[Par-reg] Parshat Bechukotai -- shiur

[Menachem Leibtag]

*************************************************************
     THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
          In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
     Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
*************************************************************

              PARSHAT  BECHUKOTAI

        THE CONCLUSION OF SEFER VAYIKRA

    Considering that Sefer Vayikra is primarily a book of
laws, it would certainly be appropriate to conclude those laws
by explaining their reward - and that is exactly what we find
in Parshat Bechukotai!  Review Vayikra chapter 26 - better
known as the 'tochacha' - noting how it describes the reward
(/or punishment) for keeping (/or defying) God's laws.
     Hence, chapter 26 forms a fitting conclusion for the
entire book.  So why does Sefer Vayikra add one additional
chapter (see chapter 27 /the laws of 'erchin') immediately
afterward?
     In this week's shiur we attempt to explain why.

INTRODUCTION
     Let's begin by clarifying our opening question.  Recall
how Parshat Bechukotai (the last Parshat ha'shavua in Sefer
Vayikra) contains two distinct sections:
     (1) the tochacha (chapter 26) -
    Bnei Yisrael's reward [and/or punishment] should they obey
    [/or disobey] God's commandments;

     (2) The laws of 'erchin' (chapter 27) -
    A set of specific laws pertaining to the monetary
    evaluation of people or property dedicated to God.

     Considering that Sefer Vayikra is a book that contains a
collection of mitzvot, a 'tochacha' would form an appropriate
conclusion - for it outlines how God rewards (or punishes) Am
Yisrael as a function of how they keep those mitzvot.
     The first section of our shiur will explain how (and why)
the tochacha should indeed be considered the conclusion of
Sefer Vayikra.  Afterward, we'll attempt to explain why the
Torah may have 'added on' chapter 27 to form a significant
'epilogue'.

PART ONE - A PERFECT FINALE
     Recall our explanation of how Sefer Vayikra divides into
two distinct sections:

     A) Kedushat mishkan - chapters 1 -> 17.
    focusing on laws pertaining to the mishkan, such as
    korbanot, tum'a & tahara, etc.

     B) Kedushat ha-am ve-haaretz - chapters 18 -> 25.
    focusing on a wide range of laws of 'kedusha' outside the
    mishkan, to make Am Yisrael an 'am kadosh'.

     As you review both the 'positive' and 'negative' sides of
the tochacha, note how the reward and punishment relates to
both these sections, i.e. the mishkan and the Land:
 *   On the positive side, should Bnei Yisrael obey the
mitzvot, then:
     B) "and I will put My mishkan in your midst..." (26:11)
     A) "and the land shall give its produce..." (26:4).

 *   On the negative side, should Bnei Yisrael disobey these
laws, then:
     A) "I will make your mikdash desolate..." (26:31)
     B) "the land will not give its produce..." (26:20,34-35).

     This only strengthens our claim that the tochacha should
have been the last chapter of Sefer Vayikra!  However, the
best 'proof' is found in its 'final' pasuk.

THE FINAL PASUK -
     Let's take a look at the final pasuk of the tochacha, to
show how it relates to both halves of Sefer Vayikra:
  "These are the chukim & mishpatim, and the torot which God
  had given between Him and Bnei Yisrael on Har Sinai to
  Moshe" (26:46).

     Clearly, this pasuk forms a summary of more than just the
tochacha itself.  Let's explain why.
     Note how this final pasuk mentions two categories of
mitzvot that we are already familiar with:
     1) chukim & mishpatim, and
     2) torot.

     This implies that whatever unit this pasuk does summarize
- it includes both 'chukim & mishpatim' and 'torot' (that were
given to Moshe on Har Sinai).  Hence, this pasuk must
summarize more than the tochacha, for the tochacha itself does
not contain "chukim & mishpatim", nor "torot".
     Aware of this problem, many commentators attempt to
identify the wider unit that is summarized in this pasuk.
 For example:

*    Rashbam suggests that it summarizes both Parshiot Behar &
Bechukotai, i.e. chapters 25 & 26.  This is quite logical, for
the laws of shmitta and yovel could be considered the  "chukim
& mishpatim".  This also makes sense since both these chapters
are included in the same 'dibbur' which began in 25:1.
     However, Rashbam does not explain which laws in this unit
fit under the category of torot.
     Furthermore, recall our explanation in Parshat Tzav that
a 'torah' implies a procedural type of law, e.g. 'torat ha-
chatat' - how the kohen executes the chatat offering, etc.
Within chapters 25 & 26, it is difficult to pinpoint any such
'procedural' law.

