This week is Prashat Kitavo and Kitavo always brings with it just so many delicious opportunities because it is the end of the new Muhammad's vote. It includes Mikrabi Karim with its festive declaration, what we're familiar with from the seder. It includes vidwe ma'a's throat. It includes the introduction to the breed. They teh qayyallana kolahirats, it includes the sukim that according to the Gomarah written in Asham's fillin. It's a beautiful, beautiful parasha, and then it, of course, has the whole scene in commanded to be fulfilled at Hargrezim and Hari Val with the bhakot, and the past we talked about which tribes were on which mountain and what they replicated and the associations and the qi right yo safe. There's just so much great stuff, and yet as about kriya, when we address Parshat Kitavo, the one thing that really sticks in our mind is the Brakhai, mainly the tukhah. And that for several reasons. First of all, because the minhag in many places, is that the ball kriya gets that aliyat, which means he doesn't even have the five seconds to look it over while the other guys making the Brakhah. Second of all, the there is a custom in many places for the reading of the tukhah to be done quicker than usual, which in some cases becomes somewhat impossible when the standard is quick, and also to do it in an undertone, and where that comes from is a little bit unclear because it's Torah, and clearly it's something that we're supposed to be hearing and supposed to be listening to and internalizing, and if it's said in such a way that it's hard to hear, that kind of defeats the purpose. But the tukhah occupies two-thirds of the Parshah, if not more, three-quarters of the Parshah, and it's clearly a central piece. So, for once, I actually want to look at the tukhah, not to look at it in detail. I will share with you a personal reflection that, for many years, I also had the custom as a ball kriya to read it very quickly and in an undertone, and I just realized that that was just not appropriate behavior, and a few years ago, I started reading it properly, and I'm nearly almost always home for Parshah Akhita, but also I do get to lane it, and the first year I read it properly, I almost had a heart attack. I was so upset and so chagrin, so bothered by the imagery that was presented in the tukhah, and I realized for the first time, even though I'm familiar with Rambhana, I was familiar with the Pshukim themselves, but realized for the first time just how horrendous the tukhah is compared to the one in Va'i Yikr'ah, and the imagery, so much of the imagery that I, that we have in our minds, this is in previous years, from the shawah, kind of came to life for me in that. I think that this Shabbat, there'll be much more recent imagery that will come to light, to come to into our mind, as you read the tukhah, but I was bothered by it, and I decided it's finally time to address the phenomenon of the tukhah, as a general piece, instead of looking specifically at the individual sukim. So just to remind you, chapter 28, Parach Haftratt, which is one of the longest Prakim in Khumash, 69 Sukhim. It is, by far, the longest Prakim in Safrid Varim, and and is likely the longest Prakin al- Khumash when it comes towards, because many of the Sukhim are very long, is also the first the first 13 Sukhim, I believe it is, are the Brakhad, it's a beautiful Brakhad, and then the rest is all tukhah, so it's way, way longer than the tukhah in Vayikratt, and it's way more horrendous, not only that, but critically, it doesn't end on an up note. If you recall, the tukhah in Vayikratt, which we'll take a look at in a little few moments, is measured as some very upsetting things in there, but it's essentially a message of if you do not serve them each vote, and it seems to be focused on Shmitah, then you will be removed from the land, and the land will get respite from you from the Shmitote that we're not observed, but I'll remember the brief, and I'll bring you back, and it ends on an up note, it ends up on being returned, as a matter of fact, those Bali Kriyat, like I used to be, who have the custom of going in an undertone at the tukhah, but in raising your voice at the celebratory psuqim, at the end of the tukhah in Vayikratt, to go back and forth, between an undertone and the Khartiyyat Prithi Akhov, in Vahfathah, it's Bhoshamamiham, and then back, and then ending up on an up note. There's no up notes in this tukhah. It's all down, and the very last pashut, the very end of it is, we'll see, you'll be sold to Egypt as slaves, and nobody will even want to buy you. That's the end of it. So, it's a very upsetting thing, and the question I want to ask is, the general question, is why is there a need for a tukhah at all? Part two to the question is, why is there a need for a second tukhah? Part three of the question is, why is the second tukhah that much more awful and upsetting than the tukhah in Vayikratt? Three questions. Very straightforward. Now, I'm going to be addressing this. It'll