111JJJ lil n11w1 - Israel Koschitzky VBM Parsha Digest, Year II, Parashat Ki Tavo 5780 Selected and Adapted by Rabbi Dov Karoll

Quote from the Rosh Each morning, in the second blessing that precedes the recitation of the Shema, we ask: "And pl ace in our hearts ins ight to understand and to grasp, to hear, to study and to teach, to observe (lishmor), to perform (la'asot) and to uphold (lekayem) all the words of the teachings of Your Torah, with love." The expression "to observe" means not transgressing negative commandments. "To perform" means carrying out the positive commandments. What, then, is the meaning of "to uphold"? Seemingly, the fulfillment of the Torah is made up of "observance" and "performance" - what else is there? The meaning of "upholding" can be understood in light of a verse that appears in our parasha: '"Cursed is he who does not uphold the words of this Torah, to perform them' - and all the people shall say, 'Amen"' (27:26), based on a Yerushalmi cited by the Ramban here ... . 'Upholding' the Torah means raising the banner ofTorah before those who disregard it, as the Yerushalmi teaches. It means reaching out to those who are distant from the values of the Torah and the Divine messages that it contains. Although the Ram ban demands this of the leaders, clearly every individual is obligated to uphold the Torah, in accordance with his level of influence. This is what we mean in our morning prayer: we ask God to give us, aside from our observance and performance of the commandments, the insight and perception necessary in order to 'uphold' the Torah . -Harav Baruch Gigi Parashat Ki Tavo The Burden of Opportunity

