[Par-reg] Parshat Nitzavim - 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 NITZAVIM

     Can man return to Gan Eden?
     Even though Parshat Breishit may have left us with the
impression that the Garden's gates (guarded by the "keruvim"
and a fiery sword /see Breishit 3:24) remain inaccessible to
man forever, Parshat Nitzavim may allude to the possibility of
'return'.
     To explain how (and why), this week's shiur discusses the
significance of the speech delivered by Moshe Rabeinu in
Parshat Nitzavim, and how it fits beautifully into the rubric
of Sefer Devarim.

INTRODUCTION
     In case you hadn't noticed, Parshat Nitzavim contains yet
another speech given by Moshe Rabeinu, the last of his four
speeches in Sefer Devarim.  In fact, this final speech
actually began at the end of Parshat Ki-tavo (see 29:1-8,
noting how 29:1 forms the introduction to this speech).
     In the following shiur, we first discuss how this final
speech relates to the "tochacha" (in Parshat Ki-tavo);
afterwards we fill focus on what's so special about its
'finale'.

FOUR SPEECHES
     The following table will help clarify the location of
Moshe's Rabeinu's speech in Parshat Nitzavim in relation to
the rest of Sefer Devarim, as it summarizes his four speeches:

 CHAPTERS      TOPIC
1)  1->4     Introductory speech (why 40 years have passed)
2)  5->26    The main speech - the "mitzvot" to keep in the
land
3) 27->28    Brit Har Eival and the Tochacha
4) 29->30    The final speech = Parshat Nitzavim

     Even though our shiur will focus on the 'final speech'
(#4), to appreciate its content, we must first review the
primary topic of speech #3.
      Recall how chapter 27 described a ceremony that Bnei
Yisrael are instructed to conduct on Har Eival, upon entering
the land.  That ceremony was to include both the teaching of
the laws (i.e. those of the main speech) and some festivities.
The Torah's description of that ceremony continued in chapter
28 with the "tochacha", i.e. the 'blessing and the curses', as
they were to be read in public at the conclusion of that
ceremony.
  Hence, the order of Sefer Devarim up until this point makes
perfect sense.  Speech #2 details the laws that Moshe taught,
while speech #3 explains how these laws were to be taught once
again when Bnei Yisrael enter the land, at a special ceremony
that concluded with a public warning of both the reward and
punishment should Bnei Yisrael obey/or disobey these laws.
     However, when one reads the fourth speech, it appears to
be superfluous, for in it we find once again Moshe's rebuke of
Bnei Yisrael - in a manner which doesn't differ much from the
numerous rebukes in his earlier speeches. [For example,
compare 29:11-14 with 5:2-3; 29:4-5 with 8:4; and 30:1-3 with
4:26-29.]
     However, if we take a closer look at its content, we can
explain its function and the reason for its location.

THE STARTING & FINISH LINES
     Our first step is to delineate more precisely where this
speech begins and ends. Note how it begins at the end of
Parshat Ki-tavo in 29:1 and concludes at the end of Parshat
Nitzavim (as indicated by the sudden shift to third-person
narrative right at the beginning of Parshat Vayelech (31:1).
   Using a Tanach Koren, note as well how it contains five
distinct 'parshiot': 29:1-8; 29:28; 30:1-10; 30:14 & 30:15-20.
     Let's take a look at each one of these parshiot, and
explain what is problematic about each.  Afterward, we will
explain the logic of their internal progression, and how each
of these parshiot relates to the previous speech, and overall
theme of covenant in Sefer Devarim.

PARSHIA #1 (29:1-8)
     Moshe's opening statements in this 'parshia' raise
numerous questions. To understand these difficulties, let's
take a look:
   "Moshe called together Bnei Yisrael and said to them: You
   have seen with your own eyes what I did to Pharaoh in the
   land of Egypt... YET, until this day, God has not given you
   a 'heart to know,' 'eyes to see,' or 'ears to listen.' I
   led you for forty years in the wilderness...[Therefore]
   observe faithfully the words of this covenant [DIVREI
   HA'BRIT HA'ZOT] in order that you succeed in all that you
   now undertake."  (see 29:1-8)

     First of all, why is he talking to this generation as
though they themselves left Egypt? Granted, some of the elder
members of the nation may have been under the age of twenty at
the time of the Exodus (and hence not included in the
punishment). However, the vast majority of the current
generation did not witness those events. But even more
puzzling is 29:3. How can Moshe possibly say, "Until this day,
God has not given you a 'heart to know,' 'eyes to see,' or
'ears to listen'"? To what could Moshe Rabeinu possibly be
referring?
     Finally, why does Moshe conclude these comments by once
again reminding Bnei Yisrael of the "brit" (see 29:8)? Was
that not the topic of his previous speech? [See 5:2-3!]