be more of a global take than a textual take on specifics, although we will see a couple of Sukhim that will help guide our thinking. I want to start off oddly enough with the passage for Kazan, not from the Torah, everything else shares from the Torah. The Mishna in Masakat Mi Gila, which in the third parak of the Mishna, which is the fourth parak in the Babli, lays out the rules of Kriyatta Torah. And one of the rules of Kriyatta Torah is en mafsikin biklalot, meaning that we do not stop in Ali'i in the middle of the curses, and then, you know, next, Ali'a would pick up at that point. Lookish is commenting tomorrow about the reason for that is because en mafsikin ala pranut, because whoever gets the next Ali'a is going to make a brahah, and to make a brahah, and the next words are curse. We don't want to associate a brahah with a curse. Abiyye then puts a qualifier on the rule of not interrupting in the middle of the callot, and he says his follows. And what he says is difficult on other levels. Lo shainu ala biklalot chavat arat kaunim. Remember, Hazal, by the way, did not use the terms, or maybe we're even familiar with the terms brashit veshmod, vayikra, momidh barim, as names for the books. They referred to brashit when they referred to it as saver yitzirah, evidently. If they referred to shmodh, it would be a safer gula. Vayikra, they referred to already in the Mishna, as torat kaunim. The momidh bar is mentioned in the Mishna as homish up kudim, and Vayikra is mentioned in the Mishna as Mishnae torat. The names that we have for the books are not those names. So Abiyye says, lo shainu ala biklalot chavat arat kaunim. This rule about not stopping an aliyah in the middle, and therefore the next aliyah picks up at that point, to the callot only applies to the callot in vayikra, which is interesting because, again, the callot in vayikra are much milder. Aba kolot chavishnae torat posek, meaning this sabat, theoretically, kornobiyye, you could stop shishi in the middle of the callot, and call the next guy up, and pick up at that point. My tama, what's the reason? Halaa lul bushanurabim amurot, meaning the ones in vayikra are all in the plural. Imba kokotai tim asu. Vashimotihit miktashihm, these are the curses. I will destroy your miktash, miktashihm. The plural, the miktashihm of all of you, asu. And Moshemi pihagvuhra amaran. Moshe was saying that miktashihm of all of you, asu. And Moshemi pihagvuhra, meaning hasha was dictating it to Moshe what to say. Vahala lul, the ones in vayim, and this is a difficult line. Leshon yakhid amurot, even though there is muchud varim which is written in the plural, re'an okhinoten li fnehem, asu. But this bracha and qala are given in the singular. Vayayam shamuatishmah, vayayam lotishmah. Isha te arais vishah hai yushkavana. Karam ti tawvalotah kalana. They're all in the singular. Umo shemi pihagvuhra amaran. Moshe was saying it on his own accord. Now that line is difficult, and that's something we've dealt with in other shurim. But notice that abayye right away cuts to an essential difference between the tawakhah in vayikra, which he says is divinely mandated or divinely dictated, and is in the plural between the speaks to the whole community. In a sense it's a worse kalak as it applies to everybody. And the ones in vayim, which are Moshe's own words, again that difficulty with that, and they're said in singular as to speak in each person. And therefore it's keilo not as bad of a kalak. But I want to look at it not in terms of worse and better, but different. There's no question the tawakhah in vayim is different. Again, the scenarios described are much worse, much more horrendous. The language is so bad that two of the words are so vulgar that we don't use them, and instead we substitute them with milder words. Because we don't want to say the words the way that they're written, they're really just awful. But also that it ends up, the tawakhah in vayim ends up in a hopeless situation and in a full reversal of Jewish history. Going back to Egypt in boats to be sold and nobody's going to buy you as slaves. Think about that, as opposed to the end of vayikra. So Abayik kind of points us to an essential difference, but the differences are right there. So the question I'm going to ask again is, why is there a tawakhah? Why is there a second tawakhah? And why is the second tawakhah so much worse than the first? Hey, that's a one to go. So the first tawakhah ends with the following. (speaking in Hebrew) Notice that the first tawakhah doesn't have a summary pursuit that refers to the tawakhah. It puts it within the context of the laws. In other words, you have the laws that were given in Harsinai in Ohlmawaid, and those are in Safer vayikra. And that includes the karbanotah, that includes Tumagata Iran, which includes Kuchatamishkhan, and then includes Ariyotah, and then includes the Khadoshim Tiyu, passages about how we have to operate as a holy society, and then the Muadim, and then Shmitah, and Yovell, and Ev'ry, and