 *   Ibn Ezra claims that this pasuk summarizes not only
Parshat Behar (i.e. Vayikra chapters 25 & 26), but also
Parshat Mishpatim, i.e. Sefer Shmot chapters 21 - 23!
     Ibn Ezra's interpretation is based on his understanding
that the tochacha in Parshat Bechukotai is none other than the
'sefer ha-brit' mentioned in Shmot 24:7 [i.e. in the Torah's
description of the ceremony at Ma'amad Har Sinai when Bnei
Yisrael proclaimed 'na'aseh ve-nishma'].  (See Ibn Ezra on
Vayikra 25:1 and Shmot 24:7.)
     However, it seems rather strange to find a summary pasuk
for Parshat Mishpatim at the end of Sefer Vayikra!

 *   Ramban agrees with Ibn Ezra that this pasuk forms a
summary of the mitzvot in Parshat Mishpatim as well.  However,
he reaches this conclusion from a different angle.  Ramban
claims that this parshia of the tochacha was actually given to
Moshe Rabbeinu during his second set of forty days on Har
Sinai, and serves as a 'replacement' covenant - to replace the
conditions of the original na'aseh ve-nishma covenant (as
described in Shmot 24:7).  As such, this summary pasuk
summarizes the mitzvot in Parshat Mishpatim as well.  [See
Ramban on 25:1, towards the end of his lengthy peirush to that
pasuk.  This complicated (but important) Ramban is based on
his approach to the chronological order of Chumash, but it is
beyond the scope of this shiur.]
     In any case, our above question regarding Ibn Ezra's
approach would apply to Ramban's as well.

 *   Rashi offers the 'widest' understanding of this summary
pasuk.  He claims that this finale pasuk summarizes not only
the entire 'written law' of the entire Chumash, but also the
entire 'oral law' as well!
     It is interesting to note that from among all of the
commentators, only Rashi deals with the problem of determining
the precise meaning of "torot".  Rashi solves the problem by
quoting the Midrash that it refers to 'Torah she-bikhtav u-
ba'al peh'.  However, this interpretation is quite difficult
for (according to simple pshat) the word 'eileh' [these] at
the beginning of 26:46 summarizes what has been written thus
far, and not what has not been written yet.

*    Seforno follows a direction similar to Rashi, but appears
to be a bit more 'realistic'.  He claims that this pasuk
summarizes all of the mitzvot that were mentioned in Chumash
thus far, i.e. before Parshat Bechukotai.  However, Seforno is
not very precise concerning exactly which mitzvot are
summarized by this pasuk.
     In our shiur, we will follow Seforno's 'lead' and show
how this final pasuk may actually form a summary pasuk for all
of the mitzvot found in Sefer Vayikra!  Our approach will be
based on identifying more specifically what the phrases chukim
& mishpatim and torot (in 26:46) may be referring to.

A FITTING FINALE
     Recall once again how Sefer Vayikra divides into two
sections (see above), and how the second half of the Sefer
begins in chapter 18 with a set of five psukim that form an
introduction.  [See 18:1-5 and our shiur on Parshat Acharei
Mot.]
     As you review those psukim, note how these psukim
actually introduce an entire set of chukim u-mishpatim.  For
example:
  "Observe My mishpatim and keep My chukim to follow them, I
  am the Lord your God.  Keep My chukim & mishpatim..."  (18:4-
  5. See also 18:26-30!).

     Therefore, the phrase chukim ve-mishpatim in our 'finale
pasuk' (26:46) could be understood as the summary of the
second half of Sefer Vayikra (chapters 18->25), as it refers
to the numerous chukim u-mishpatim that are recorded in that
section.
     Furthermore, note how often we have found this phrase in
the second half of Vayikra: see 19:19 & 37, 20:8 & 22, and
25:18!