Based on a Sicha by Harav zt"I Based on: https://www.etzion.org.il/en/burden-opportunity Parashat Ki Tavo discusses the system of reward and punishment for Bnei Yisrael. Oddly, though, the introductory verses to both the reward (28:1) and the punishment (28:15) emphasize the need to observe "kol mitzvotav" - all of the mitzvot. According to these verses, reward is ours only if we observe every single mitzva. Who can achieve this level? Who is capable of observing every last mitzva? The parasha does not seem to take people's different capabilities into account. We would think that the Torah would make some accommodation for those whose capabilities are not up to the demands of the verse - and this for 2 reasons. First, we think of God's mercy; shouldn't those who are simply incapable be viewed mercifully? Second, what about justice? How is it just that those who have no means of achieving a task be punished for not doing so? We see these questions reflected in Chazal on both individual and public levels. On an individual level, the Gemara in Eruvin (65) addresses this issue. Rav Sheshet states in the name of Rabbi Eliezer Ben Azarya that he can exempt the entire world from punishment for sin after the destruction of the Temple, based on a verse in Yeshayahu which implies that the people are in a state comparable to drunkenness. Although the gemara there reinterprets that verse, the principle remains. On a broader scale, the Gemara in Berakhot (32) relates Moshe's pleas to God after the sin of the Golden Calf. Moshe excused Bnei Yisrael 's action as being caused by the gold and silver they brought out from Egypt. The school of R. Yanai explains Moshe's claim with a parable. If one were to raise a son, wash him, clothe him, feed him and then place him outside a brothel with a money bag around his neck, can one expect the son not to sin? Moshe's defense thus portrayed Bnei Yisrael as victims of their circumstances. We find this idea in modern scientific studies of penology and criminology. All has been predetermined for man; he has no real power to choose good over evil, but merely reacts to what he is and what has influenced him. Taken to one extreme, this deterministic view of life would mean that punishment would be meaningless on an ethical level, for how can we be responsible for something we cannot control? Rambam examines the deterministic view of life in HilkhotTeshuva. In his day, the deterministic worldview was expressed by astrology­ one's fate was written in the stars. In the chapter in which Rambam introduces us to the principle of free will (bechira chofshit), he discusses the foolishness of determinism. If man were really impelled to do good or evil, and lacked free will, what would be the point of the prophets' constant exhortations to do good? What would be the use of the Torah? What would be the use of reward and punishment? How can The Great Judge not dispense real justice? One of the most fundamental principles of Judaism is that we are all given a certain potential. Not everyone will succumb to temptation at the doorstep of the brothel. Our potential may be limited to one area, but within that area we are expected to succeed. The greatness that Reuven achieves may not be possible for Shimon. Conversely, the sins that Reuven may succumb to may be outside of the realm of possibility for Shimon. We may be limited and determined to a degree, but we also have our freedoms. It may be more tempting to focus on the fact that our potential and opportunities are limited - giving us less responsibility - than on the flip side of the coin. When we are given special potential to succeed, or enhanced opportunities to perform, more is expected from us. While someone placed at the doorstep of a brothel may be expected to succumb, someone placed at the doorstep of a beit midrash is expected to achieve. Chazal elaborate on this theme on both the individual and communal levels. The Mid rash on the verse "la'asot kol mitzvotav" offers a parable. Two men are sent to work the king's fields. One does nothing with his field, while the other grows trees - which he promptly cuts down. With whom is the king more angry, if not the man who grows and destroys? So too, those who have learned Torah but do not perform, anger God more than those without knowledge or potential. They do not live up to Divine expectations - an unsatisfactory situation on 2 levels. First, one who has learned and does not perform the mitzvot seems to spurn and disgrace the Torah. But there is another problem. Whoever has the potential and the opportunity but doesn't use them, is held more responsible than one who never had any conception of what was expected of him. Finally, the Yerushalmi in Sota questions the meaning of the verse (Deva rim 27:26): "Cursed be the one who does not uphold (literally, lift up) the words of this Torah:' ls it possible that the Torah can fall, and thus we need to raise it up? Rabbi Shimon Ben Chalafta says that this is referring to the earthly courts (beit din). Rabbi Asi in the name of Rabbi Tanchum Bar Chiya says, "[Whoever] learned, and taught, and guarded, and performed, and could have maintained ... he is cursed!" Those who have the opportunity have an obligation to strengthen Torah for the entire community at large. We, who live in a democratic community, where the very basis of power is distributed within the people as a whole, therefore have those responsibilities and obligations that would have fallen to other hands in earlier times. Since everybody has power in a democratic society, the responsibility to maintain Torah in the community rests upon us all. In Elul, where it is incumbent upon of all of us to perform introspection, we must recognize the opportunities given to us, the potential we have, and the realms wherein we can succeed. For bnei Torah especially, there can be no doubt that our obligations are so much greater because of the opportunities within our reach. These responsibilities may be weighty, and we pray that God will help us in our burden of achieving spiritual growth and moral success, both for ourselves and for the community as a whole. (Originally delivered at seuda shelishit, Shabbat Para shat Ki Tavo 5755 [1995]. Summarized by Moshe Kahan) Parashat Ki Tavo Gaining a Broader Perspective By Rav Elyakim Krumbein Based on: https://www.etzion.org.il/en/gaining-broader-perspective

Our parasha constitutes the transition between the main section of Sefer Deva rim, characterized primarily by its legislative quality, and the sefer's conclusion, which deals with more general, overarching issues: the blessings and curses, the prophetic song of Ha'azinu, and Moshe's death at Mount Nevo. Parashat Ki-Tavo opens with 2 mitzvot - bikkurim and the declaration of tithes (viddui ma'aser) - which, in effect, close the series of detailed mitzvot that we have been studying over the last several weeks. Why were specifically these 2 mitzvot chosen for the finale of this section?