PARSHIA #2 - see 29:9-28
     In this section, Moshe reiterates the purpose of this
gathering - i.e. to establish the covenant through which Bnei
Yisrael are to become God's nation.  He then emphasizes the
eternal nature of this covenant, i.e. its mandatory
application to all future generations as well (see 29:9-14).
  But once again we must ask, is this not the same point that
Moshe Rabeinu had already stated in the opening remarks of his
main speech? (See 5:2-3, read carefully.)
     Furthermore, why does Moshe suddenly raise the
possibility that an individual, family, or possibly an entire
tribe may consider 'breaking out' of this covenant (see 29:17-
25)?

PARSHIA #3 - see 30:1-10
     Moshe now 'comforts' Bnei Yisrael, telling them that even
in the event of exile, there will always remain the
possibility for "teshuva" and the nation's return to the
Promised Land. Why would Moshe, while addressing the people
prior to their entry into the land, prematurely inform them of
their return to the land from exile?  They haven't reached the
land yet, and already they are being promised the ultimate
gathering of the Diaspora? Furthermore, why aren't Moshe's
earlier comments on this topic (see 4:25-31 & Vayikra 26:41-
45) sufficient?

PARSHIA #4 - see 30:11-14
     Here we find Moshe Rabeinu's famous insistence that
keeping the Torah is 'not as hard' as it seems. Again,
although this constitutes a most critical message, the
question remains: why now and why here in Sefer Devarim?

PARSHIA #5 - see 30:15-20
     As we will explain in Part Two, these soul-stirring
psukim depict life in Eretz Yisrael as comparable to the
ideal, spiritual environment of Gan Eden. But once again, why
is this topic mentioned specifically in this speech, and at
its conclusion?

POTENTIAL 'CONCLUSIONS'
     To resolve these questions, we must consider the
centrality of the concept of 'covenant' ["brit"], which has
emerged thus far as a primary theme in every speech thus far
in Sefer Devarim.
     Recall that Moshe Rabeinu began his main speech by
underscoring the relevance and application of the covenant of
Sinai to the present generation:
   "The Lord your God made with you a COVENANT at SINAI. It
   was not [only] with your fathers that God made this
   covenant, but with US, those of us who are HERE, ALIVE
   TODAY..." (see Devarim 5:1-3)
    [Notice that the opening phrase of that speech (5:1) is
    identical to that of ours (29:1), thus suggesting a
    thematic connection between the two.]
    
     In both his main speech and finale, Moshe Rabeinu
addresses the new generation as though THEY themselves left
Egypt and stood at Har Sinai. He emphasizes their inclusion in
the covenant of Har Sinai. Yet, in his third speech Moshe had
instructed Bnei Yisrael to enter into a similar covenant at
this time (see 28:69 - the final pasuk of that speech!). Why
is another covenant necessary if 'everyone' was considered to
have participated in the covenant at Har Sinai?
     In fact, this 'extra' covenant at Arvot Moav, as detailed
in chapter 27 in Parshat Ki-tavo, could easily lead Bnei
Yisrael to several incorrect conclusions:

 1)  The necessity of a new covenant for this generation
implies that the covenant at Har Sinai does not bind all
future generations. Why else would they require a 'new'
covenant at Arvot Moav?
     Evidently, one could conclude, the laws of the Torah are
binding only upon a generation (or individual) who formally
accepts this covenant, but not upon subsequent generations
(unless formally accepted)!

 2)  An individual (or possibly even a larger group) may
decide that he doesn't want either side of the covenant -
neither its reward NOR its punishment! Some people may gladly
forego any potential reward for keeping the mitzvot of the
"brit", so long as in turn they would not be bound by its
strict demands or threatened by the harsh punishment for its
neglect.
     In other words, Bnei Yisrael may conclude that each
person or family in any generation has the 'option' to either
be part of the "brit" or to 'back out' ("chas veshalom"!).