     In a similar manner, the word torot could be considered a
summary of the laws found in the first half of the Sefer.
Recall how the word torah was used numerous times to describe
the various procedures regarding korbanot.  The most obvious
example would be Parshat Tzav where the phrase 'zot torat...'
introduced each category of korbanot (see 6:2, 6:7, 6:18, 7:1,
7:11) and also formed its summary (see 7:37!).
     However, this phrase was also found numerous times in
Parshat Tazria/Metzora as well (see 12:7; 13:59; 14:2,32,45;
and 15:32).
     Furthermore, even though this phrase is not mentioned by
the other mitzvot in this section, most of its laws are of a
procedural nature and could easily fall under this category of
torot.  Certainly, the seven day 'milu'im' & 'yom ha-shmini'
ceremonies (chapters 8 & 9) are procedures and hence could be
understood as torot, as is the yearly 'avoda' of the kohen
gadol on Yom Kippur (see chapter 16).
     Hence, the word torot in 26:46 can be understood as a
summary of the procedural laws found in the first half of
Sefer Vayikra.
     Thus, the final pasuk of the tochacha (26:46) becomes an
almost 'perfect ending' for the entire sefer:
  "These are the chukim & mishpatim [summarizes the second
  half - chapters 18 thru 25] and the torot [summarizes the
  first half - chapters 6 thru 17] which God had given between
  Him and Bnei Yisrael on Har Sinai to Moshe" (26:46).

     The phrase chukim & mishpatim summarizes Part Two of
Sefer Vayikra, while the word torot summarizes Part One!

THE TOCHACHA & SEFER SHMOT
     Even though we have shown how this finale pasuk (26:46)
forms a beautiful conclusion for Sefer Vayikra, it contains an
additional phrase that explains why it could be considered a
conclusion for the laws in Sefer Shmot as well.  [If so, this
would help us appreciate Ibn Ezra & Ramban's peirush as well,
and the chiastic structure discussed in our shiur on Parshat
Behar.]

     Let's take a closer look at this finale pasuk, noting the
second half of the pasuk:
  "These are the chukim u-mishpatim, and the torot which God
  had given - beino u-vein Bnei Yisrael - between Himself and
  Bnei Yisrael, on Har Sinai through Moshe" (26:46).
  
     This special phrase: 'beino u-vein Bnei Yisrael' may
highlight the covenantal nature of the mitzvot of Sefer
Vayikra.  To explain why, we need only quote a pasuk that we
are all familiar with from 'shabbos davening' [our sabbath
prayers].  Note how the Torah uses an almost identical phrase
as it describes how Shabbat should be considered a 'brit'.:
  "Ve-shameru Bnei Yisrael et ha-shabbat... - to keep it as a
  day of rest for all generations - brit olam - an everlasting
  covenant - beini u-vein Bnei Yisrael - an eternal sign..."
  (see Shmot 31:16-17).

     In fact, this very concept of brit is emphasized several
times by the tochacha itself:
     "... ve-hakimoti et briti itchem" (26:9)
     "... lehafrechem et briti" (26:15)
     "ve-zacharti et briti Yaakov ve-af et briti Yitzchak..."
(26:42)
     "ve-zacharti lahem brit rishonim asher hotzeiti..."
(26:45).

     If this interpretation is correct, then we have found an
additional thematic connection between the laws of kedusha in
Sefer Vayikra and the purpose of Matan Torah as described at
brit Har Sinai.  As we have explained, the mitzvot of Sefer
Vayikra function as a vehicle thru which the goal of brit
Sinai - "ve-atem tiheyu li mamlechet kohanim ve-goy kadosh" -
can be achieved.  (See Shmot 19:4-6.)
  [Once again, note how this thematic connection can also
  explain the chiastic structure that connected the laws in
  Sefer Shmot & Sefer Vayikra, as explained in our shiur on
  Parshat Behar.]

     Hence, the phrase 'beino u-vein Bnei Yisrael' in this
summary pasuk may emphasize how the mitzvot of Sefer Vayikra
strengthen the covenant between God and Bnei Yisrael, as
forged at Har Sinai, where Am Yisrael took upon themselves to
become God's special nation.

THE TOCHACHA & SEFER BREISHIT
     Thus far, we have shown how the tochacha forms a fitting
conclusion for Sefer Vayikra, and thematically relates back to
covenant at Har Sinai as described in Sefer Shmot.  One could
suggest that it may contain a certain element that
thematically returns us to Sefer Breishit as well.
     Recall our explanation of how Gan Eden represented an
ideal environment in which man was capable of developing a
close relationship with God.  In that environment, man's
reward for obeying God was a prosperous life in Gan Eden;
while his punishment for disobeying God's commandment was
death - i.e. his banishment from Gan Eden.

