R’ Eli Munk wrote that it was “on this day” that Moshe finished interpreting the Torah and adding the last mitzvoth.  He chose this day to urge the people of Israel to remain committed to the observance of G-d’s law.  Rashi interpreted “this day” as meaning that Moshe wanted us to always think of the Torah as being fresh and exciting, as if it had been given today.  Moshe urged the Jews to observe the mitzvoth with “all your heart and with all your soul”. Then he said “you have distinguished G-d today to be a G-d for you to walk in his ways and observe his decrees” and to hear his voice”. In the next verse, Moshe said “and G-d has distinguished you to be for him a treasured people to observe all His commandments”.  Rashi interpreted this as meaning that the people have differentiated G-d from false gods to be their G-d and He has distinguished the Jews from other nations.  The currency of this relationship is the acceptance and observance of the mitzvoth.

Ibn Ezra interpreted the relationship as the Jews glorifying G-d and G-d glorifying the Jews, but again the currency is the observance of the mitzvoth.

It seems quite remarkable that the media make an almost daily attempt to portray Israel in a bad light. On a regular basis only the most scandalous news is reported. In addition, the scrutiny of the IDF appears to be persistently hypercritical. There is a recurrent dismissal of the Israeli perspective as false and misleading. Perhaps the best way to maintain confidence is to have faith from the observance of mitzvoth as part of daily life. This is the message of this week’s  parasha.  

There are 72 positive and negative commandments in this parasha, the most in any parasha.  Nechama Leibowitz  quoted from 2 separate midrashim which explain aspects of their purpose. In one, the mitzvot are said to grace man’s daily acts, and consecrate his mundane duties such as tilling the soil, earning a livelihood, building a house, elevating these acts to the level of Divine service.

In another midrash, the mitzvot are compared to the lifeline thrown to the drowning swimmer, man in the stormy sea of temptations, so that he can safely journey through life.

In order to illustrate the point, Leibowitz chose to discuss the subject of the return of lost property to its owner.”Do not see your brother’s ox or his sheep go astray, and hide yourself from them: you should bring them again to your brother”. She quoted from Nachmanides who commented that the phrase “go astray” implied that the animal had wandered far afield and its return would have involved much time and trouble. Rashi added that the obligation was to take an active concern with safeguarding the neighbour’s possessions so they remain intact.

This rule is repeated 3 times in different ways in 3 sentences, and Alshikh concluded that by returning an animal or item 3 times, a person would have the mitzvah firmly understood, so that whatever the circumstances, he could not then hide himself from knowledge of the rule, and it would become a social norm, both orientating and uplifting.

R’ Eli Munk referred to a previous commandment in Shemot to “the ox of your enemy” as opposed to the ox of “your brother” in this parasha.  Ramban had commented that the 2 mitzvot were related and R’ Munk wrote that the best way to do away with hatred is to return an object to his owner even if he is an enemy. When that happens, hatred is forgotten and one remembers the brotherhood. 

Nechama Leibowitz commented on the admonition in this week’s parasha that we should be “wholehearted with G-d”. She wrote that the opposite of wholehearted is a disharmony between the inner and outer self, and between words and deeds. She quoted from Bahya who wrote that when a person’s words are contradictory to their deeds, they can’t be trusted, and their sincerity is doubted.  He extended this concept to the service of G-d, which similarly cannot be sincere if there is a contradiction between our hearts and our words, and our inner conscience and outer actions.

Bahya explained further that the concept included eliminating magical practices, and keeping away from sorcery and enchantments.

Nachmanides wrote that we should direct our hearts exclusively to G-d and not consult soothsayers nor believe their words would be authenticated. He quoted from the covenant made with Avraham  “Walk before Me and be wholehearted” , to make the point that both admonitions epitomised the distinction between heathendom and the true faith, and negated superstition and soothsaying.

R’ Eli Munk quoted from Rashi who explained that we should not be concerned about what will happen in the future, and from King David who wrote that when there were no prophets, we should pray and calmly trust in the Lord.