2 In order to confront this question, we must review a central theme of Sefer Deva rim . One of the primary purposes of this sefer is to refute a mistaken notion that may have been erroneously inferred from the first 4 sefarim - a view of the Torah as a mere compendium of independent laws. The Torah could potentially be perceived as an anthology of many specific mitzvot with no unifying ideology, with no single force pervading its entirety and yielding the diverse, multifarious commandments. Parashat Ki-Tavo shifts our focus from the specifics of the practical realm to the generalities of the conceptual and emotional realm . For example, the mitzvot of the heart (such as love of God, fear of God, worshipping Him, "attaching oneself" to Him, the prohibition against believing that "My own power and the might of my own hand have brought me all this wealth," etc.) either appear exclusively in Sefer Devarim or, if they arise elsewhere, their major source of discussion is here. Only in Sefer Devarim is it emphasized that mitzvot must be performed "with all your heart and with all your soul." Only this sefer features emotional and philosophical illustrations of past events - "Only to your fathers was God drawn;" "He gave you manna to eat... in order to teach you that man does not live on bread alone;" "God was incensed with Aharon enough to destroy him ." These verses serve to lift the past events from the purely factual plane to the depths of the people's hearts and minds. The overarching message of Sefer Devarim involves the existence of a central, unifying theme that runs through the entire gamut of mitzvot. There is a single educational, conceptual line of thought that gives life to all the mitzvot, which themselves merely comprise the physical expression and application thereof. Therefore, as our sefer reaches the end of its lengthy enumeration of practical mitzvot, it sets forth 2 laws in which this educational-conceptual component clearly emerges. In its presentation of the mitzva of bikkurim, the Torah deals mostly with the emotional declaration which accompanies the bringing of bikkurim. This declaration expresses a sense of gratitude and appreciation to the Almighty. It is no wonder that this exuberant proclamation of "mikra bikkurim" was introduced into the Pesach Haggada, which may be seen as the central educational event in the world of Halakha. In both instances, we are obligated not only to know cognitively, but to feel and transmit the experiential significance of mitzva observance. A similar purpose is filled by the second mitzva of Parashat Ki-Tavo, viddui ma'aser. An individual does not complete his obligation by simply transferring the tithes to their rightful recipients. He must take advantage of the fulfillment of this mitzva in order to reap its spiritual, experiential benefits, derive the relevant religious messages, and strengthen his connection to his Creator. The performance of the mitzva presents the opportunity for one to pray to, and focus upon, the Almighty, which in turn will increase God's blessing upon the earth and its produce. Thus, these 2 mitzvot form the conclusion that teaches us about the entire section. The individual must penetrate beyond the religious act per se and reveal the spirit latent within the mitzvot. However, as we noted, these 2 mitzvot form not only the conclusion of the preceding section, but also mark the transition to the finale of Sefer Devarim and the Torah as a whole. The central topic of Parashat Ki-Tavo is the blessings and curses. These blessings and curses involve the establishment of a covenant between Bnei Yisrael and the Almighty: To enter into the covenant of the Lord your God, which the Lord your God is concluding with you this day, with its oath, to the end that He may establish you this day as His people and He your God, as He promised you and as He swore to your fathers, Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov. (29:11-12) We have reached the peak of the 40 years of nomadic wandering through the wilderness, 40 years of grueling religious training, during which "He gave you manna to eat... in order to teach you that man does not live on bread alone, but rather man lives on the words that proceed from God's mouth" (Devarim 8:3) . This lengthy, complex process of Bnei Yisrael's development into God's nation concludes on the day about which we read in our parasha. It is on this day that God fulfills His promise to the patriarchs: "to be for you a God, and for your children after you." Moshe captures the significance of this day immediately following the commandment of viddui ma'aser: The Lord your God commands you this day to observe these laws and rules .. . You have affirmed this day that the Lord is your God ... And the Lord has affirmed this day that you are His treasured people. (26:16-18) This day is one of historic perspective for the nation. The long, rigorous process of training has reached its culmination, and the atmosphere is filled with a sense of certainty that this intensive process, with all its highs and lows, with its successes and failures, will yield its fruits forever.

