makes a point of associating "bracha/k'lala"
with<BR>"chayim/mavet" in 30:19.] Try to explain this difference in<BR>light of
our suggestion that our psukim refer to the situation<BR>after sin, rather than
before sinning. [See Meshech Chochma.]<BR>What 'choice' is presented in Re'ay,
and which does Moshe<BR>present here, in the aftermath of sin? Why is the
wrong<BR>'choice' in our context called "death" (perhaps more<BR>accurately, the
"curse" translates into "death") while in<BR>Re'ay it's merely a "curse"?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>C. The Sifrei in the beginning of Parshat Re'ay
(54:27)<BR>associates the psukim there (as we cited in B.) with
Hashem's<BR>comment to Kayin: "Surely, if you do right you will be<BR>forgiven
[see Targum, as opposed to Ibn Ezra]; but if you<BR>don't do right, sin couches
at the door" (Bereishit 4:7). Why<BR>would God have to impress this notion upon
Kayin particularly<BR>in the aftermath of Adam's banishment from Gan Eden? Why
must<BR>Moshe repeat this same message to Bnei Yisrael before they<BR>enter the
land?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>D. In 29:12-14, we find once again the concept of
Bnei<BR>Yisrael's destiny to become a special nation. Relate this to<BR>our
entire series of shiurim on Devarim. [Note as well the<BR>reference to God's
promise to the patriarchs, and recall our<BR>shiur last week regarding 'mikra
bikkurim' and 'viduy<BR>ma'aser.']</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>E. Read the Rambam's comments concerning the laws of Hakhel in<BR>Hilchot
Chagiga perek 3. Note particularly his remarks in<BR>halacha 6 concerning
"geirim." (If you have a chance, read<BR>also the seventh perek of mishnayot
Sota.) How do these<BR>halachot relate to the above shiur? Why do
you think we skip<BR>from shma to v'haya im shmoa in kriyat shma? What is
the<BR>final word read by the king at Hakhel? How might this be<BR>significant
in light of this shiur?<BR>In halacha 6, why does the Rambam emphasize that
davka the<BR>"geir" must feel as though he is standing at Har Sinai
during<BR>the hakhel ceremony?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>F. Regarding the association of Torah with "life" (end
of<BR>the shiur), see Targum Yonatan on 30:20.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>G. We noted the function of Torah as the "Tree of Life,"
the<BR>means by which we "return to Gan Eden." See Midrash HaGadol
in<BR>Bereishit: "That tree from which whoever would eat would live<BR>- God hid
it and gave us His Torah, the tree of life…" See<BR>also Tanchuma Yashan,
Bereishit 25 that identifies the "lahat<BR>hacherev" (the "fiery sword"), which
guarded the entrance to<BR>Gan Eden together with the keruvim, as Torah (based
on<BR>Tehillim 149:7, which we say in Psukei D'Zimra).<BR> The parallel
between Gan Eden and both the Mikdash and Torah<BR>study becomes especially
apparent in the Midrashim that<BR>interpret Adam's responsibility in Gan Eden of
"l'ovda" in<BR>reference to korbanot and Torah study. See Pirkei
D'Rabbi<BR>Eliezer 12, Bereishit Rabba 16, and especially Sifrei Ekev
41.<BR></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>