     The two sides of the tochacha describe a similar
environment for Am Yisrael living in Eretz Yisrael.  Should
they keep God's laws, Am Yisrael can enjoy a prosperous and
secure existence in their land.
     For example, 'im be-chukotai teilechu...', i.e. should
you follow God's laws,  then 've-achaltem le-sova be-
artzechem'  -you will enjoy prosperity in your land (see 25:3-
6).   - This would be in contrast to man's punishment when he
was expelled from Gan Eden with the curse of 'be-ze'at apcha
tochal lechem' (see Breishit 3:17-19).
     Recall as well how God was 'mithalech' in Gan Eden (see
Br.3:8).  Similarly, He will now 'mithalech' in Eretz Yisrael
together with His Nation: 'v'e-ithalachti betochachem, ve-
hayiti lachem l-Elokim, ve-atem tihiyu li le-am' (see Vayikra
25:12).
     On the other hand, should Bnei Yisrael not follow God's
laws ('ve-im lo tishme'u..'), they will be faced with a
troubled existence, culminating with their expulsion from the
land (26:33), parallel to man's banishment from Gan Eden.
(This parallel between Gan Eden and Eretz Yisrael was already
introduced at the beginning of the second half of Sefer
Vayikra- see 18:24-30).
  [In this manner, the Midrashim that identify Gan Eden as
  Eretz Yisrael relate to more than its geographical location;
  rather they underscore a major biblical theme.]

PARSHAT 'ERCHIN' - WHY HERE?
     We return now to our original question.  If the final
pasuk of the tochacha forms such an appropriate ending for
Sefer Vayikra, why does the Torah place 'parshat erchin'
immediately afterward (instead of beforehand in Sefer
Vayikra)?  After all, the laws of erchin, especially those
relating to yovel (see 27:16-25), would have fit nicely within
Parshat Behar, together with the other laws relating to yovel.
[See Ramban on 27:1]
     Furthermore, the laws relating to the dedication of
objects to the Temple treasury could have been included much
earlier in Sefer Vayikra, possibly in Parshat Vayikra together
with other laws concerning voluntary offerings.
     The simplest explanation is that the Torah did not want
to conclude the Sefer on a 'sour note', i.e. with the
tochacha, preferring instead to conclude with something more
positive.
  [Sort of like a adding on a 'happy ending' by selecting a
  'parshia' that could have been recorded earlier, and saving
  it for the conclusion.]

     The Ibn Ezra offers an explanation based on 'sod',
relating to the deeper meaning of 'bechor' and 'ma'aser' (see
last Ibn Ezra in Vayikra).
     Seforno differentiates between these mitzvot (in chapter
27) that are voluntary, and the mandatory mitzvot summarized
in 26:46.  Because those mitzvot constituted the essence of
the brit, they were summarized separately.  Once those mitzvot
were completed in chapter 26, chapter 27 records the mitzvot
of Har Sinai that were not part of that covenant.  (See
Seforno 26:46.)
     One could suggest an alternative approach, by considering
once again the overall structure of Sefer Vayikra.

     Recall from our study of Parshat Vayikra that the first
five chapters (i.e. the laws of 'korban yachid') were given to
Moshe Rabbeinu from the ohel mo'ed (see 1:1), while the next
two chapters (the torot of the korbanot in chapter 6-7) we
given from Har Sinai (see 7:37-38).  Furthermore, since the
laws of Parshat Vayikra were given from the ohel mo'ed, they
must have been given only after the shechina had returned to
the mishkan on the yom ha-shmini, and hence after the story of
the seven day 'milu'im" & "yom ha-shmini' - as recorded in
Vayikra chapters 8-10.
     Therefore, it appears as though the laws in Parshat
Vayikra were placed intentionally at the beginning of Sefer
Vayikra, even though they chronologically belong in the middle
of the Sefer.
     Thus, we conclude that even though both the opening and
concluding units of Sefer Vayikra belong within the sefer, the
Torah records them as a 'header' and 'footer' instead.
     The following chart reviews this structure:
CHAPTERS            TOPIC
=========                =====
         * HEADER
 1->5          the laws of korban yachid (mitzvot)