3 The closing chapters of Sefer Deva rim are replete with references to the eternal future. As Moshe addresses the people and brings them into the covenant with God, he looks out into his audience and sees not only the generation of the wilderness, but also "those who are not with us here this day:' He repeatedly refers to the future generations: "And later generations will ask - the children who succeed you ..." ;"... it is for us and our children forever:'The vision of the distant future characterizes the Song of Ha'azinu as well as Moshe's departing blessings to his nation. The Torah makes a point of engraving upon our hearts a vivid picture of historical perspective. Moshe stands atop Har Ha-avarim, the eastern banks of the Jordan River behind him, symbolizing the past, the generation of the wilderness and their experiences. Moshe looks ahead, to the west, which embodies within it the future, to which he is denied entry. This motif of historical perspective, which characterizes the final parshiyot of Sefer Deva rim, serves as the basis for the selection of the 2 mitzvot as the transition to the finale of the Torah. The ceremony of bikkurim calls for a look back into the past; the farmer bringing his bikkurim to the Temple was to see that day as the climax of a historical progression. In this sense, the day of bringing bikkurim parallels the day on which the mitzva of bikkurim was initially commanded. Similarly, the mitzva of declaring one's conferral of tithes involves the recollection of the previous 3 years. Only this proclamation relates to individual memories - "I have neither transgressed nor neglected any of Your commandments," rather than those of the nation as a whole. But the individual then continues by anticipating the future and what it holds for the community: "Look down from Your holy abode, from heaven, and bless Your people Israel:' Chazal refer to this mitzva as "viddui ma'aser," literally, "the confession of the tithe," a title that directly relates to the relevant mitzva of this season, the mitzva of repentance. The most basic prerequisite to the fulfillment of this mitzva is the ability to rise above one's daily affairs and look from a broader perspective at what has transpired and what can be anticipated for the future. The obligation of teshuva requires one to scrutinize his life's routine and to improve it. This demands a precise evaluation of oneself - where has my life taken me until now? How will it proceed and where will it bring me if I don't involve myself actively in charting its course? Chazal were keenly aware of the appearance of this concept in our parasha and its direct relevance to this time of year: Rabbi Shimon Ben Elazar said: Ezra instituted that Bnei Yisrael should read the curses in Torat Kohanim [i.e. SeferVayikra] before Shavuot and those in Mishneh Torah [i.e. Sefer Devarim] before Rosh Ha-shana. For what reason? Abaye said in the name of Resh Lakish: So that year will end together with its curses. (Megilla 31 b) We cannot see the curses simply as a phenomenon of the past, thus allowing ourselves to march calmly towards a secure future. These comments of Chazal demand that we internalize the need for an encompassing process of intense introspection, to alter the direction that has guided our lives heretofore. May we all heed the call and fulfill our responsibilities in this regard; may the year end together with its curses, and may the new year begin together with its blessings. (Translated by David Silverberg) Understanding the Shemoneh Esrei Shiur #19: Yerushalayim By Rav Ezra Bick Based on: https://www.etzion.org .il/en/19-yerushalayim And return with mercy to Yerushalayim Your city, And dwell within it as You have spoken, And build it shortly in our days as an eternal building, And establish within it quickly the seat of David. Blessed are You, Ha Shem, Who builds Yerushlayim.

A. TheText Two shiurim ago, in the context of "birkat ha-minim," I quoted the beginning of the statement of the Yerushalmi which places certain themes together in the Shemoneh Esrei. "One includes (the blessing) of heretics and of sinners in 'subdues the iniquitous' ... and (the blessing of) David in 'who builds Yerushalayim"' (Berakhot 4:3). The Yerushalmi combines what is for us the next TWO blessings, that ofYerushalayim and that of the restoration of the kingdom of David. This is clear from the "chatima" of this berakha in the Yerushalmi - "Blessed are You, HaShem, the God of David and builder ofYerushalayim:' We do not follow this practice. The Midrash Tanchuma (Korach) explains that, at some point, it was decided to separate the berakha of Yerushalayim from the berakha of David. The question is - why should they be together in the first place?The difference between the themes of the 2 blessings seems clear - one deals with the Presence of God in the holy city, the other with political redemption. Yet, there seems to have been a powerful inclination to combine them. One may argue that, in the end, they have been separated - so why belabor an archaic version that has been superseded? But, in fact, the mutual attraction of these 2 themes is so strong that even though the berakhot were

4 separated, we still mention the "throne of David" in the blessing of Yerushalayim - "and establish within it the seat of David" is the last line of the blessing of Yerushalayim. Given that the very next blessing will be devoted totally to David, this insertion indicates a deliberate refusal to divorce the 2 themes. We see here that Jewish tradition refused to have a berakha aboutYerushalayim without reference to the throne of David, while accepting a berakha about the restoration of the kingdom of David that lacks a reference to Yerushalayim. In other words, David is an essential element in understanding Yerushalayim, but not vice-versa. This shall be our starting point in analyzing both berakhot.

