Sefer Devarim is sometimes called by another name, particularly in early rabbinical works: Mishneh Torah, the second Torah or repetition of the Torah. It is from this name (through Greek) that the English name Deuteronomy is derived. The reason for that name is most evident in this week's paresha. The Jews have been party to numerous britot with Hashem through the Torah to this point; brit bein habetarim, brit milah, shabbat that is called brit 'olam, and most significantly brit ma'amad har Sinai. Probably others that do not come immediately to mind. However, we now come to the final covenant, the crown and seal of all that came before. Brit 'aravot Moav. Why, here, does Moshe Rabbeinu say, "Keep silence, and hear, O Israel; this day thou art become a people unto the LORD thy God."? And later, in the 29th perek of Devarim, he goes on at even greater length on the same theme. Surely, we were already a people to Hashem, in covenant with him? If not from the avot, then from yetziat Mitzraim, and if not from that, then certainly from Sinai. And yet, seemingly not, according to these pesukim.
To answer the question, I would like to first look back to the tokhaḥa in pareshat Beha'alotkha, the set of blessings and curses that accompanied the covenant at Sinai as our more extensive list accompanies the renewal of the covenant. There are several differences between the two tokhaḥot, but I would like to focus on two. First, in the earlier portion, Moshe Rabbeinu pronounces the blessings and curses in the name of God upon the passive people. In our repetition, he describes the blessings and curses that the people are to pronounce upon themselves from har 'Eival and har Gerizim. Second, the first set are given in lashon rabim, the grammatical plural, whereas we are now addressed in lashon yaḥid, the grammatical singular. The meforshim are divided on the interpretation of this latter difference, in a way that at first glance seems directly contradictory. Some say that the first tokhaḥa adresses the people as a mass, and the second is needed to address the individual alone in case one might think that their sins will not be punished, relying on the righteous in the group to stave off the promised rebuke. Others understand that the first is addressed to a number of individuals all at once, whereas the second addresses klal Yisrael as a whole, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I think that the two positions are actually reconcilable, with reference to the other aforementioned difference and the idea that this is the capstone of the covenant. In fact, what is being taught is that we cannot truly be a united people until each of us takes responsibility for his own actions.
What is the connection between a covenant of personal accountability and the imminent entry into the land? The time of open miracles may not be over for another millenium, but compared to the time in the midbar, it is certainly about abruptly become rather harder to detect. As Moshe reminds them, for the past forty years, they have been fed miraculously, their clothes and shoes have not worn out, etc etc. God has been an intensely visible presence in their day to day lives. The coming absence of that visibility brings two potential problems. The first is that they may come to attribute the good that they enjoy to their own effort and the laws of nature, failing to appreciate God's more subtle role in their continued subsistence. The second is that they may come to believe that they can freely violate the laws of the Torah, so long as they can avoid the censure of their fellow men.
The first concern is the subject of the opening paragraphs of the paresha, where we are taught in more detail the laws of bikkurim and of the vidui ma'aser. We are taught to remind ourselves particularly when we bring in the harvest to joyfully give thanks to Hashem, remember all that he has done for us throughout our national history, up to and including the current harvest from the holy and bountiful land that he has granted us. We then declare that we do not pretend to have full ownership of the produce, and have dedicated a fit portion of it to holy purposes in recognition of that fact (the purposes of the various tithes is probably worth a post in itself). In this way, we guard against forgetting God's involvement in all that we accomplish positively.
The second concern is the subject of the brakhot and kelallot. Note that the particular commandments singled out for repetition here are those that are particularly easy to get away with, as far as human judgment goes. Several even specify that they are done in secret. The Maharil Diskin gives a good answer to the classic question, why are only the curses listed, and the blessings taught through negation? According to him, the real ḥiddush is that the people say, "Amen". Regarding the brakhot, this is not much of a ḥiddush. However, that is not the case with the kelallot. With God's presence less easily sensed, the temptation to violate these sorts of commandments can become overwhelming. The dor hamidbar were wise and learned; surely they knew that much of human nature. Never-the-less, despite the absolutely horrifying nature of the curses involved, every single one of them said, "Amen" bekol ram, with a loud voice. They take responsibility for themselves, even and especially where nobody else will hold them accountable.
In short, this is not so much the Jews being made into God's nation through the covenant as the Jews maturing into their role as God's nation and becoming active coparticipants in the covenant. After all, what defines this generation, aside from Calev and Yehoshua? They were all below the age of accountability when the covenant was forged at Sinai. That was, to them, the covenant of childhood and adolescence, as individuals and as a nation. Now, we enter into the full covenant of adulthood.
Shabbat Shalom uMevorakh!
An additional thought, also reconcilable with those you offer. Perhaps the covenant is finally complete because God has at last kept his end of the bargain - delivering the promised land to his people. I see this as reconcilable with the other two because God may be seen to have held back on his end of the deal, waiting for the Israelites' full buy-in. So bringing the people into the land is the ultimate confirmation of God's choosing the people, just as each individual embracing the mitzvot is the ultimate confirmation of the people's choosing God.
ReplyDeletePossible, but I would then expect the seal of the covenant to occur when the conquest was completed and the land apportioned. Rather, it takes place immediately, before the first battle. Has God's promise been fulfilled simply upon entry? It was not fulfilled in the days of the avot, although they all spent at least part of their lives in eretz Yisrael.
DeleteI see your point, but does the conquest of the land actually appear in the chumash, or is that chronicled in later books? I still think this moment, as Moshe's final address to the people of Israel, is the right dramatic occasion to make the point that the covenant is at last complete. There can be no doubt that once Adonai brings the people into the land that they will prevail, so it is a done deal.
DeleteAs for the other occasions when the Avot spent time in the promised land, it was never really billed as the giving of the land to the people was it? Abraham, for instance, was careful to respect the ownership rights of the current inhabitants when he purchased the burial place in Hebron, and Jacob was still a "wandering Aramean" as I read somewhere recently - I forget where, but I quite clearly remember someone pointing out that line in the Haggadah refers to Jacob, whose mother was an Aramean, yes?
The people's participation in this last covenant, erecting the pillars of testimony and pronouncing the blessings and curses from har Gerizim and har 'Eival, are to take place immediately upon entry into the land, as they do in sefer Yehoshu'a.
DeleteLast time the people were brought to the land, 38 years prior, they did not prevail. Why is this time different, that it should be a done deal?
The fact that the avot lived in the land as residents but did not possess it is my proof that the entry into the land is not the fulfillment of the promise. The promise is that we should possess the land as an everlasting inheritance. When the nation carries out the instructions in this paresha, they have not yet received that inheritance, any more than their parents had at Sinai, despite being present in the land.