           I. TOROT of: [first section]
 6->7               - how to bring korbanot
 8->10              - how the milu'im were offered
11->15              - yoledet, metzora, zav, zava
16->17              - how to enter kodesh kodashim

           II. CHUKIM U-MISHPATIM [second section]
18->20              - kedushat ha-am
21->22              - kedushat kohanim
23->25              - kedushat zman u-makom
 26            TOCHACHA ( & summary pasuk/ 26:46)

         * FOOTER
 27            the laws of erchin (mitzvot)

     Now we must explain why specifically these two parshiot
were chosen to serve as the 'book-ends' of Sefer Vayikra?

SPECIAL 'BOOKENDS'
     Parshat Vayikra and the parshia of erchin share a common
theme.  They both deal with an individual dedicating an object
to 'hekdesh'.  Both also begin with cases where a person
offers a voluntary gift (nedava): Parshat Vayikra begins with
ola & shlamim while parshat erchin begins with the voluntary
offering of the value of a person, animal, or field.
    [Vayikra deals with korbanot actually offered on the
    mizbeiach (kodshei mizbeiach) while erchin deals with the
    value of objects which cannot be offered, their value is
    given instead to the 'general fund' of the Temple -
    'kodshei bedek ha-bayit'.]
     One could suggest that the Torah intentionally chose
parshiot dealing with the offerings of an individual,
primarily the voluntary offerings, to form the 'book-ends' of
Sefer Vayikra for the following reason.
     As we have seen, Sefer Vayikra focuses on the kedusha of
the mishkan and of the nation.  These lofty goals of the
Shchina dwelling upon an entire nation can easily lead the
individual to underestimate his own importance.  Furthermore,
the rigid detail of the mitzvot of Vayikra may lead one to
believe that there is little room for self-initiated
expression in his own relationship with God, as our covenantal
obligations could be viewed as dry and technical.
     To counter these possible misconceptions, the Torah may
have placed these two parshiot at the opening and concluding
sections of Sefer Vayikra - to stress these two important
tenets of 'avodat Hashem'.  Despite the centrality of the
community, the individual cannot lose sight of the value and
importance of his role as an integral part of the communal
whole.  Secondly, the rigidity of Halacha should not stifle
personal expression.  Rather, it should form the solid base
from which the individual can develop an aspiring, dynamic,
and personal relationship with God.

                              shabbat shalom
                              menachem

===================
FOR FURTHER IYUN

A.  It should be noted that Abarbanel does raise this
possibility that the final pasuk of the tochacha summarizes
only chapter 26, and not larger unit.  Note how this forces
him to explain the phrases chukim u-mishpatim & torot in a
very different manner.

B.  WHEN WERE THE MITZVOT OF SEFER VAYIKRA GIVEN?
     In our shiur, we explained that the torot mentioned in
Parshat Tzav were given on Har Sinai.  How about the torot  in
Tazria Metzora, or basically, how about the rest of the
mitzvot of Sefer Vayikra - were they given from the ohel mo'ed
or earlier when Moshe was on Har Sinai?  The psukim do not
tell us.
     Based on the above shiur, we can suggest that most all of
the mitzvot in Vayikra were actually given on Har Sinai, but
are recorded in Sefer Vayikra for simply thematic reasons
(i.e. 'torat kohanim').  Surely, Parshat Tzav states
explicitly that its torot were given to Moshe on Har Sinai
(7:37-8).
     Therefore one can also assume that all of the torot
mentioned in the Sefer were given on Har Sinai.  In fact, this
can explain Shmot 24:12 which states that Moshe went up to Har
Sinai to receive the torah & mitzva - one could suggest that
the mitzva refers to the laws of the mishkan which Moshe is
about to receive that are recorded in the remainder of Sefer
Shmot (see Shmot 25:1-4!). If so, then torah may refer to the
torot (that relate to the mishkan).  However, most of these
torot are recorded in Sefer Vayikra and not in Sefer Shmot.
    [ha-torah may also refer to the mitzvot of Sefer Devarim,
    but that is a topic for a different shiur.  [note Devarim
    1:5 and the word torah throughout that Sefer.]

