From: Yeshivat Har Etzion Office
To: heb_roots_chr@hebroots.org
Subject: PARSHA - 46: Nitzavim

PARASHOT NITZAVIM-VAYELEKH

Punishment of the Individual and of the Nation

By Rav Mordechai Sabato

Parashat Nitzavim, comprising slightly less than two
whole chapters (29:9-30:20), opens in the middle of
Moshe's speech. The speech begins at the end of the
previous parasha, at the beginning of chapter 29: "And
Moshe called to all of Israel and said to them." It
concludes at the end of chapter 30. Proof of the
connection between the beginning of our parasha and the
previous section is to be found in the linguistic
similarity between the last verse of Ki Tavo, "And you
shall observe the WORDS OF THIS COVENANT and perform
them", and the first verse of Nitzavim: "You are all
standing today before the Lord your God. to enter into
THE COVENANT OF THE LORD YOUR GOD and into His oath which
the Lord your God seals with you today. Not with you
alone do I seal THIS COVENANT and this oath." (29:9-13).

There can be no doubt, then, that our parasha is not
an independent literary unit, and that it should be
treated as part of Moshe's speech starting in chapter 29.
In this shiur, we shall address the structure of chapter
29 and its significance.

At the center of chapter 29 stands the covenant that
Moshe makes with Israel in the plains of Moav. The word
"covenant" (berit) appears five times in the chapter (8,
11, 13, 20, 24), and connects chapter 29 with the
conclusion of chapter 28, where we read, "These are the
words of the COVENANT that God commanded Moshe to make
with the children of Israel in the land of Moav, aside
from the COVENANT that he made with them at Chorev." Thus
we may deduce that chapter 28 concluded the speech of the
mitzvot and the subsequent blessing and curse, which are
called in the Torah "the words of the covenant." In
chapter 29, now that the nation has been made aware of
the details of the covenant, Moshe actually carries out
the ceremonial sealing of the covenant.

Let us now look at the structure of chapter 29.

The first section of the chapter, comprising verses
1-8, serves as a sort of introduction to the covenant
ceremony, where Moshe urges the nation to observe the
covenant:

.You have seen all that God did before your eyes in
the land of Egypt, to Pharaoh and all of his servant
and all of his land. And you shall observe the words
of this covenant and perform them, in order that you
may succeed in all that you do.

The next section, verses 9-14, describes the
ceremony whereby the covenant is sealed:

(9) You are all standing today before the Lord your
God: the heads of your tribes, your elders, your
officers - all the men of Israel,

(10) your children, your wives and the strangers that
are amongst your camp, from the hewers of wood to the
drawers of water,

(11) to enter into the covenant of the Lord your God
and His oath, which the Lord your God seals with you
today.

(12) In order that He may establish you today as His
nation, and He will be your God, as He spoke to you
and as He promised to your forefathers, to Avraham,
to Yitzhak and to Ya'akov.

(13) It is not with you alone that I make this
covenant and this oath,

(14) but with those who are standing here with us
today before God our God as well as with those who
are not standing with us here today.

In this section, a distinction should be made
between the bracketing verses (9-11 and 13-14), which
indicate that the covenant is indeed being made, and the
central verse of this unit (12), emphasizing the
significance of the covenant.

The bracketing verses correspond to one another in
chiastic form: verse 11 parallels verse 13; both mention
the sealing of the covenant and the oath. Verses 9-10
parallel verse 14; both mention Israel standing before
God. The main point that is emphasized in the bracketing
verses is the absolute universality of participation in
the covenant. Verses 9-10 stipulate that participants
include all strata of the nation and all social levels.
Verses 13-14 tell us that the covenant includes all
generations of the nation. Later on we shall address the
significance of this point in the chapter as a whole.

In the third section, verses 16-20, Moshe emphasizes
the punishment that awaits someone who violates the
covenant:

(15) For you know how we dwelled in the land of
Egypt and how we passed through the nations that you
have passed by;
(16) you have seen their abominations and their
idols of wood and stone, silver and gold, that were
among them.
(17) Lest there be among you a man or woman or
family or tribe whose heart turns today away from
the Lord our God, to go and worship the gods of
those nations, lest there be among you a root that
gives forth gall and wormwood,
(18) and it happens, when he hears the words of this
oath, that he blesses himself in his heart, saying,
Peace will be with me, although I walk in the
stubbornness of my heart, in order to add
drunkenness to thirst.
(19) God will not agree to forgive him, for then the
anger and jealousy of God will smoke against that
person, and all the curse that is written in this
book will come upon him, and God will erase his name
from under the heavens.
(20) And God will separate him for evil from among
all the tribes of Israel, as all the curses of the
covenant that are written in this book of Torah.