 3)  Just as any given individual may reserve the right to
'back out' of the covenant, God as well may be enabled to
exercise His right to 'retract' His covenant should He see
fit. In other words, Bnei Yisrael could potentially infer from
the closing section of the Tochacha in Ki-tavo that exile
signifies the very annulment of this covenant.  In other
words, if exile is understood as God 'nullifying' His side of
the covenant, then Bnei Yisrael (once in exile) could reach
the logical conclusion that their 'special relationship' with
God is over (chas veshalom!).
    [See Yechezkel 20:32 and its context, where Bnei Yisrael
    in the Babylonian Exile raise this very possibility!]

PUTTING THE PIECES TOGETHER
     With this background, let's now take another look at the
various components of Moshe's final speech in an attempt to
explain why they from this 'finale'.
     In PARSHIA #1, Moshe Rabeinu first explains WHY this
'new' covenant (as described in the third speech) is
necessary. True, a covenant had already been made with the
previous generation. However, because of their sins and
subsequent demise in the desert, it is only now that the
original intention of BRIT SINAI becomes applicable.
     To emphasize upon this new generation that THEY must
fulfill the destiny originally planned for their parents, God
recreates the 'atmosphere' of Har Sinai, allowing the new
generation to 'relive' the experience. Although most of them
were NOT at Har Sinai, it is important that this entire
generation feel as though they actually stood at the foot of
the mountain. They will soon enter the land and face the
challenge of establishing God's special nation, and they must
therefore bring with them the Sinai experience and covenant.
     As Seforno on 29:3 explains, it is only NOW that Bnei
Yisrael are finally ready to, for the first time, fulfill
God's covenant. Moshe thus explains to this generation that
'this is THE day' for which He has been waiting.  Now, God has
a nation that can truly KNOW, SEE, and LISTEN (see 29:3,
Seforno and Rashi).
     Thus, there is nothing 'new' about this covenant. In
fact, it serves an opposite function: i.e. to reaffirm the
relevance and application of the original covenant at Har
Sinai.
     With this in mind, we can now explain the need for the
second parshia.
     Once this 'renewed' "brit" becomes necessary, Moshe
Rabeinu must disaffirm the possible conclusion that every
generation and every individual has the option of accepting or
refusing the terms of the covenant (as we explained above).
Therefore, in PARSHIA #2 Moshe reminds Bnei Yisrael of the
purpose of that covenant (to become God's nation, see 29:9-14)
and then threatens severe punishment for any person or group
considering the option of 'backing out' (see 29:17-25).
     Afterward, in PARSHA #3, Moshe Rabeinu reassures Bnei
Yisrael that just as this covenant is binding upon Bnei
Yisrael for ALL generations, so is it eternally binding upon
God Himself.  Therefore, even in the advent of exile, God will
(sooner or later) ensure Bnei Yisrael's return to their land
to keep His mitzvot and become His nation. [Note that other
religions (which evolved from Judaism) reject specifically
this point!]
     Moshe then proceeds to repudiate another likely
conclusion of one who hears the terms of this covenant (and
its almost innumerable obligations), the claim that it's
simply 'impossible' to be an 'observant Jew.' Moshe Rabeinu
explains in PARSHIA #4 that in truth, it's not as hard as it
may seem. For if one has the proper attitude of "ahavat
Hashem" (the opening theme of the main speech), then the 'way
of life' which the Torah demands lies well within his reach.
     Finally, in PARSHIA #5, Moshe concludes his speech with
the axiom of "bechira chofshit" (freedom of choice), the God-
given ability to choose the 'path of life' [or 'death'], which
will now be discussed in Part Two.

     ===========

PART TWO  - Between Gan Eden and Eretz Yisrael
     Before we begin Part Two, review 30:15-20, and notice
that this 'parshia' forms the concluding section of this
speech. As you read, note how Moshe Rabeinu summarizes in this
conclusion some of the primary themes of the main speech
(which we have discussed in previous shiurim):
   "See, I set before you today CHAYIM (life) and TOV
   (prosperity), MAVET (death) and RA (adversity).
        For I command you today to LOVE God and walk in His
   ways [referring to the MITZVAH section/ 6->11] and to keep
   His CHUKIM u'MISHPATIM [referring to the 2nd part of the
   main speech/ 12->26)] that you may thrive and increase and
   that God will bless you in the Land that you are about to
   conquer...
        Should you turn your heart (not listen)... I declare
   today that you shall certainly perish and not endure on the
   Land... that you are to conquer."    (see 30:15-18)