everything else that's in Bahar. And then we have the end of the contract. The end of the contract is if you do what you're supposed to do. You'll have plenty, you'll live securely in the land. And if you don't, then you will have a stoppage of rain, and then you'll have to leave the land. You'll be exiled, the land will get respite from your not-observing Shmitah. But then I'll bring you back. And the end of that doesn't reference the tah-kha. The pashuk that we use to end that aliyah is, these are the laws. And as part of the laws is the tah-kha. If you take a look here at the end of our tah-kha, which is in Source 7, the last pashuk is Eilid de Vrayabrit, meaning these are the words of the covenant. And what's even more fascinating is that the tah-kha in the Kitavo references the tah-kha and bhukotai. Besides the brit that you signed in Arsena, here's another one. Which strengthens my question, number two, which is, why is there a second tah-kha? But notice the second tah-kha is a tah-kha, and is referred to as such in its own code of pashuk. And then it references the first one, but the first one doesn't call itself a tah-kha. It says, hey, let me just vote. These are the laws. The laws include the laws that you're supposed to do, and the consequences for not doing it. And then you're being brought back and all fine and well. Yes. Yeah. Is the audience the same? Yeah, good, exactly. So that's what I want to get to. So Jason brings up what is going to be the beginning of a mafteach to solving this, which is that the audience is different. But that itself should not make a difference, because then make the argument that each generation needs a tah-kha. And by the way, that doesn't happen. Yoshua does warn the people before he dies, but what will happen if they don't follow the law. But it's much more of a straight. If you don't follow the law, then Hashem is going to turn against you and your enemies will be victorious. And if you maintain a law, then you'll be fine. Just like Hashem says just long after he builds the mafteach, that's kind of a standard practice. Nothing like this, which means that just to say it's a new generation isn't enough. Because then you should need it each time. So I think that the answer lies in looking at the nature of the generation. And in hypothesizing, what would have happened without what we commonly call chaitamurah going? In other words, what would have happened had the generation that was born into slavery, and was witnessed, it's yet mitzrayim, and was present for kriyat yamsuf, and was there when the mon started to fall, and was there when Amalek was defeated, and was at Harsini form matantarah, had they been the same people to enter the land, how things would have played out differently. So let's take a look. When we cross yamsuf, we wander for three days, and we end up in a place where there's water, but the water is stagnant. And Hashem shows Moshe a particular stick, and he throws the stick into the water, and the water gets sweetened, and everybody drinks it. And then Hashem gives the following command, or the following directive relating to this event, Valyomar, in Source 4. Yim shammuatu shmala kaladonayl wa'a'cha. By Hasheb'inav tazevas, tazevas, antalimit wa tawashama takohukhab. Meaning if you are obedient to the laws, then kolha makhalash asantivimitraim loasimallah. All of the afflictions and diseases that I put on the Egyptians I won't put on you. Now, why is that a particularly meaningful statement? Because these people a couple weeks ago were there. And these people, over the last few months, saw and experienced makhalot mitraim. Now, that's if we read makhalot mitraim as the makhot. There's another way to read it, but that's the standard way to read it. These are people who themselves experienced it. If you move ahead, I put it in Source 3 because it's more central, but it's really later on in the Torah. But Hashem summons moshah up to Hasheb'inah. And He essentially offers baines throughout the breed. Which, if you think about it, is a little bit strange because the premise of Itziyat mitraim was the breed. The promise was, "Votziyat mitraim" "Itzaltiyat mitraim" "Itzaltiyat mitraim" "V'lakaktiyat mitraim" which is the breed. But the breed's got to be open, ended meaning, got to be entered into voluntarily. So it offers the breed. Now, watch how He couches the invitation. Atemri Item. Go on top of the next world of the following. Atemri Item, "Asharasiti le mitraim." You yourselves saw what I did to mitraim. "V'asyait moshah moshah mitraim" "V'laktiyat mitraim" "I brought you on eagles wings to me." "V'yatah" "Inshamu'atishmumma kolishmah kolishmah temmaim" "Briti." So now, if you maintain my breed, "V'tem lis schulami" "Kolami" "You'll be a treasure to me from all the nations." "Kiliki'lah" "Rets the whole world belongs to me." Now, the statement "the whole world belongs to me" we can see is the theological truism. Fine. But to these people, the whole world belongs to me is an experiential moment of we