Parshat Veetchanan answers

VaEtchanan 5726
Alef.

1. Section 1 (1:6-2:1) The people begin their journey from Sinai with the expectation that they would soon enter into the land of Israel. They are a difficult people but Moshe figures that as long as he delegates authority to other leaders, everything will go well. Unfortunately the sin of the spies derails the plans and the Decree is made that the generation that left Egypt (with the exception of the tribe of Levi, as well as the individuals Yehoshua and Kalev) will have to die out over the course of forty years before the Divine Plan can proceed.

    Section 2 (2:2-3:29) The people are finally ready to enter the land. Instructions are given regarding various peoples whose lands will either have to be traversed or circumvented, as opposed to engaging with them in warfare in the interests of conquest. Sichon and Og decide to attack the Jews, they are defeated and their lands are ultimately turned over to the tribes of Reuven and Gad who desire to dwell on the far side of the Jordan River. Moshe enters a plea with God to be allowed to enter the land, but is rebuffed.

    Section 3 (4:1-40) Moshe realizing full well that he will not accompany the people who are about to enter the land, gives them final instructions which he hopes will stand then in good stead in his absence. He emphasizes how important it is for them to recall their experience at Sinai, although he acknowledges that as time goes on, there will be fewer and fewer people with first hand knowledge of the event, putting their beliefs and religious observance at risk.

2. In Chapter 4, I would suggest that the sections that deal with the experience of the Revelation at Sinai only peripherally are connected with Moshe adjuring the people to comply with the Mitzvot in order to remain in the land that they are preparing to enter. Verses 9-20, 23-4, 32-7 could be understood to serve as a means to assure that the people not engage in idolatry when they come to Canaan, a distinct possibility due to the cultures among whom they will be living; however these accounts are not directly related to Moshe’s charge to keep the Mitzvot and thereby avoid being exiled as a result.

3. Verses 32-7 resume discussing the seminal Revelation at Sinai where the point was made that God is a Living Entity, rather than some inert idol. However, over time, as reflected in verses 25-31, no one will be left who directly experienced this event. Consequently, there is a fear that future generations that will only have oral or written histories to go by concerning what transpired at Sinai, will be seduced to practice idolatry and thereby incurring God’s Wrath and suffering exile. It will only be as a result of their contemplating their fate that there is a possibility that they will repent and thereby restored to the land as a Jewish nation.

Beit.

1. RaMBaN is commenting on the cause-and-effect relationship between having offspring and living in the land for a long period on the one hand, and the end of the verse which describes religious malfeasance. Furthermore, RaMBaN claims that this is not a possibility or likelihood, but rather a prediction regarding what will inevitably take place over time.

2. The addition of בעבור makes clear where the cause ends, “ובני בנים” and the effect begins, “ונושנתם בארץ...”, by having descendents, you will be in the land a long time and this will almost inevitably lead to religious lapses.

    The addition of “ותשבו לבטח” describes the emotional state that results from living for a long period of time in the same place, i.e., a sense of security and the lack of a necessity to maintain particular standards. Inertia convinces a person that his present state will continue forever, regardless of what he might do or not do.

    The addition of “אולי תשכחו” indicates that while highly likely, this result is not inevitable and could be avoided if people keep in mind the lessons of Sinai and continue to practice the Mitzvot carefully and comprehensively.

3. Whereas RaMBaN discusses future malfeasance as a possibility, however likely, Minchat Chadasha appears to see this as an inevitable prophecy, since he posits that future generations will dismiss outright these warnings as the babblings of the older generation. (It would be interesting to investigate the family/society in which this commentator lived to see if there were particular “generation gap” problems regarding maintaining the traditions, and therefore he was projecting from personal experience, or whether this is simply his understanding of the Peshat.--JB)

Gimel.

1. The paradigm of Sinai also could be seen to include the disaster of the Golden Calf that occurred only forty days later. The giving of a second set of Tablets is associated with God Forgiving the Jewish people as a whole for this sin—many people did die during the plagues associated with the sin as well as at the hands of the Levi’im, and the First Born were replaced by the Levi’im in general, Aharon’s family in particular as a result of the sin—and therefore a conclusion might be drawn that even if the people sin again in this manner in the future, they will be forgiven. RaMBaN therefore interprets these verses as specifically intended to quash such a thought process. HaShem Enacted the Revelation precisely to discourage idolatry; in the future, the people will not get off as “easily” as they did with respect to the Golden Calf.