     Clearly, Moshe refers once again to the two sections of
the main speech.  However, these verses may relate as well to
a fundamental theme in Sefer Breishit, as suggested by several
key phrases in this section. Let's explain.
     Recall the usage of the terms 'CHAYIM and TOV' and 'MAVET
and RA' in 30:15, cited earlier. Let's identify the precise
definition of these expressions in the final two psukim:
   "I call Heavens and Earth to testify that I am presenting
   you the CHOICE of CHAYIM or MAVET - the "bracha" or
   "klalla" - and you should choose CHAYIM in order that you
   live... on this Land that I promised to your ancestors..."
   (30:19-20)

     In this beautiful finale, the Torah equates the concept
of BRACHA & KLALA, as detailed by the "tochacha" (see 28:1-
7,15-20!), with CHAYIM & MAVET:
     BRACHA = CHAYIM (life); KLALLA = MAVET (death).
Recall however, that the concepts of CHAYIM & MAVET as well as
TOV & RA were first introduced in the story of Gan Eden:
   "And God brought forth from the ground every tree... and
   the ETZ HA'CHAYIM
        [the Tree of Life] in the middle of the garden, and
   the:
   ETZ Ha'DAAT TOV V'RA
        [the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil...]
   and from the ETZ HA'DAAT TOV v'RA do not eat, for on the
   day you eat from it - MOT TA'MUT - you will surely die!"
                     (see Breishit 2:8-9, 2:15-17)
     This textual parallel is strengthened by yet another
resemblance to the story of Creation. Note that the Heavens
and Earth - SHAMAYIM v'ARETZ - are called upon as witnesses to
this covenant (see 30:19, as well as 31:28 & 32:1).
     This special call upon "shamayim" and "aretz" to witness
the "brit" may relate not only to the introduction of the
story of Creation (Br. 1:1), but also to the opening pasuk of
the Gan Eden narrative in Breishit - see 2:4!

A GAN EDEN CLOSE TO HOME
     This textual parallel suggests a conceptual relationship
between life according to the Torah's ideals in the Land of
Israel and existence in Gan Eden. In fact, the spiritual
environment of Gan Eden strongly resembles the spiritual
environment that Sefer Devarim wishes to create in the Land of
Israel.
     Recall how the Gan Eden narrative described a special
environment between man and God, with an emphasis on "schar
v'onesh" [reward and retribution].  God promises Man a
prosperous physical existence [CHAYIM] should he OBEY, while
threatening death [MAVET] should Man DISOBEY (see Br. 2:15-
17).  In a very similar manner, the "tochacha" describes a
parallel reality in the land of Israel:
     Should Bnei Yisrael keep the mitzvot, God will reward
them with prosperity (see 29:1-14); if they sin, God will
punish them severely (see 29:15-26).
    [Note as well Devarim 11:13-20 (from daily kriyat shma).]
    
     Furthermore, EXILE emerges in both settings as the most
severe punishment. Adam is banished from the Garden as a
consequence of his sin (see Br. 3:22-24). Similarly, the
"tochacha" threatens that should Am Yisrael continue to sin
they will driven from the land by their enemies (see 28:64-68)
and remain in Exile until they perform proper Teshuva
(repentance / see Devarim 30:1-10).
   [Interestingly, God's original death sentence for eating
   from the Tree was translated into Adam's EXILE from the
   Garden (3:23) when he actually partook of the Tree's fruit.
   Considering that Gan Eden reflects an ideal spiritual
   environment, exile may be accurately equated with death.
   Whereas the biblical purpose of LIFE is to develop a
   connection with God, biblical DEATH refers to life without
   any such connection, an exile into an environment
   characterized by God's absence.]

     This parallel takes on additional meaning when we
consider the location of these two sources: at the BEGINNING
of Chumash and towards the very END of Chumash.
     One could suggest that in this manner Chumash underscores
the basic nature of man's relationship with God. First, we are
told of God's creation of Man and his placement in Gan Eden -
the ideal spiritual environment. As punishment for his sin,
God expels man from Gan Eden, appointing the "keruvim" to
guard against any attempt to return (see Br. 3:24).
     Nonetheless, the presence of the "keruvim" who guard the
'way to the Tree of Life' does not necessarily indicate the
permanent closure of this path. To the contrary, it becomes
man's duty to STRIVE to return. The "keruvim" do not restrict
entry; rather they protect the Garden from the intrusion of
those undeserving of return. But once man proves himself
worthy, the DERECH ETZ HA'CHAYIM - the PATH to the Tree of
Life - no matter how formidable it may at first appear,
suddenly opens and invites man inside.
     Correspondingly, Sefer Devarim describes Eretz Yisrael as
both a physical and spiritual environment where Am Yisrael can
rebuild this spiritual connection with God.
     For example, Parshat Ekev illustrates how the climate of
Eretz Yisrael contributes to this environment:
   "...always, God's EYES are upon it [the Land], from the
   beginning of the year until the end of the year."
                       (see Devarim 11:10-12)