have experienced ourselves that the whole world belongs to Hashem. Hashem entered mitzreim. And Hashem in mitzreim turned everything upside down, absolute control over everything. The whole world belongs to Hashem. And therefore Hashem is the one who is now offering us a breed and if we accept that we will be his treasure among the nations. Now, "tem to you" "lima" "machat kolim" "Briti kolishmah kolishmah kolishmah kolishmah kolishmah kolishmah kolishmah kolishmah kolishmah kolishmah kolishmah kolishmah kolishmah kolishmah kolishmah kolishmah kolishmah kolishmah kolishmah kolishmah kolishmah kolishmah kolishmah kolishmah kolishmah kolishmah kolishmah kolishmah kolishmah. And as a result of that, I'm like to contend, there is no need for a tahkah. There is no need for a tahkah because the people have a very simple layout. They see what happened to the Mitzream. They experienced it. They saw it happen to their neighbors. They saw it maybe even happening to some of their own fellows who did not go along for the ride. So that experience is internalized for them. And so notice that the breath at Harsi Na'i is not called a breath at Harsi Na'i. It's called a la hookim amish patim. Hashem basically says, "You saw what I did to Mitzreim. Are you interested in being part of this?" "Yeah, absolutely. We're signing on. We want to be with you wholeheartedly." And this is when Hashem, Mosheh says, "You guys want to do what Hashem says?" He says, "I should be rather than I now said." Because you can imagine taking a page from the morale. It's almost impossible to imagine saying no after that experience. And that experience is more than just a momentary experience. It is something that marks who they are permanently. Now again, who are they? They are people who are born into slavery. And I don't care how bad the slavery was or how mild the slavery was. A lot of different ways of looking at how we understand up to Mitzreim. But it did involve infanticide that we know. So it was horrendous. And they saw this huge, powerful state get taken down by their God. And they saw this leader, who they knew was one of ours, but it came out of the desert, time after time after time slapped down the Egyptians to the point where the demigod, king of the Egyptians, in the middle of the night comes down to their campuses to get out of the country. Take all your stuff with you. You got whatever you want. Write your own ticket. Go. That has to leave a powerful, unerasable impression on the people. They don't need a tachahat. What do they need? So after we get all of the Mitzvot and Safa Vayikrah, they're told the land you're coming to is a holy land. And just like you have six days of work and a seventh day of rest of Shabbat, the land has six years of work and a seventh year of Shabbat. It's called Shabbat-la-Sham, Shmita. And then you have Yovil, which has its own special character to it. And not only that, but in the context of the Shmita and Yovil cycle, there's a way that you have to treat each other, which is to lend to the poor and not to lend with interest. And if somebody sells himself to you as a slave, you have to treat him. And if he sells himself to an angu, you have to redeem him, et cetera, et cetera. There's a whole fabric of interpersonal Mitzvot that arises as a result of the specialness of this land. And the very next thing that we hear is, and if you follow all these Mitzvot, everything works together. The land works for you. And you have made the successful and challenging transition from slaves in Egypt to masters in the land, master residents in the land, not owners. Nobody owns the land. Shev owns the land, master residents in the land. If on the other hand, you come into the land and you abuse the land, then you're going to have to leave the land, and then you'll come back and you'll continue. Not at all. We move on. The one weak point in this whole picture is that these are people who are fundamentally afraid. They are afraid of anything outside of the picture. The picture has been very comfortable. They have the cloud, they have the food, they have the oases that they're brought to, they have... All of this is taken care of for them, but there's a fundamental fear of actually going out on their own. And that belongs to a whole discussion about Chaita Meragli. And however we develop that idea, that's the one sore point. And so when that fear raises its head, when it gets to the point where we're supposed to now finish this job, finish the sequence, arise from slaves is Egypt and now as master residents in the land, that's where they fall down. And so as a result of that, just like the promise was if you mess up in the land, you'll be removed from the land and then you'll be brought back, now you messed up outside of the land, you can't go into the land, the next generation will come in. It's symmetrical. But now who's that next generation? And that's the critical difference. And that's what Jason asked before. Who's the next generation? It's a generation that was