2. (There is a misprint in the Gilayon—I even checked the original mimeographed one and the same mistake appears—the proof text that Nechama is referring to is in Shemot 20:16 “למען [ובעבור] יהי' יראתו על פניכם”.) RaMBaN wishes to demonstrate that this was one of HaShem’s Objectives when Revealing Himself at Sinai. In effect, the verse in Shemot is not Moshe giving his take on why the experience had such an effect upon the Jews, but rather reporting that this is exactly why God Participated in this very unique occasion, distinguishing the Jews from other peoples, and hopefully permanently influencing them away from idolatry. (Unfortunately, the books of the Nevi’im and Jewish history in general demonstrate that the desired effect did not take place.)

3. Adding the words “שלא תעבוד לזולתו” is again clarifying that the pyrotechnics associated with the Siniatic Revelation were not simply to impress the people regarding the importance and sanctity of the event, but also to emphasize how drastically this powerful God would Look upon their defecting and worshipping other deities.

4. Many times in TaNaCh the verb “R-E-H” is interpreted figuratively, i.e., mental understanding, rather than visual stimulation. Consequently, RaMBaN adds “בעיניך” to emphasize that the visual experience is of the essence in attempting to impress upon the people not to engage in idolatry.

5. In verse 36, there is a dichotomy between the effects from Heaven—God’s Voice—and those that took place on earth—Fire. However, the end of the verse states that God’s Voice was heard from the midst of the Fire—the earthly rather than the Heavenly entity. Consequently RaMBaN explains that while the Fire might have been centered on earth, it extended up to Heaven “בוערת עד לב השמים”, thereby allowing for the Voice to be understood to emanate from Heaven.

6. Nechama recommends to cross-reference this RaMBaN with his comments on Shemot 20:2:

רמב"ן שמות פרק כ פסוק ב

וטעם על פני - כמו אם לא על פניך יברכך (איוב א יא), ועתה הואילו פנו בי ועל פניכם אם אכזב (שם ו כח). יזהיר לא תעשה לך אלהים אחרים, כי על פני הם, שאני מסתכל ומביט בכל עת ובכל מקום בעושים כן. הדבר העשוי בפניו של אדם והוא עומד עליו יקרא "על פניו", וכן ותעבור המנחה על פניו (בראשית לב כב), וכן וימת נדב ואביהוא ויכהן אלעזר ואיתמר על פני אהרן אביהם, שהיה אהרן אביהם רואה ועומד שם, ובדברי הימים (א כד ב) וימת נדב ואביהוא לפני אביהם ובנים לא היו להם. והנה אמר לא תעשה לך אלהים אחרים שאני נמצא עמך תמיד ורואה אותך בסתר ובגלוי. ועל דרך האמת תבין סוד הפנים ממה שכתבנו (לעיל ג ב), כי הכתוב הזהיר במעמד הזה פנים בפנים דבר ה' עמכם (דברים ה ד), ותדע סוד מלת אחרים, ויבא כל הכתוב כפשוטו ומשמעו. וכן רמז אונקלוס, והוא שנאמר (פסוק כג) לא תעשון אתי וגו':

   “בפניו” is extremely anthropomorphic when used with respect to God. Consequently, RaMBaN interprets the prepositional phrase as referring to the fact that these things cannot be done without God’s Knowledge, compounding the sin, i.e., not only should this not be done, but it is as if in God’s Presence, other gods are being worshipped, making the act that much more arrogant and spiteful.

7. The RaMBaN treats verses 39 and 40 in the manner that some commentators relate to the first statement in the Ten Commandments, i.e., “I am the Lord your God Who Took you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.” Not everyone sees this statement as a Commandment, but rather the premise upon which all other Commandments are based. Similarly, the assumption that God is the Deity Who is found in Heaven and on earth has to lead to some sort of action, i.e., the observance of His Commandments.

8. Since “ייטב” and “תאריך” are in the future form in v. 40, RaMBaN makes “ושמרת” parallel to the other verb forms in the verse.

Daled.