R’ Eli Munk wrote that the Torah uses the word re’eh (see) rather than the word sh’ma (hear) when it comes to free will. He argued that hearing implies the impression of external factors whereas seeing implies internal perception, seeing into one’s soul. Understanding a choice involves knowing one’s own conscience.

Moshe spoke of the choice presented to each individual, between a blessing and a curse. The blessing would be if the individual followed the commandments, and the curse, if the individual strayed from the path and followed the gods of others.

In looking at this in detail, Nechama Leibowitz quoted from Malbim who commented on the actual phrase “a blessing that you obey the commandments” meaning that the actual obedience to the commandments constitutes the blessing. “Do not imagine that there is any reward outside the good deed itself”. Leibowitz summarised this as “virtue is its own reward”.

Nechama Leibowitz wrote that the world was not originally evil, and full of misfortune. It was bountiful and granted to mankind on condition that he would be obedient to the wishes of the Creator. The curse only comes afterwards in the event of man’s subsequent disobedience. It is man himself who is responsible for the evils of the world, inevitably arising when he cannot see within and observe his conscience.

The choice between good and evil was mentioned three times in the Torah.  In Bechukotai, it was stated as the direct word of G-d. In Re’eh, the choice was presented by Moshe, and in Ki Tavo, it was presented as an oath to which the people replied “Amen”.

In a recent article in the Jerusalem Post, R’ Reuven Hammer wrote about the challenge the Jewish people have to create a society based on the tradition which began with the ideals of the Torah, and continued with the vision of the prophets and Rabbis. He wrote that the vision underlying the reality of the state of Israel comes from the entire tradition of Jewish belief and thought, making Herzl’s dream possible. The key principle was that the children of Israel should “keep the way of the Lord and do what is just and right”. R’ Hammer concluded that the modern state of Israel is the Jews’ third opportunity to make the vision a reality.

In this parasha, Moshe continues his speech to the Jewish people, reminding them that the Land was not being given to them because of their righteousness but because of the wickedness of the people G-d was driving out before them. Ramban commented that the denial of merit referred to the generation in the wilderness who were constantly rebellious.

Moshe listed all their errors and at the end of it all, as if to leave behind all the wrongdoing of the past, he concluded with the question “Now,Israel,what does the Lord your G-d require of you?” He answered “Fear G-d and walk in His ways,and love Him and serve Him with all your heart and with all your soul,to observe G-d’s commandments and decrees, which I command you today for your benefit.”

Nechama Leibowitz wrote that this passage contains the essence of the whole Torah, the statement of the will of G-d on one leg! The phrasing implies a minimum requirement. Moshe might have  implied that it was a small matter for him, but it is certainly difficult for the ordinary man. Leibowitz quoted from Albo who wrote that fear of G-d is a general principle, embracing all the commandments of the Torah. He wrote that Avraham was not called G-d fearing until he had been through his trials. It is extremely difficult to attain this quality, however it can be achieved by observing the commandments of the Torah. Albo also wrote that it is very difficult for a person to attain the required degree of fear, love and service with all his heart and soul. G-d makes it easier for man by commanding him instead to “merely” observe His stautes and commandments, thereby achieving the same degree of perfection.

R’Eli Munk quoted from Maharsha who explained that there are 2 kinds of fear of G-d. The first is a fear of punishment, and the second is an intellectual fear, the awe of Divine grandeur. David also said “Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom”. Albo wrote that this meant that the best and and essential part of wisdom is to attain the fear of G-d.

R’ Munk wrote that there are also 2 kinds of love, great love and eternal love. Great love(ahava raba) is sparked by pleasure and joy in the service of G-d, whereas eternal love (ahavat olam) is a spiritual and intellectual love. Rambam characterised it as “when a person contemplates the immense works of G-d’s creation and sees His infinite wisdom, so far surpassing man’s, he will at once love Him, praise Him, and glorify Him, and feel a longing for his great Name”.