born free. It was a generation that was born in the desert. They did not experience it yet, we try and personally and now experience it personally. They did not experience Matan Torah personally, which is why Moshe has to say to them, when he does the repeat of the assert that he wrote, he says, it wasn't just them. It was also you and it was also the future. Take a look in Source 9. Now notice what he says. Meaning not doesn't mean he didn't make the breach with our fathers, it didn't only make the breach with our ancestors, with our parents. It's also we who are here today. But I want you to understand that's a Hidush. That's not obvious. That the breach that Hashem made was a breach that also impacts on the next generation. Not just because they signed a contract. Why am I bound? But because they are the people he took out of Mitsrayim. They are the people who came to Arsena, who said not Semenishma. We're not part of that. And the Hidush's issue are part of that. Because when they signed it on, they signed it on perpetuity. And so, therefore, when we come to Parshat Nitzavim, or just before the breach, we see that Moshe says to the people, here we are. If you have any questions, I would like to answer them. When the people see the destruction in the land and your exile, what are they going to say? These people left the breach of their ancestors. Ashar Karateimam, both Siyotam and Arsenaim. What breach did he signed on with them when they left Egypt? That's the real breach. Now, notice this generation also gets a breach. What is that? "Atemnitsimimayom," source 8. "Kuchemnishma. If you have any question, you are all here. You are all here. You are all here, you are all here, you are all here, you are all here, you are all here. You are all here, you are all here, you are all here." To include you, to have you now enter a breach. I don't understand. Didn't you just get through saying that the breach that we signed on Harsini was for us too? Why do we need to enter a breach? Why do we need a second breach? And then Valoitte come about to come and Arsenaim, and this is what cuts down to what you asked before Jason. Moshe says, "I am not just signing this breach with you. I am not signing this breach with you." The breach that I am signing with you today, in our von Moab, with the generation before Moshe dies, is a breach that goes in perpetuity. That's the question. If the breach we signed at Harsini was in perpetuity, then why do we need a second breach? And if each generation needs to sign a new breach, then Pasukkia Dald doesn't make sense, which is the breach I am signing with you now, the next generation will get their own, instead of saying this is forever. I think the reason is because the idea, the image was, Hashem took us out of Umitraim and made a breach with us, and that breach was forever. I had that generation, been the generation to go in, it would have been a breach forever. It doesn't mean it would have been perfect. It doesn't mean it wouldn't have violated. It doesn't mean it wouldn't have been an exile. But that breach would have been forever. There would have been no need for it. Because of Chaitam, what we call Chaitamarguim, because of the people's fear and more than reticence, but refusal to engage the enemy and to go into the land, as a result of that, the Tokchai gets moved backwards. Instead of coming into the land and then being exiled, we are pre-exiled from the land. And the next generation comes in, but the next generation needs a very different kind of breach. A breach given to people who didn't personally experience all of those things. And that can last forever. And therefore, Moshehir can say, kiyyat asheishna poi manayom, vait asheinna poi manayom. And those words ring true forever. The breach that Moshehir sign did, I don't know, I was the breach that works for us also. There's not a need for each generation to have it. But the Chidush was, there was a need for a second breach because the generation of the first breach wasn't the generation entering the land. And I believe that once you start looking at the details of the breach, and then you look at the song, which is all about that breach coming to its realization in a sad way, which is much of hazino is like that, you realize that the entire terms of the relationship between Asana Kauraj Baruchu, that the fundamental change in that relationship happened at Chaita Moraglim. Not at Chaita Ego, and not at some of the other rebellions, but at Chaita Moraglim when we refused to enter the land. And that meant that the original plan of vahot satiyyatrem, vitzal satiyyatrem, vigal satiyyatrem, immediately followed with viveititrem, couldn't be realized. And then there was a need for a second breach, which would have a very different kind of nature to it. And as a result of that, of course, led to really a torra, which then, in retrospect, makes the breach. At Harsinai, the terms of it also are breach, which is now what's referred to Milvada Breit, Ashacharati Tam de Chlorayv.