B. Spiritual and Political Jerusalem Our berakha opens with an appeal to God to "dwell within" Yerushalayim. Were indeed the 2 themes of Yerushalayim and David totally distinct, we would have explained this simply. The first berakha deals with a spiritual development, "hashra'at shekhina;' the indwelling of the Divine Presence in the world. Jerusalem is the seat of God's presence, which is a spiritual phenomenon, experienced mostly internally, a cleaving of the soul to God. "My soul thirsts for God, for the living God; when shall I come and appear before God?" (Teh. 42:2). This is Yerushalayim as the Temple, the place where Man meets God. The second berakha, on the other hand, has a political theme. David represents Jewish sovereignty, political independence, and national success. Kind David established the model of the Jewish kingdom, unified, powerful, and successful internationally. In other words, the first berakha is about God and His exile from Israel; the second is about the Jews, their exile from the land and their political disfranchisement. In traditional Hebrew terms, the first is about "galut ha-shekhina," the second about "shi 'bud malkhiot:' What, then, does the instruction of the Yerushalmi to include "David" in "Yerushalayim," and our partial following of this rule, mean? It implies that the concept ofYerushalayim is incomplete without political expression. The basic distinction between a spiritual sphere and a political one is false and misleading. If we ask for God's return to Yerushalayim and His resting His Presence there, the ultimate expression of that will be "and establish within it quickly the seat of David:' The proper plane in which God's presence is manifested is not the experiential sphere of the soul, but in society, in government, on the national level of the Jewish people. God is "present" among us not when we undergo a religious experience, but when Jewish political, social experience is fulfilled according to His will. The absence of Jewish sovereignty is, itself, the absence of the Divine Presence. One cannot divorce the Temple from Jerusalem as the capital of the Jewish kingdom. Historically and halakhically, the Temple was built in Yerushalayim only after David made it his capital. While David did not build the Temple, the Sages stress that he laid out the plans and acquired the land, even building an altar on the spot. Here I wish to repeat the one-sided nature of the relationship between the 2 concepts. The concept ofYerushalayim cannot be expressed without"the seat of David" being established within it. The opposite is not true. The berakha dedicated to political restoration can be recited without mentioning God's presence (though only AFTER we have recited the berakha ofYerushalayim), as we shall discuss in the next shiur. Now I am claiming that a discussion of Divine presence, spiritual fulfillment, and "hashra'at shekhina" is misleading if it lacks a prayer for the political expression of that ideal. The notion that the fulfillment of God's presence on Earth is bound up with the political success of the Jewish kingdom, has often confused those trying to understand Judaism, and some Jews have been ashamed of it. Separating the spiritual from the temporal is a deeply rooted idea in Christianity, and many modern Jews have also attempted to divorce them, who saw political power and aspirations as a base part of eschatological hope. Judaism not only unabashedly avows political hopes, but, as we have seen in this berakha, sees them as part of the spiritual fulfillment of the Shekhina. We are not ashamed that we yearn and hope for the "flowering of the plant of David" for its own, political benefits, but, even more openly we affirm that it will be the fulfillment of God's kingdom as well. God's presence IN the world is OF the world as well. To put it bluntly, if God is truly king, then David's seat must be established. The kingdom of Israel IS the kingdom of God.

C. The Whole Berakha Reading from the beginning, we can now clearly see the progression. 1. RETURN to Yerushalayim; 2. DWELL within it; 3. BUILD it as an eternal building; 4. ESTABLISH the seat of David. 1. The root cause of what is lacking in Yerushalayim is the absence of God. God has left, exiled Himself from Yerushalayim. Based on a series of visions in the prophet Yechezkel (Ezekiel), the Sages state that the Shekhina leftYerushalayim in 10 stages (Rosh Ha Shana 31 a). This