This passage ends with “for your benefit”. R’ Munk interpreted this with the phrase:  G-d says “what I ask of you is not for Myself, but only for your own good”. 

In his review of the precepts of Judaism, Moshe prefaced the imparting of the commandments with the injunction that the Jews listen to what he teaches so they may do the mitzvoth “to live, and go in and possess the land which the Lord, the G-d of your fathers gives you”.

R’ Eli Munk wrote that the ultimate objective of Israel’s existence is to give life to its Law and give Law to its life. He quoted R’ SR Hirsch who wrote that when living becomes more than a biological phenomenon, it can endow existence with lasting value. That value must stem from that which is eternally lasting - the knowledge of G-d and of His Law.

Nechama Leibowitz commented on Moshe’s statement that G-d “made this covenant with us, all of us here who are alive today”

teaching that the Torah was not given to one particular generation, a principle which Moshe reaffirmed on the eve of his death. She quoted Rashi who commented on “this day” meaning that mitzvoth should not be seen as an obsolete decree which no-one regards but rather as a new one which everyone welcomes.  Nechama Leibowitz wrote that Rashi’s statement applied not only to the legal portion of the Torah but also to the narrative portions. She wrote that the commentators of every age were deeply conscious of the timeless quality of the Torah, ever able to convey comfort, a warning or a summons particularly appropriate to their own generation.

Nechama Leibowitz compared the comments of Abravanel at the time of the Inquisition and Biur at the time of the  emancipation. They responded to the gloomy prediction of the consequences of breaking the commandments, that the Jews would be scattered among the peoples and serve other gods. Abravanel saw that the Jews were worshipping idols not through choice but only to escape death. The author of the Biur saw that the attractions of western secularism and “enlightenment” threatened the integrity of the Jewish people.

In this parasha, Moshe reviewed the journeys and experiences of the children of Israel. He spoke to all Israel, words of reproach, after their recent victories.

The places enumerated were all those where Israel had angered G-d. He reminded them of the way judges were appointed, further travel and then the problem of the report of the twelve spies.  Moshe implied that even if the full report had been positive, the people would have found some pretext to reject the prospect of going up into the promised land.  R’ Eli Munk quoted from Ramban who explained that the people did not have sufficient faith to believe in the Divine promise.

Moshe said that G-d became angry with him because of the people.  In addition to the decree forbidding him from entering Canaan, the quality of the communication from G-d had altered to consist of essential commands only. The feeling of sadness prevented Moshe from having prophetic visions.

The journey from Kadesh-barnea to Zered Brook spanned thirty eight years during which all those who came out of Egypt died apart from Caleb and Joshua. After explaining at length, the allocation of land, Moshe told them that they “need not fear the enemy” and could rely on G-d to “wage war for you’.  R’ Munk indicated that the narrative emphasised the superior physical strength of the enemy. They were greater in number and the personal strength of their warriors was greater.  Nevertheless, 600,000 Israelites, twenty years and older, who were almost without weapons or experience, were preparing themselves to enter an unknown land and to fight great armies. They were able to do so because of the knowledge that G-d was with them.

The children of Reuben and Gad requested to settle where the pastures would be good for their flocks.  Moshe was critical, seeing that they valued their property above their children.  He reminded them that their fathers were among those who had perished in the desert for their negative appraisal of the reports of the 12 spies. The people of Reuben and  Gad then committed to help the Israelites conquer the land and remained in solidarity for a further seven years.

R’ Eli Munk wrote that the agreement the 2 tribes made was an example of the legal characteristics of a conditional contract.  Firstly, the conditions were expressed both positively and negatively- “you shall cross the Jordan” and “but if you do not do so”.  Secondly, the fulfilment of the condition was stated before the statement of the consequence- “if you do this thing” and “this land will be a heritage for you”.  Thirdly, the positive condition was stated before the negative condition.  Fourthly, the condition and the consequence involved different objects.  The conquering of the land had no direct connection with taking possession of the territories on the east side of the Jordan.  Lastly, the consequences could be fulfilled by the parties themselves or their authorised representatives.  In this case, Moshe authorised Joshua to grant the eastern territories once Canaan was conquered.