FROM GAN EDEN TO 'JERUSALEM'
     But perhaps the most meaningful parallel between Gan Eden
and Eretz Yisrael arises in the CHUKIM & MISHPATIM section.
Recall that Parshiyot Re'ay, Shoftim, and Ki-tavo present
numerous mitzvot relating to HA'MAKOM ASHER YIVCHAR HASHEM,
the Bet Ha'Mikdash, which will be built on the site chosen by
God. As explained in our shiur on Parshat Re'ay, Sefer Devarim
demands that every Jew frequent that site regularly, be it for
"aliyah le'regel" on the holidays, to offer korbanot or
bikurim, to eat "ma'aser sheni," to appear in court, etc.
     Situated at the focal point of that site [i.e. the Bet
Ha'Mikdash] is the KODESH KEDOSHIM, the permanent location of
the ARON, covered by the KAPORET and protected by KERUVIM,
both on the KAPORET and on the PAROCHET! [See Shmot 25:16-22 &
26:31-34.]
     Given that the concept of KERUVIM arises nowhere else in
Chumash outside of these two contexts - the Mishkan/Bet
Hamikdash and Gan Eden - a thematic connection between the two
is implied.  Just as the KERUVIM of Gan Eden protect the path
to the ETZ HA'CHAYIM, so do the KERUVIM of the Mikdash guard
the path to true CHAYIM: i.e. they protect the ARON which
contains the LUCHOT HA'EIDUT - the symbol of the TORAH and our
covenant with God at Har Sinai.
     By placing the LUCHOT - a powerful symbol of MATAN TORAH
- at the focal point of our lives in Eretz Yisrael, Sefer
Devarim urges us to strive to return to the environment of Gan
Eden by observing the laws of the TORAH.
     This interpretation is supported by the famous pasuk in
Mishlei, recited each time we return the SEFER TORAH to the
ARON HA'KODESH:
   "ETZ CHAYIM HI - She is a Tree of Life - for those who hold
   on to her, and whoever holds her is fortunate."  (Mishlei
   3:18)
    [Even though this pasuk seemingly refers to wisdom in
    general (see 3:13), in the overall context of the perek
    "wisdom" refers specifically to Torah (see 3:1-8!).]

     Thus, Chumash 'ends' with a theme which quite parallel to
the theme of its opening narrative.  God's original intention
may have been for man to enjoy a close relationship with Him
in Gan Eden.  Even though that goal seems to have 'failed' in
Sefer Bereishit, Sefer Devarim concludes with the possibility
that the Nation of Israel can indeed return to such an
existence, in the Land of Israel.  [For a similar explanation,
see Seforno's introduction to Sefer Breishit!]
     To better appreciate our discussion, I highly recommend
that you study the Rashi on 30:19. His explanation of what
man should learn from his contemplation of "shamayim v'aretz"
(what we call 'nature') that surrounds us will definitely
enhance your appreciation of Parshat Nitzavim.  Furthermore,
it is a most fitting Rashi to study in preparation for Rosh
Ha'Shana - the day marking God's creation of "shamayim
v'aretz."

                              shabbat shalom,
                              menachem

=================
FOR FURTHER IYUN - on Part One:

A. The Midrash Tanchuma in Parshat Nitzavim relates that
during the time of Yechezkel, a delegation of "elder
statesmen" came to Yechezkel and challenged the obligation to
abide by the Torah. They asked the prophet, "If a kohen
purchases a servant, does the servant partake from the kohen's
teruma?" When Yechezkel answered in the affirmative, they
inquired as to what would happen if the kohen then sold the
servant to a Yisrael. The prophet replied that, of course,
once the servant is no longer under the authority of the
kohen, he has no further rights as far as teruma is concerned.
"We, too," they said, "have already left His authority and we
will no be like all the gentiles."
     Yechezkel responds (20:32-33), "That which came to your
mind shall not be at all; in that you say, 'We will be as the
nations, as the families of the countries, to serve wood and
stone.' As I live, says Hashem, surely with a mighty hand and
an outstretched arm and with fury poured out I will be king
over you!"
     Explain the relevance of these psukim and their general
context to Parshat Nitzavim and the above shiur.