The principal difficulty in understanding this
section lies in verse 18. Two points in this verse
require explanation: a. Why would a person whose heart
has turned away from God still believe that all will be
well with him, despite the fact that he has heard all the
words of the oath, and its curses? B. What is the meaning
of the idiom, "to add drunkenness to thirst?"

Rashi writes: "Whose heart turns today - i.e.,
refuses to accept the covenant upon himself." From here
we may understand that the person believes that the curse
will not affect him because he does not accept the
covenant. Rashi then interprets the difficult idiom as
pertaining to the punishment that will come upon him:

"In order to add drunkenness" - For I shall add
punishment for him over and above what he has done so
far by mistake, and I shall review them and now cause
them to be counted as intentional sins, and I shall
punish him for all of it. "Drunkenness" - an
unintentional sin that was performed, like a person
who is drunk and is not aware of his actions.
"Thirst" - that which he does knowingly, out of
desire.

The idiom therefore relates not to the thoughts of the
sinner, but rather to the punishment that awaits him.

Both aspects of Rashi's explanation seem somewhat
forced. The reason for the person's thoughts ("whose
heart turns today") should seemingly have been written
adjacent to the quotation of his thoughts, not prior to
them. Likewise, the interpretation of the idiom as
relating to the punishment seems forced, for it is only
in verse 19 that we read, "God will not agree to forgive
him" - meaning that it is only there that the description
of the punishment begins.

The Ibn Ezra quotes R. Yehuda ha-Levi in his
explanation, as follows:

"And he will bless himself in his heart" - R. Yehuda
ha-Levi z"l taught that this expression is meant
literally; when he hears the curse then he will bless
himself in his heart, saying, "All will be well with
me." As though, upon hearing the curse, he says,
"excluding me." "In order to add (sefot)" - R.
Yehudah ha-Levi taught that this is an expression of
being destroyed, as in "Will you destroy (tispeh) the
righteous with the wicked?" In other words, the
person who blesses himself thinks to cancel or
destroy the words of the righteous, who is referred
to in the word "ravah" (previously translated as
drunkenness, here interpreted as satiation), by means
of his thirst. For the righteous is strong in his
satiation like a tree planted by the water, and the
wicked one languishes in thirst like a tamarisk in
the desert. And he believes that his own blessingin
his heart will stop the curse.

What R. Yehuda ha-Levi means is that a person whose
heart turns from God (and such a person is referred to in
the text as one who is "thirsty") believes that his
prediction that "All will be well with me," which is a
kind of blessing, has the power to cancel the effect of
the curse uttered by Moshe (who is referred to as
"satiated").

The advantage of this explanation lies in the fact
that it connects the idiom to the thoughts of the sinner,
and the text itself hereby explains why he believes that
the curse will not come upon him.

However, this explanation also presents some
difficulties, concerning both syntax and content. The
preposition "by" (et) (in "destroying satiation by
thirst") is not appropriate here, for this word appears
nowhere else meaning "by means of." What the text should
have said, then, is "in order that the thirst cut off the
satiation," for it is the words of the wicked one that
are meant to cancel the words of the righteous. Moreover,
we may argue that it is difficult to understand why a
person would believe that his prediction, "All will be
well with me," has the power to cancel the curse.

Hence, it may be preferable to adopt the
interpretation of the Ibn Ezra himself, who writes:

In my opinion, the word "sefot" is derived from
"tosefet" (addition). The verse then means: All will
be well with me even though I walk in the
stubbornness of my heart, because I shall live by
merit of the righteousness of the righteous ones, for
they are many and I am an individual sinner. But God
will not agree to forgive him. Thus, "sefot" means
"added," for the satiation will be added to the
thirst. The righteous is represented by satiation,
for he is compared to a "tree planted by streams of
water," while the wicked one is represented by
thirst, for he is compared to a "lone tamarisk in the
desert."

The Ibn Ezra teaches that the person blesses himself
in his heart, saying that all will be well with him,
because he believes that the merit of the many righteous
people will save the lone sinner.