     In a similar manner one could understand that the chukim
u-mishpatim recorded in Sefer Vayikra may also have been given
to Moshe on Har Sinai.  To support this, see Devarim 5:28 and
its context, as well as Shmot 24:1-4.
     Therefore the mention of Har Sinai in this final pasuk
does not limit its interpretation to referring only to
Behar/Bechukotai, rather strengthens its interpretation as a
summary of the entire Sefer.  It is also likely that certain
other mitzvot that were given in reaction to events that
occurred after 'hakamat ha-mishkan', i.e. after Nadav and
Avihu died etc.) may have been given from the ohel mo'ed, but
there is no reason why we cannot understand that all the other
mitzvot recorded in the sefer were first given to Moshe during
his 40 days on Har Sinai.  Except of course those mitzvot that
were given directly to Aharon, which indicate that they were
given from the ohel mo'ed, and the mitzvot that were given in
response to a question that Moshe did not have the answer for.

C.  A CHIASTIC STRUCTURE WITHIN SEFER VAYIKRA
  In the above shiur, we have noted a connection between the
opening and closing parshiot of Sefer Vayikra.  This suggests
a possibility of a chiastic structure within Sefer Vayikra
itself.
   See if you can find this structure, noting how chapters 18 and
20 'surround' chapter 19, the connection between chapter 21
and chapter 16 in relation to the kohen gadol, chapters 22 and
11-15 in relation to tum'a & tahara, chapters 9-10 to chapter
23 in relation to cycles of 7 & 8, chapter 24 and chapter 8 in
relation to the keilim of the mishkan, and chapters 6-7 and
chapters 25-26 in relations to mitzvot given at Har Sinai (see
finale psukim of both sections), 've-akmal'!

D. THE VALUE OF THE INDIVIDUAL
  As we explained above, the "tochacha" in Parsha Bechukotei
(chapter 26) would have been a most fitting conclusion for
Sefer Vayikra. Nonetheless, Sefer Vayikra adds one additional
chapter, detailing the laws of "erchin" - i.e. the 'monetary'
assessment of various individuals - should their value be
dedicated to God.
     Even though these laws seem to be rather technical, from
a certain perspective they do reflect the value of every
individual.  But what does that have to do with the conclusion
of Sefer Vayikra?   As Ramban points out (see middle of his
commentary to 26:11), the "tochacha" describes 'reward and
punishment' at the national level.  In other words, it
promises prosperity in relation to the land's agriculture,
political stability, security, and military success (see 26:1-
11). On the 'down side' - it describes primarily national
calamities show Bnei Yisrael not keep God's laws.      On the
other hand, God does not promise every individual (in this
world) reward for his good deeds, or punishment for his sins.
     There may be some thematic logic behind this distinction.
As Bnei Yisrael were chosen to be 'nation' that will represent
God among the nations of the world, we are judged as a nation;
and rewarded as a nation.  If we are successful in making a
'Name for God' by keeping His mitzvot properly, God will not
only 'dwell in midst' (see 26:11-12), He will also provide us
with material reward - that enables the nation to continue
'the good job'.  On the other hand, should we embarrass God by
our poor behavior as His special nation, God promises to
consistently punish us, to various levels, until we finally
'learn our lesson' (see 26:14-- or even without repentance,
should our situation becomes too pitiful (see Devarim 32:36).
    [To support this point, note the phrase "l'einei
    ha'goyim" - in the eyes of the nations -in the finale
    pasuk (see 26:45 in its context), emphasizing the
    connection between God's covenant with the people of
    Israel and their influence on the rest of mankind.]

     This thematic conclusion, however accurate, can lead to a
very dangerous conclusion.  If God's primary interest with His
people is at the national level, then maybe the fate of each
individual may not so be important [ask the early leaders of
communism (like Stalin), if you know your history].
     One could suggest, that it may be specifically for this
reason that Sefer Vayikra chose specifically the laws of
"erchin" - reflecting the value of each individual - as its
conclusion, to 'balance' this possible misunderstanding of the
"tochacha".  Surely, the primary focus of the Bible is on the
existence of Am Yisrael as a nation, but to truly act as God's
special nation - the importance of every individual must not
be under-emphasized.