B. One critical question we did not address concerns the
'legal' mechanism by which the covenant of Har Sinai becomes
binding upon all generations. It would seem that one cannot be
born into a binding agreement - he must first express his
consent to the terms thereof!      This question was posed by
the "scholars of Aragon," as recorded by the Abarbanel. See
his comments in our parasha, and contrast with the Maharal,
"Netzach Yisrael" 11. According to the Abarbanel, this eternal
obligation evolves directly from Bnei Yisrael's privilege of
settling the Land. Needless to say, this beautifully explains
the context of Parshat Nitzavim: the reenactment of brit Sinai
on the eve of Bnei Yisrael's entry into Eretz Yisrael.

C. See Rashi's comments on "v'hu yihye lecha lelokim" (29:12),
and note its relevance to the bilateral quality of the brit as
discussed in the above shiur. Rashi continues by citing a
Midrash regarding Bnei Yisrael's sense of desperation upon
hearing the curses of the tochecha. Moshe reassures them by
observing, "Atem nitzavim" - you have survived, despite many
incidents of wrongdoing. Explain how this, too, relates to
this above shiur. Additionally, how does this Midrash help
explain the seemingly irrelevant historical review presented
at the end of Parshat Ki-Tavo (29:1-8)?
  Explain how the final clause of 29:5 reinforces the equation
between this generation and their parents. [See Shmot 6:7.]

D. Different mefarshim have come up with different approaches
to explain 29:3: "YET, until this day, God has not given you a
'heart to know,' 'eyes to see,' or 'ears to listen.'" In the
shiur, we mentioned the explanations of Rashi and Seforno.
Other mefarshim explain this pasuk as a continuation of
Moshe's "musar." For example, Abarbanel places a question mark
at the end of the pasuk. Before you see his commentary inside
(which I suggest you do), how does his punctuation change the
meaning of the pasuk? Others understand "ad hayom hazeh" as
meaning, "even until." What does the pasuk meaning according
to this reading?
     Other mefarshim, however, try to explain that Bnei
Yisrael arrived at a unique awareness of Hashem's power on
"this day," the conclusion of their sojourn in the wilderness.
Rav David Tzvi Hoffman explains that the forty years of
wandering and the recent battle against Sichon and Og
magnified this awareness far more effectively than the wonders
and miracles of Egypt.

E. Moshe describes the potential attempt by an individual or
group to breach the covenant as follows: "Perhaps there is
among you some man or woman. When such a person hears the
words of these sanctions, he may fancy himself immune [JPS
translation; note the difficulty in interpreting these words]
thinking, 'I shall be safe, because I follow my own willful
heart'."
     Many mefarshim address the problematic word "ki"
(translated here as "because") in this pasuk. Ibn Ezra [and
JPS] translate "ki" as "even though," while the Ramban, in his
first suggestion, interprets the word as similar to
"ka'asher." How may we maintain the standard interpretation of
"ki" as "because," based on the second erroneous conclusion
Moshe feared, as we discussed in the shiur? See Ramban's
second interpretation.

F. As we saw, the psukim in 30:11-14 remind the people that
Torah observance is not as hard as it may seem. Nowhere do we
find such an explicit reassurance to the generation of
Yetzi'at Mitzrayim and Matan Torah. Why would this younger
generation in particular require these words of encouragement?

G. Note the difference between the simple reading of 30:12 and
that of the Gemara in Eruvin, as cited here by Rashi. Show how
the Midrashic reading of the pasuk addresses the first two
incorrect conclusions that, as we discussed, Moshe feared, and
contrast this approach with our understanding in the shiur.
     [Point of methodology: Explain the difficulty
understanding the transition from 30:11 to 30:12 according to
the Midrashic interpretation. On the other hand, what other
difficulties does this Gemara resolve? Does the Gemara
necessarily negate the simple understanding? How do your
answers to these questions reflect the general relationship
between "pshat" and "drash"?]
=============
FOR FURTHER IYUN - on Part Two
A. We mentioned above that the psukim at the end of Parshat
Nitzavim (30:15-20) that allude to Gan Eden could be
considered the denouement of Moshe's speeches in Sefer
Devarim. Pay careful attention to the literary style from
chapter 31 onward. In which person is the narrative written
(1st or 3rd)?   What about the previous sections of the sefer?
Is the style of this concluding section more similar to Sefer
Devarim or to Bamidbar? Might this unit be considered a
continuation of Sefer Bamidbar?    Explain your answer.