Thematically, this explanation is greatly
advantageous, since it gives special significance to this
section, and to chapter 29 as a whole, as well as
relating our chapter to the curses in chapter 28 - a
significance that would seem to fit in well with the
language of the chapter. Most of the curses in chapter 28
pertain to the nation as a whole; there is almost no
mention there of punishment to individuals. The most
outstanding example is the final curse - exile - which is
described in chapter 28 as a national punishment, not a
punishment for individuals. In our chapter, by contrast,
Moshe highlights the fact that he is speaking to
individuals: "Lest there be among you a man or a woman or
a family or a tribe." This is a series of individual
exceptions: one man among the many, one family among the
many, or one tribe among the many. The sinful individual
therefore believes that the curse described in chapter 28
will not come to pass for him, because it is directed to
the community as a whole, and since the community is not
sinful - only he is, alone - the "satiation" will protect
the "thirst."

Ibn Ezra thus understands that in our section, the
Torah means to teach that this perception is mistaken.
The curse, which is essentially meant as a curse to the
nation, may also apply to a sinful individual. "For then
God's anger and His jealousy will smoke against THAT MAN
and all the curse that is written in this book will come
upon HIM." Indeed, the end of the section reads, "And God
will separate him for evil from among all the tribes of
Israel, according to all the curses of the covenant that
is written in this book of Torah." In other words,
although chapter 28 treated the entire nation as a single
unit, when necessary one tribe may be singled out from
among all the tribes of Israel for the curses of the
covenant.

Despite the thematic advantage of the Ibn Ezra's
explanation, we are still left with a syntactical
question concerning his interpretation of the idiom. The
righteous one does not "add" to the wicked one, but
rather "protects" him.

The Abarbanel adopts the Ibn Ezra's main idea in one
of his explanation, and writes as follows:

Perhaps the individual. with bless himself in his
heart, saying, "All will be well with me. because I
will be included in that good that the blessed God
bestows upon Israel, and the curses will not be able
to affect me individually, because He will not curse
the nation since they are blessed." And this is what
he means by "All will be well with me" -
individually, while I walk in the stubbornness of my
heart and do whatever I wish to. And this is what is
meant by, "In order to add satiation to thirst,"
which is a parable. For if a person has two fields,
one alongside the other, one in need of water and the
other well watered and having no need for irrigation
- there is no doubt that when watering the dry field,
he will come to water also the other one, even though
he does not water it intentionally. Likewise, this
heretic believes that although God does not mean to
shower blessings upon him, since he walks in the
stubbornness of his heart, he will nevertheless still
receive goodness and salvation and success because he
is part of the whole.

The difference between the Abarbanel and the Ibn
Ezra is that the former does not understand "satiation"
and "thirst" as referring to the righteous person and the
wicked one, but rather as being part of the parable
itself. It is the way of the world that a well-watered
field receives some of the water that is directed towards
the neighboring dry field.

This explanation is advantageous in that in many
places in Tanakh the words "satiated" and "thirsty" are
used to describe land or a field. But we still have a
problem with the word "add" (sefot) as it appears here.

S.D. Luzzato proposes a correction to the above
explanation, suggesting that the root "s-f-h" is related
to the root "s-f-ch," meaning joining or annexing, but
this still seems forced.

Perhaps we should adopt the suggestion of N.H. Tur
Sinai that the root of the word "sefot" is "s-f-a,"
meaning "eating" in Ugaritic or "feeding" in Aramaic.
According to this theory, the interpretation of the idiom
would be that a well-watered field also provides water to
a dry field, in the same way that the Abarbanel
explained.

In summary, the Torah's intention in these verses is
to negate the mistaken perception that the concept of
collective punishment described in chapter 28 means that
there is no individual punishment. The Torah teaches in
Chapter 29 that its curses can come upon the individual -
whether an individual person, an individual family, or an
individual tribe. To this we must add the fact mentioned
above, that at the beginning of the parasha Moshe
emphasizes that the covenant applies to everyone,
including every individual of every social level and in
every generation. Thus the Torah removes the possibility
of any individual in any generation escaping the covenant
and its curse.

To complete our understanding of this section, we
should add that both the Ibn Ezra and the Ramban comment
on verse 19 that the Torah's description of the
punishment relates to all three levels - individual,
family, and tribe - in order to illustrate most clearly
that there is no escape from punishment for the
individual on any level. The Ramban writes,

"God's anger and His jealousy will smoke against that
person" - this is a curse upon the individual man or
woman; "and He will erase his name" - a curse upon
the family, for the entire household is called after
its head; "and He will separate him for evil." -
namely, He will separate this tribe from among all
the remaining tribes of Israel.

