Ki Tavo Answers

Ki Tavo 5728
Alef.

According to RaMBaN, Devarim 26:16 completes Moshe’s recapitulation and additions to the Mitzvot that he began in Devarim 1:5

(ה) בעבר הירדן בארץ מואב הואיל משה באר את התורה הזאת לאמר:

From this point on will be the denoument of the Sefer and Moshe’s life.

Beit.

1.The simple meaning of the verse implies that this day during the 40^th year of desert wanderings is when the Mitzvot were Commanded, when in fact they were Commanded at Sinai, at the beginning of the Exodus from Egypt.

2. The implication in the Abrabanel is that this is the first time that God has Commanded the people to abide by the Mitzvot. Yet we find many verses prior to this one, e.g., the well-known verses of the Shema—Devarim 6:5; 11:13, where God Commands adherence to the Mitzvot, even though acc. to this commentator, the explanations of these Commandments had as yet not been completed.

Gimel.

1. R. Yehuda HaLevi’s interpretation presumes that HaShem’s Being the God of the Children of Israel is predicated upon them doing things that earn then God’s Desire to be their God, and vice versa, i.e., HaShem must do things for Benai Yisrael to the point where they will propose to be His Treasured People. Yet, in terms of prior verses in the Tora, it would seem that the process is reversed in both cases, i.e., because God first Decides to be their God, He Imposes Mitzvot upon them—e.g., the case of Avraham,

בראשית פרק יז

(ז) והקמתי את בריתי ביני ובינך ובין זרעך אחריך לדרתם לברית עולם להיות לך לאלקים ולזרעך אחריך:

(ח) ונתתי לך ולזרעך אחריך את ארץ מגריך את כל ארץ כנען לאחזת עולם והייתי להם לאלקים:

    God States His Intention to be the God of Avraham and his descendents before very Mitzvot are Imposed. As for the people first doing things indicating their desire to be God’s Treasured People leading Him to agree, again that would seem to run counter to what is stated at Sinai prior to the Giving of the Ten Commandments:

שמות פרק יט

(ד) אתם ראיתם אשר עשיתי למצרים ואשא אתכם על כנפי נשרים ואבא אתכם אלי:

(ה) ועתה אם שמוע תשמעו בקלי ושמרתם את בריתי והייתם לי סגלה מכל העמים כי לי כל הארץ:

   If the people had already been earning God’s Admiration, why does this conditional agreement have to be proposed?

   Contextually, Devarim 26:16 appears to be conditional as well, i.e., “…and if you observe and do them (the Commandments) with all of your heart and all of your soul, only then (26:17-18) You have declared today to be to God His Treasured People, for Him to be for you a God and (for you) to walk in His Ways to observe His Statutes, His Mitzvot and His Mishpatim and to listen to His Voice, and HaShem will have Declared you to be to Him a Treasured People as He Said to you and to observe all of His Mishpatim.

2. One could understand RaShI without resorting to the approaches of Da’at Yisachar (to find other instances of the Hifil for Amira meaning “saying” is impossible, even though there are Hifil forms for Amira meaning to be glorified) and W. Heidenheim (who contends that RaShI himself never added the additional example, something that was emended by a subsequent commentator). RaShI is simply providing another example of the verb “A-M-R” in a causative form; however, the example that he brings from Tehillim is an example of the reflexive, as opposed to the Hifil which is the form used in Devarim. Consequently, even if another form of “A-M-R” is found, as long as it isn’t exactly the same form as in Devarim, it does not constitute a proper analogy. (It is also important to point out that the line in the Gilayon at the end of RaShI to the effect of how Yitamru is equivalent to He’Emart/He’emircha, is Nechama amendation, but does not appear in RaShI’s commentary itself.)

Daled.

The apparent difference between the two interpretations is whether the phrase “Lihyot Lecha L’Elokim” stands alone, or is one of a series of elements along with “LaLechet B’Derachav, VeLiShmor Chukav, etc.”Rosenzweig sees a literary parallelism between “Lihyot Lecha L’Elokim” on the one hand, and “Lihyot Lo Am Segula” on the other. Consequently the line dealing with fulfilling Commandments becomes ancillary as does “KaAsher Diber Lach.” Buber, on the other hand, sees the fulfillment of the Commandments part and parcel of “Lihyot Lecha L’Elokim.” Since they can’t be separated, the parallelism is also insconsistent. Furthermore, whereas “KaAsher Diber Lach” is simply an adverbial clause which does not add any particular extra understanding, “LaLechet B’Derachav…” is a clarification of what it means for HaShem to be the God of the Jewish People, and therefore it cannot be relegated to an inferior position. At the very least it is a Kellal U’Perat, i.e., the general concept followed by its specific articulation.

Heh.

1. Ohr HaChaim states that mentioning in v. 18, where what HaShem has Done for Israel, the observance by Israel of the Commandments, it would appear that Mitzva Compliance is a means by which Israel praises God, rather than the reverse.

2. In v. 17 it is understandable why observing the Mitzvot is mentioned, since by freely choosing to do so, the people were praising God and thereby demonstrating that they had accepted Him as their God. However, their observance of the Commandments did not precede God’s Declaring them a treasured people; it came afterwards. See Gimel 1 above.

3. The first explanation states that HaShem singled these later generations out in contrast to the founders by giving the former all of the Mitzvot, and thereby presenting them with the means to better and more completely purify themselves. Consequently not so much the observance but rather the giving of the quantity of Commandments is a reflection of God’s Esteem for the people.

    The second explanation states that simply giving the Commandments would not be a sign of Divine Endearment if people did not have either the ability or the opportunity to fulfill this large corpus of Mitzvot. Hence HaShem not only Gives the Commandments, but He also Provides Siyata D’Shmaya to enable the people to actually fulfill them.

4. Answers 1,2 and 4 focus on the virtues of the giving and fulfillment of the Commandments. Answer 3 focuses upon resolving the fear that with all of these additional Mitzvot, bad things could result—either by virtue of not fulfilling something that one is obligated to do, or directly as a result of fulfilling a Commandment as in the case of the boy falling off the tree after listening to his father to send away the mother bird in order to take the eggs of the baby birds from the nest (see Kiddushin 39b). Therefore the positive thing associated with the fulfillment of the Commandments is God’s implicit Guarantee that nothing bad will arise as a result of having these additional responsibilities.

Vav.

1. The syntactical difficulty in the verse appears to be the superfluity of v. 19. Aren’t the contents of v. 19 implied in the term “Am Segula” that appears in v. 18?

2. The commentator provides a new interpretation for “Am Kadosh.” When the Jews keep the Mitzvot, and then everything goes well for them, including their being on a higher level than others, there is no problem for them to be separate and unique. They would not be looking for acceptance from others since they are doing so well. But when they do not do the Mitzvot, which deprives them of their Am Segula benefits, then they become much more susceptible to assimilation and intermarriage, since at least some of them do not like their state of persecution, which in turn takes away from them their status of being separate and unique, an “Am Kadosh.”