The children of Reuben and Gad indicated they would cross over the river “armed before G-d”. R’ Munk quoted R’ Bachya who pointed to the verse beginning and ending with the letter “nun” and contains symbolic references to the thirteen letter name of G-d, which guards against the fear of the enemy.  “Armed before G-d” indicates the sense in which their faith in  G-d enabled them to fear nothing else.

Half of the tribe of Menashe were also allocated to the east side of the Jordan, and Rambam pointed out that this kept Reuben and Gad in touch with the rest of the people of Israel. Nevertheless they were most vulnerable when Israel was under attack in the future.

The five daughters of Zelophachad approached Moshe to ask if they could inherit their father’s entitlement to land as Zelophachad had no sons.  He had died in the wilderness, and was probably one of those who complained about the conditions there.  Moshe had to ask G-d for the response, although the answer was quite simple and according to the midrash this was to teach him humility.

R’ Eli Munk quoted from R’ Chidka who explained that Moshe knew all along that the daughters would inherit, but the issue arose because they had not yet conquered the land. Would the rights remain viable until the time of the conquest when they could be actualised? He was told they would be.

Rambam explained the rationale for the laws of inheritances.  In the Guide to the perplexed, he pointed out that a moral person would not be jealous of his heir as death approached, and would not squander their assets, but leave it to those most rightfully deserving.  The eldest son inherits first, in biblical times. The father can favour his daughters and younger sons, by gifts and even in the will, but cannot do it as part of the inheritance.  The closest living relative was to receive the inheritance, if there were neither sons nor daughters. These sentences were further elucidated in the Talmud in Baba Bathra.

Long before women were given the right to inherit property in Western jurisdictions, Jewish law established a form of inheritance and support rights for the surviving wife and female relatives.

The current law in Israel allows for the will to stipulate any beneficiary but if there is no will, the Inheritance Law determines that the estate should be distributed between the deceased’s close relatives. Heirs of the first degree inherit first, and potential heirs of the next degree inherit only if there are no heirs on the closer degree.

Balak, the king of Moab, was concerned about the threat the Israelites posed to his kingdom after their defeats of the Amorites and Bashan.

He called on Bilaam, the soothsayer, to curse the people of Israel but Bilaam was unable to do so, and blessed them instead.  His blessing is now the well known prayer “Ma Tovu Ohalecha Yaacov- How goodly are your tents…..”.

Targum Yonatan was quoted by R’ Munk as inferring from the blessings what the curses might have been. The intention might have been to wish that there were no houses of prayer, or that the metaphoric cedars could be uprooted, but the blessing praised the tents and the cedars by water. The intention might have been to point to Israel’s small numbers and their origins as slaves in Egypt, but the blessing referred to G-d’s bringing them out of Egypt, “according to the power of his loftiness”. Bilaam went on to say that Israel’s enemies are the enemies of G-d and “He will consume the nations that oppress Israel”.  Bilaam ended with “those who bless you are blessed and those who curse you are cursed”. According to Rashi,  Bilaam told Balak that he could not defeat Israel militarily but that he could weaken Israel by seducing them into debauchery.

The priestesses of Baal-Peor invited the Jews to join in their worship which included debauchery.  R’ Munk wrote that the daughters of Moab were indiscriminate whereas the daughters of Midian selected the leaders.  Cozbi, the daughter of Zur, turned to Zimri, a prince of the tribe of Simeon. A plague began and 24,000 people died.  When Pinchas saw what was happening and that Moshe had not acted to stop the unacceptable behaviour,  Pinchas took the law into his own hands and killed Cozbi and Zimri.  Pinchas’ act was zealous, an act rarely permitted and R’ Chiskia taught that such an act is only permitted on the spur of the moment, from sacred indignation at seeing a sin committed. The plague was stopped, and the people’s hearts opened to G-d, but their weakness towards sin did not disappear.