B.   A famous dispute among the commentators surrounds the
psukim just prior to these that we have discussed. To what
does "mitzvah hazot" (30:11) refer? See 30:11-14, Rashi (on
pasuk 14), Ibn Ezra (also pasuk 14), Ramban (pasuk 11) and
Seforno (pasuk 11). If we view these pesukim as continuing the
previous discussion of teshuva, then perhaps the pesukim
discussed in the above shiur (30:15-20) also relate to this
theme: the choice between "life" and "death" in the aftermath
of sin. Explain how this enhances our association between
these psukim and the return to Gan Eden. Bear in mind the
Midrash that Hashem banished Adam from Gan Eden only after
having first offered him the chance to do teshuva (Bereishit
Rabba 21, Bemidbar Rabba 13).
     Furthermore, compare 15-20 with the opening psukim of
Parshat Re'ay. Note the difference in terminology: "bracha"
and "k'lala" as opposed to "chayim" and "mavet." [Notice that
Moshe makes a point of associating "bracha/k'lala" with
"chayim/mavet" in 30:19.] Try to explain this difference in
light of our suggestion that our psukim refer to the situation
after sin, rather than before sinning. [See Meshech Chochma.]
What 'choice' is presented in Re'ay, and which does Moshe
present here, in the aftermath of sin? Why is the wrong
'choice' in our context called "death" (perhaps more
accurately, the "curse" translates into "death") while in
Re'ay it's merely a "curse"?

C.   The Sifrei in the beginning of Parshat Re'ay (54:27)
associates the psukim there (as we cited in B.) with Hashem's
comment to Kayin: "Surely, if you do right you will be
forgiven [see Targum, as opposed to Ibn Ezra]; but if you
don't do right, sin couches at the door" (Bereishit 4:7). Why
would God have to impress this notion upon Kayin particularly
in the aftermath of Adam's banishment from Gan Eden? Why must
Moshe repeat this same message to Bnei Yisrael before they
enter the land?

D.   In 29:12-14, we find once again the concept of Bnei
Yisrael's destiny to become a special nation. Relate this to
our entire series of shiurim on Devarim. [Note as well the
reference to God's promise to the patriarchs, and recall our
shiur last week regarding 'mikra bikkurim' and 'viduy
ma'aser.']

E. Read the Rambam's comments concerning the laws of Hakhel in
Hilchot Chagiga perek 3. Note particularly his remarks in
halacha 6 concerning "geirim." (If you have a chance, read
also the seventh perek of mishnayot Sota.)  How do these
halachot relate to the above shiur?  Why do you think we skip
from shma to v'haya im shmoa in kriyat shma?  What is the
final word read by the king at Hakhel? How might this be
significant in light of this shiur?
In halacha 6, why does the Rambam emphasize that davka the
"geir" must feel as though he is standing at Har Sinai during
the hakhel ceremony?

F.   Regarding the association of Torah with "life" (end of
the shiur), see Targum Yonatan on 30:20.

G.   We noted the function of Torah as the "Tree of Life," the
means by which we "return to Gan Eden." See Midrash HaGadol in
Bereishit: "That tree from which whoever would eat would live
- God hid it and gave us His Torah, the tree of life." See
also Tanchuma Yashan, Bereishit 25 that identifies the "lahat
hacherev" (the "fiery sword"), which guarded the entrance to
Gan Eden together with the keruvim, as Torah (based on
Tehillim 149:7, which we say in Psukei D'Zimra).
  The parallel between Gan Eden and both the Mikdash and Torah
study becomes especially apparent in the Midrashim that
interpret Adam's responsibility in Gan Eden of "l'ovda" in
reference to korbanot and Torah study. See Pirkei D'Rabbi
Eliezer 12, Bereishit Rabba 16, and especially Sifrei Ekev 41.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: nitz1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 64925 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20050929/c4f7a532/nitz1-0001.pdf