************************************************************* 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)