ד:יא וַתִּקְרְב֥וּן וַתַּֽעַמְד֖וּן תַּ֣חַת הָהָ֑ר וְהָהָ֞ר בֹּעֵ֤ר בָּאֵשׁ֙ עַד־לֵ֣ב הַשָּׁמַ֔יִם חֹ֖שֶׁךְ עָנָ֥ן וַֽעֲרָפֶֽל׃

1.

ט:ה וַיִּקְח֗וּ אֵ֚ת אֲשֶׁ֣ר צִוָּ֣ה מֹשֶׁ֔ה אֶל־פְּנֵ֖י אֹ֣הֶל מוֹעֵ֑ד וַֽיִּקְרְבוּ֙ כָּל־הָ֣עֵדָ֔ה וַיַּֽעַמְד֖וּ לִפְנֵ֥י יְקוָֽק׃

    The sequence in 4:11, Mercha Tipcha, joins together the approaching with the standing, taking away a sense of action. In contrast, in 9:5, Pashta Zakef Katan is separate from the Tipcha Mercha Sof Pasuk, in effect separating the coming close from the standing. In that way, the coming close is emphasized more and gives a sense of greater activity.

2. In Buber’s translation, the coming close is separated from the standing, paralleling the cantellation in 9:5, in  contrast to 4:11.

3.

ד:יא וַתִּקְרְב֥וּן וַתַּֽעַמְד֖וּן תַּ֣חַת הָהָ֑ר וְהָהָ֞ר בֹּעֵ֤ר בָּאֵשׁ֙ עַד־לֵ֣ב הַשָּׁמַ֔יִם חֹ֖שֶׁךְ עָנָ֥ן וַֽעֲרָפֶֽל׃

    The cantillation for the three final words of 4:11 Tipcha, Mercha, Sof Pasuk would seem to fit MaLBIM’s interpretation better than Hoffmann’s. According to Hoffmann, Arafel should be completely separated from the other two words since it is describing a spiritual rather than a physical phenomenon. MaLBIM sees Arafel as a more intense form of Choshech and Anan and therefore does not have to be separated from the preceding words.

4. The fact that Choshech is relatively separated from Anan and Arafel could be interpreted as darkness is the general terminology for the extent of light that was present in the places where Moshe entered, with Anan and Arafel constituting two different degrees of Choshech, a lesser and a greater degree.

5. A comparison with Yoel 2:2 results in a similar structure, with Choshech and Afeila describing the absence of light in general, followed by two specific degrees of the absence of light, i.e., Anan and Arafel.

Heh.

לב כִּ֣י שְׁאַל־נָא֩ לְיָמִ֨ים רִֽאשֹׁנִ֜ים אֲשֶׁר־הָי֣וּ לְפָנֶ֗יךָ לְמִן־הַיּוֹם֙ אֲשֶׁר֩ בָּרָ֨א אֱ-לֹהִ֤ים ׀ אָדָם֙ עַל־הָאָ֔רֶץ וּלְמִקְצֵ֥ה הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם וְעַד־קְצֵ֣ה הַשָּׁמָ֑יִם הֲנִֽהְיָ֗ה כַּדָּבָ֤ר הַגָּדוֹל֙ הַזֶּ֔ה א֖וֹ הֲנִשְׁמַ֥ע כָּמֹֽהוּ׃

1. According to R. Eliyahu Mizrachi, the verse is instructing that two separate questions be asked, i.e., a) one of time regarding all of the days since Creation and b) one of things that have happened to creatures wherever they may reside on the earth.

2. From the point of view of the cantellation, the phrase U’LeMiktzeh HaShamayim VeAd Ketzeh HaShamayim is separated from the beginning of the verse by the Ta’amim: Mercha Tipcha Zakef Etnachta, lending support that it should be viewed as a new and separate idea.

3. Since there is only one main verb at the beginning of the verse, i.e., “She’al Na”, one might think that it is all a single question. Therefore, RE”M suggests that the verse should be understood as if there is a second verb of “asking” immediately preceding the phrase in question, “U’LeMiktzeh HaShamayim VeAd Ketzeh HaShamayim”.

4. The first Telisha Ketana is on the word “Na” while the second is on “Asher”. The first modifies as an adverb the verb “She’al”, i.e., “Ask now”. The second serves as a conjunction introducing an adjectival phrase that clarifies what is meant by “Yamim Rishonim”. The common denominator is that they both serve as clarifiers, but each in a different way.