Let us move on to the final section of the chapter:

(21) So that the later generation, your children who
will rise up after you, and the stranger who will
come from a far-off land, who will see the plagues of
that land and its sicknesses that God has sent to it,
will say,
(22) with the whole land burning in brimstone and
salt, not being sown nor bearing fruit nor giving
forth any grass, like the ovof Sedom and Amora, Adma
and Tzevoyim, which God overthrew in His anger and
His fury,
(23) Then all the nations will say, "Why did God do
thus to this land; what is the heat of this great
anger?"
(24) And they shall say, "Because they abandoned the
covenant of the Lord, God of their fathers, which He
made with them when He took them out of the land of
Egypt.
(25) And they went and worshipped other gods and
bowed down before them, gods that they did not know
and that He did not give to them.
(26) And God's anger burned against that land, to
bring upon it all the curse that is written in this
book.
(27) And God rooted them out of their land with anger
and fury and great wrath, and sent them to another
land until this day.

At first glance, this section would seem to be an
exception to the subject of our chapter, as we explained
it above. It appears to describe the destruction of the
land and the exile of the nation as a whole (as would
seem explicit from verse 27) and not to refer to
punishment of the individual.

Indeed, some commentators maintain that this section
is not a continuation of the previous one, but rather
continues from where the Torah left off in chapter 28.
After the description of exile in chapter 28, the Torah
goes on in 29:21 to describe the reaction of the nations
to the sight of the land in its destruction and the
nation led away into exile. The verses in between - 29:1-
20 - are a sort of parenthetical explanation of certain
points.

However, close examination of the language of the
text reveals that the above explanation is difficult to
accept, for two reasons:

i. These verses emphasize once again that the plagues
came upon "that land" (21, 26). This expression is not
generally used in the Torah to refer to the land of
Israel as a whole, but rather to a certain part of it
that has previously been mentioned.
ii. Verse 21 distinguishes between the later generation,
"your children that will rise up after you," and "the
stranger that will come from a far-off land." The text
does not say of the children that they will come from a
far-off land as it does of the stranger. This means,
logically, that the children are already in the land, and
have no need to come from afar. Thus, the Torah cannot be
talking about children who were exiled from the land.

The combination of these two questions shows that
the land referred to by the Torah in these verses is not
the land of Israel in its entirety, but rather the land
belonging to the tribe mentioned at the end of the
previous section. "The later generation" means the
children of the tribes who were not exiled, and it is
they who wonder at the meaning of the destruction that
meets their eyes in that portion of the land whose
inhabitants were exiled.

But we may still ask why the Torah devotes an entire
section to what the stranger will say, arriving from a
far-off land, and why his astonishment is described
specifically in the context of the punishment of a single
tribe, rather than the exile of the nation as a whole.

Concerning the first question, the Rashbam writes:

"Because they abandoned" - They will not say, "For
lack of God's ability.," as I explained on the words,
"And I fell before God and I said." (9:25-26)."

This refers back to the Rashbam's commentary on 9:25 -

"And I fell before God for forty days. and I fell
before God and I said." - Who is wise enough to pay
attention and understand why there is a need to
repeat this "falling before God" for forty days? Does
the Torah then usually repeat itself? . The text
should have said, "And I said." in the previous
verse, without any need to repeat itself in order to
tell Israel what exactly was the content of the
prayer.

But there is a great wisdom here, with which to
reprove Israel. Lest you say: In a sin as great as
that of the golden calf, Moshe's prayer was effective
and we were saved; so in Eretz Yisrael, too, if we
sin then the prayers of the prophets will be
effective. Moshe is telling them: Prayer will not
help you in Eretz Yisrael. For here you were forgiven
only in order that God's Name not be desecrated, for
that is in fact what I prayed: "Lest they of the land
from which you took us out will say, It is for lack
of God's ability to bring them [to the land, that He
destroyed them]." For this reason you were not given
the death sentence in the desert. But after God wipes
out thirty-one kings before you, and makes you
inherit the land, then He will be able to expel you
from the land, for there is no longer an issue of
desecration of God's Name, that the nations will say
that God was unable to help you. Rather, the nations
will say, "Israel sinned before Him," as we are told
explicitly in the parasha of Nitzavim: "And all the
nations will say, For what reason did God do this to
this land; what is this great heat of anger?" And
they will answer, "Because they abandoned the
covenant of the Lord, God of their fathers. and God
uprooted them from upon their land with anger and
fury and great wrath, and He sent them to another
land until this day."

Here the Rashbam answers our first question, but he
fails to answer the second one: why do the nations speak
thus only concerning a partial exile, and not concerning
the exile of the whole nation?