5 does not mean that God does not watch over the world, or that Divine Providence is not at work. It means something more spiritual - that the world does not reflect the kingdom of God. It is hard to translate this metaphor into something which can be understood in everyday terms. We believe that there is a difference between God ruling from afar and being within our midst, but this difference is not expressed in God's limited ability to act when He is far off. The difference is in the personal expression and bonding between ourselves and God. 2. If God returns to Yerushalayim, we pray that not only a closeness be established, but that Yerushalayim, our world, our city - a real city where real people live on this earth - be "His home:'The day that King Solomon finished the Temple, he asked the obvious question: I have built for You a house to dwell in, a settled place for You to abide forever.... Can it be, that God shall dwell on the earth? Behold, the heavens and the heaven's heavens cannot contain You; how much less this house that I have built! (I Melakhim 8, 13; 27) If King Solomon, the wisest of all men, knew not the answer to that question, then I shall not presume to even try. In some sense, it is true. It is God's will that this world, in all its imperfections, be the seat of His glory. He "dwells" among us. 3. But if that is true, then we do not mean this as a poetic metaphor. The world which reflects the glory of God looks different because of it. If God is to dwell in Yerushalayim, it shall be built, because the whole point of the mysterious union of God and the world is that the world in its physicality can be the abode of the Shekhina. Of course, God's majesty is not dependent on bricks or stones. But all too often, theologians' insistence on the spirituality of the kingdom of God is meant to convince us of its detached transcendence - they are trying to convince us to not try and establish God's kingdom in this world but to wait for it in another. By definition, Man, flesh and blood, works also in bricks and stone. There is spiritual meaning in bricks and stones, just as there can be God within the 4 walls of the Temple. Perhaps it is true that the angels make a better neighborhood for God - but God has chosen to dwell with us. The "city of man," bricks and all, IS the city of God. 4. If God dwells in the city of man, then He rules a city ruled by man. For we do know that it is not the architecture of the city that is the basis of the Shekhina, but the society of the city, the fellowship of men, the social structure where men transcend their egocentric loneliness to share and work together. Society is man transcending himself, and therefore worthy of supporting the transcendent God. When man first joined with another, the Sages said: If there be peace between man and woman, the Shekhina is between them. Jewish society is 2 things: men in union and fellowship, and God's law to guide them. That, aside from the benefits it confers, is first and foremost the ultimate abode of God.

D. Me'ein Chatima There is a halakhic problem with this berakha. As we learnt at the beginning of the series, the structure of a berakha requires that there be "me'ein chatima samukh lachatima," the line before the conclusion must sum up the theme expressed in the conclusion. When the 2 berakhot of Yerushalayim were joined, the chatima was also a combined one - "Elokei David u-bonei Yerushalayim:' If the 2 had truly been separated completely, the last line about David would have not existed, and the previous line would have been only "and build it shortly in our days as an eternal building," which would have been "me'ein chatima:' But by our adding the line about David to a chatima that is only "bonei Yerushalayim," we seem to be transgressing the rule. Indeed, Nusach Sefarad reverses the order of the last 2 requests, presumably for this very reason. The great scholar, R. Yoel Sirkes (the Bach), however, argues that the building ofYerushalayim is directed to being the seat of the throne of David, and this too is "me'ein chatima" (Bach 118). This is exactly the point I have tried to express.

E. "As You Have Spoken" "And dwell within it as You have spoken:'Why do we remind God that this is HIS plan? I am confident we could find Divine promise for most of the things we ask for in the Shemoneh Esrei if we tried. I believe the answer is what I have written above. On my own, I could not expect that God should dwell in Yerushalayim, on earth. If I were asking for something for myself, my mandate would be based on my need. I need food, so I ask for God's support. But by what right do I ask for God to dwell among us, where human logic states that He does not belong, nor can possibly be contained? The answer is - I do not know, but You have said that it is to be, that this is Your desire; and hence, it is also my desire. I ask for this thing BECAUSE You said it is the purpose of creation, because You have promised it. Blessed are You - You who build Yerushalayim, who builds His home among men, who chooses to rest His presence in our midst, within our society, in our city, the seat of David.

Editor's note: Despite the link between the berakhot, this series will resume with part 20, regarding Davidic reign, on Parashat Bereishit il:J.1\:l m:rnn, ;,:i,,n::,. To subscribe, or for comments, questions or sponsorship opportunities, please write us at: [email protected]

6