E. THE CONCLUSION OF VAYIKRA & SHAVUOT
     As many commentators point out, the "tochacha" relates
directly to the covenant between God and Bnei Yisrael at Har
Sinai.  [Note the tell-tale phrase: "beini u'bein Bnei Yisrael
b'Har Sinai" in its concluding pasuk (see 26:46), as well as
the parallel pasuk at the conclusion of the "tochacha" in
Devarim (see Devarim 28:69 - "milvad ha'brit asher karat item
b'chorev").  See also Chizkuni on Shmot 24:7!]
     Even though all the mitzvot of the Torah are important,
it seems that certain mitzvot, i.e. mitzvot of Parshat Behar
in Vayikra chapter 25, were singled out to be part of the
'official covenant.
    [Note that all the psukim from 25:1 thru 26:46 form a
    single unit, as they are introduced by the same dibur.]

     One could offer a very 'zionistic' explanation for this,
as the laws in chapter 25 deal the "kedusha" of the Land of
Israel in regard to keeping the laws of "shemitta" & "yovel"
(see 25:1-13).  In other words, one of God's primary
considerations of how God will (or will not) punish us,
depends on how meticulously we keep the laws of the "shemitta"
year.  [Note as well 26:34.]
     On the other hand, chapter 25 contains much more that the
'technical' laws of "shemitta".  If you read that chapter
carefully, you'll note how its primary topic is the
consequences of the laws of "shemitta" - reflecting the
Torah's desire that Bnei Yisrael fulfill every aspect of the
laws of social justice.
     For example, as soon as we mention the laws of Yovel, the
Torah immediately reminds us not to use those laws as
'technical loophole' to make a tricky 'real-estate deal' (see
25:14-17!
     Then, the Torah explains why these laws are so important,
as God reminds us that our purpose as a nation is to be humble
servants of God, rather than a group of wealthy landlords
exploiting poor serfs (see 25:23-24).

     The clincher of this direction are in the following
thirty some psukim (see 25:25-55), which describe our communal
obligation to help our neighbors in financial distress, by
lending them resources so they won't need to either sell their
land or even themselves!
     Thus, even though the first thirteen psukim seem to
describe the technical laws of "shemitta" & "yovel", the
remaining forty some psukim focus primarily on assuring social
justice for the poor and needy.  In fact, by quoting the
Torah's brief reference to the laws of "shemitta" in Parshat
Mishpatim, we find that the very purpose of these 'technical
laws' is to ensure social justice:
  "Six years thou shall sow thy land, and gather its produce,
  but the seventh year thou shall let it rest and lie fallow,
  that the poor of thy people may eat..." (Shmot 2310-11)
    [Note as well how social justice was a primary theme in
    most of the laws of Parshat Mishpatim as well.]

     To provide additional support, I'd like to suggest that
the Torah's reminder to keep God's "chukim u'mishpatim" in
25:18 may not be referring to the laws of "shemitta" but
rather to the laws of Vayikra chapters 18 & 19, for the simple
reason that the opening psukim of chapter 18 introduce exactly
what God's "chukim u'mishpatim" are all about (see related TSC
shiur on Parshat Acharei Mot).  For those who don't remember,
the intro in Vayikra 18:1-5 leads us to the conclusion that
God's "chukim u'mishpatim" are none other than the laws of
Parshat "Kedoshim Tihiyu" (i.e. Vayikra chapter 19)!
     If these observations are correct, then the thrust of
God's covenant with His people at Har Sinai, and especially
His promise of reward (or punishment) should we keep (or not
keep) His mitzvot, relates primarily to the ability of Bnei
Yisrael to create a society characterized by acts of social
justice ("tzedek u'mishpat" - see Breishit 18:17-19!), thus
setting an example for other nations to learn from (see
Devarim 4:5-8).

  Should we emphasize this direction, as we meticulously keep
all of God's mitzvot, may we be worthy of God's promise of:
  "And I will give peace in the land, and ye shall lie down,
  and none shall make you afraid; and I will cause evil beasts
  to cease out of the land, neither shall the sword go through
  your land. And ye shall chase your enemies, and they shall
  fall before you by the sword... and your enemies shall fall
  before you by the sword. And I will have respect unto you,
  and make you fruitful, and multiply you; and will establish
  My covenant with you!" (see Vayikra 26:6-9)