Perhaps we may answer as follows: In the event of a
complete exile, there is no assurance that the nations
will attribute the exile to the sins of Israel. It is
more likely that they will attribute the exile to the
limited power of Israel's God, to their view, as opposed
to the nation that waged war against Israel and its God.
However, if the exile affects only one tribe, while the
rest of the nation remains in place, then even the
nations will recognize that the reason for the
destruction is God's anger at their sins - as our parasha
teaches.

Was there any period in history when the threat set
down in our chapter was actualized? We may point to at
least two instances of partial exile:
1. Divrei ha-Yamim I 5:25-26 - "And they sinned against
the God of their fathers and went astray after the gods
of the nations of the land which God had destroyed before
them. And the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Pul,
king of Ashur, and the spirit of Tilgat-Pilnesser, king
of Ashur, and He exiled them - the tribes of Reuven, Gad,
and the half-tribe of Menashe, and He brought them to
Chalach and to Chavor and to Hara and to the river of
Gozan, until this day."
2. Melakhim II 17:6 - "In the ninth year of Hoshea, the
king of Ashur captured Shomron and exiled Israel to
Ashur, and settled them in Chalach and in Chavor at the
river of Gozan, and the cities of Madai."

In both places, the exile affected more than one
tribe. But both are instances of a partial exile, and not
the exile of the nation as a whole.

It is instructive to note that when Chazal discuss
the question of whether the "ten lost tribes" will
eventually return, they bring proof from our chapter.

The ten tribes are not destined to return, as it is
written (Devarim 29:27), "And He will send them to
another land until (lit., like) this day." Just as
"this day" disappears as does not return, so they who
go will not return - this is the opinion of R. Akiva.
R Eliezer says, Just as the day first becomes dark
and then becomes light, so the ten tribes, who at
first suffered darkness (exile) will eventually enjoy
light. (Sanhedrin 10:3)

It seems, therefore, that Chazal, too, interpret these
verses as pertaining to a partial exile, and not the
exile of the entire nation.

R. Akiva's proof from the text seems somewhat
forced. It is especially difficult to understand in light
of the fact that in the next chapter (30), the Torah
promises the return of Israel to their land, if only they
will return to God.

It is possible that R. Akiva claims as he does
because of the context of our chapter. As we mentioned in
the shiur on parashat Ki Tavo, chapter 30 adopts the
language of the end of chapter 28, and clearly continues
the description there. We asked why the two sections are
divided, and why chapter 29 is inserted between them. We
may now return to this question.

Chapter 29 opens with a description of the sealing
of the covenant. Tfact that this description comes before
chapter 30, which speaks of teshuva (repentance) and
redemption, teaches that teshuva and redemption are not
part of the covenant. This conclusion also arises from
the language of the verse that concludes chapter 28,
"These are the words of the covenant that God commanded
Moshe to make with the children of Israel in the land of
Moav." These words - and no more. This means, as we have
said, that teshuva and the promise of redemption that
will follow it are not part of the covenant. Redemption
in the wake of teshuva is a gift from God's attribute of
mercy and kindness; it is beyond the letter of the law.
The covenant ceremony is not the place for promises that
are beyond the letter of the law; these promises are
beyond the framework of the covenant itself.

On the other hand, since chapter 30 echoes the
language of chapter 28, we may conclude that the promise
of redemption in the wake of teshuva relates only to the
event of a total exile of the nation, as described at the
end of chapter 28, but does not apply to the exile of a
tribe or a few tribes, as described at the end of chapter
29.

Hence we may say, concerning the status of the
individual - man, woman, family or tribe - is the
opposite of what the sinner thinks. The sinner believes
that collective punishment could serve as the refuge of
the individual, who would be saved because of the merit
of the community. But the text teaches us that not only
will the individual not be saved in the merit of the
community, and not only will all the curses of the
covenant come upon him, but his punishment will be even
harsher than that of the community. If the nation is
exiled, they are promised that they will be redeemed, if
only they will return to God. If an individual (person,
family or tribe) is exiled, no such promise is extended.
This, then, is the background to R. Akiva's view.

Perhaps R. Eliezer's view may also be anchored in
our chapter. It is true that, linguistically, chapter 30
is a return to chapter 28, but it is located after
chapter 29. Perhaps it is because of this that R. Eliezer
maintains that the promise contained here applies even to
the instance described in chapter 29. Thus we may
conclude that even if a single tribe or group of tribes
is exiled, they are promised that God will return their
exile and bring them back to the land - if only they will
return to God.

*********************************************************