Blessings and Curses – Over Which Commandments/2

Blessings and Curses

Exegetical Approaches

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

Laws of Shemittah and Yovel

The blessings and curses relate only to the laws of Shemittah and Yovel mentioned in Vayikra 25.

Sources:RashbamShemot 12:1Vayikra 25:1Vayikra 26:46Bemidbar 1:1Bemidbar 3:1About R. Shemuel b. Meir

Context – As the blessings and curses immediately follow the laws of Shemittah and Yovel, it is logical to link the two.  Rashbam points out that Vayikra 25:1 ("וַיְדַבֵּר י"י אֶל מֹשֶׁה בְּהַר סִינַי ") and 26:46 ("אֲשֶׁר נָתַן י"י...בְּהַר סִינַי") serve as bookends that bracket the unit.

Points of contact – There are many points of contact between the blessings/curses and the specific commandments related to Shemittah and Yovel:

• Explicit mention of "שביתת הארץ" – Besides allusions to idolatry, the only commandment that is specifically identified in Chapter 26 as leading to calamity for non-observance is that of letting the land rest.  The root "שבת" appears numerous times in both chapters,¹ reinforcing the connection.² 
• Emphasis on the number 7 – Throughout the rebuke there is an emphasis on a "seven-fold" punishment.³  This might be taken as an allusion to the seven year cycle of Shemittah, and hint to a measure for measure punishment for not observing the holiness of the seventh year.

• Linguistic parallels – In the description of the blessing of Chapter 26 there are several linguistic allusions to Chapter 25's promises of prosperity to those who keep the Sabbatical year:⁴

EN/HEע/E

(כה:יח) וַעֲשִׂיתֶם אֶת חֻקֹּתַי וְאֶת מִשְׁפָּטַי תִּשְׁמְרוּ וַעֲשִׂיתֶם אֹתָם	(כו:ג) אִם בְּחֻקֹּתַי תֵּלֵכוּ וְאֶת מִצְוֺתַי תִּשְׁמְרוּ וַעֲשִׂיתֶם אֹתָם
(כה:יח) וִישַׁבְתֶּם עַל הָאָרֶץ לָבֶטַח	(כו:ה) וִישַׁבְתֶּם לָבֶטַח בְּאַרְצְכֶם.
(כה:יט) וְנָתְנָה הָאָרֶץ פִּרְיָהּ וַאֲכַלְתֶּם לָשֹׂבַע	(כו:ד-ה) וְנָתְנָה הָאָרֶץ יְבוּלָהּ... וַאֲכַלְתֶּם לַחְמְכֶם לָשֹׂבַע
(כה:כב) וַאֲכַלְתֶּם מִן הַתְּבוּאָה יָשָׁן	(כו:י) וַאֲכַלְתֶּם יָשָׁן נוֹשָׁן
(כה:לח) אֲנִי י"י אֱלֹהֵיכֶם אֲשֶׁר הוֹצֵאתִי אֶתְכֶם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם	(כו:יג) אֲנִי י"י אֱלֹהֵיכֶם אֲשֶׁר הוֹצֵאתִי אֶתְכֶם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם

Why are Shemittah and Yovel singled out? According to this position, Shemittah and Yovel are two of the most fundamental commandments.⁵ They require and instill a tremendous amount of faith in Hashem and simultaneously serve a very important interpersonal role.  As such, they merit blessings/ curses for their observance.  For elaboration on the significance of the commandment see Purpose of Shemittah.

"אֵלֶּה הַחֻקִּים וְהַמִּשְׁפָּטִים וְהַתּוֹרֹת" – According to Rashbam, the words "הַחֻקִּים וְהַמִּשְׁפָּטִים" in this conclusion can parallel their usage in Vayikra 25:18 and 26:3 where they also refer to the laws of Shemittah and Yovel.  He could suggest that "חֻקִּים" refer to the laws of Shemittah/Yovel that concern man and God, while "הַמִּשְׁפָּטִים" refer to the interpersonal laws, such as the prohibition against deception and the laws regarding buying and selling of land and slaves.⁶ The term, "הַתּוֹרֹת", however presents a significant difficulty for this position as none of the laws of Vayikra 25 can easily be referred to as a "תורה."

"?מה עניין שמיטה אצל הר סיני" – According to Rashbam, the introduction, "וַיְדַבֵּר י"י אֶל מֹשֶׁה בְּהַר סִינַי", simply comes to teach where the laws of Shemittah were given, just as similar headings provide the locale for other legal passages.⁷  Rashbam maintains that the Torah is sharing that, in contrast to other laws of Sefer Vayikra, the laws of Shemittah were not given in Ohel Moed, but previously, on Mt. Sinai.  As such, the unit of Chapters 25-26 is out of place.

Why are these mitzvot mentioned here? Rashbam does not explain why the chapters are written here, if their proper place is in  Sefer Shemot.  He might suggest that since the end of the rebuke focuses on the possibility that the nation might be kicked out of the land, the Torah decided to record it prior to their intended entry.

Relationship to Covenant of Shemot 24 – Rashbam does not address the issue and could suggest that the two are distinct. While Shemot 24 was a covenant related to the laws of Mishpatim, given prior to Moshe's ascent, Vayikra 26 is a rebuke over Shemittah and Yovel alone and might have been first commanded during Moshe's ascent to receive the tablets. See R. Yishmael 19:10About Mekhilta DeRabbi Yishmael Shemot, however, who identifies the two events, raising the possibility that the "סֵפֶר הַבְּרִית" of Shemot 24 comprised Vayikra 25-26.⁸   This would further strengthen the question of why the unit is disconnected from its natural place and put in Vayikra instead.

Comparison to ceremony in Devarim – According to this approach, the blessings and curses of the two books are not parallel.  Vayikra focuses on the observance of only one set of laws, while Devarim speaks of the Torah in its entirety.  Rashbam might explain that at Mt. Sinai, Hashem spoke of only the most fundamental laws since, regardless, all had not yet been given to the people, and observance of one of the most difficult laws might have ensured observance of the rest.  In Devarim, once the whole Torah was given, Hashem simply made a covenant on all.

"לְבִלְתִּי עֲשׂוֹת אֶת כׇּל מִצְוֺתַי לְהַפְרְכֶם אֶת בְּרִיתִי" – The references to "all" my commandments is somewhat difficult for this approach  which assumes that the rebuke refers to only one set of laws.  It is also unclear what "ברית" is referred to.

Variation of this approach – R. Ze'ev Whitman⁹ suggests a variation of this approach, that the blessings refer not only to the laws of Shemittah and Yovel in Chapter 25, but also to the laws related to idolatry, Shabbat and the Mikdash, mentioned in 26:1-2.  [This explains their otherwise odd placement.]  He suggests that these four laws together are foundational ones, and as such, deserve their own rebuke.¹⁰  As support, he points out that each is alluded to specifically in Chapter 26¹¹ and claims that these same areas of law are the subject of the covenant (אמנה)¹² made in the time of Ezra-Nechemyah.¹³

All Laws Given on Mt. Sinai

The blessings and curses refer to all of the laws that are explicitly mentioned as being given at Mt. Sinai, including those commandments found in the Parashot of Yitro, Mishpatim, and Behar.

Sources:Ibn EzraVayikra 25:1Vayikra 26:46About R. Avraham ibn Ezra, RambanVayikra 25:1About R. Moshe b. Nachman

"אֵלֶּה הַחֻקִּים וְהַמִּשְׁפָּטִים וְהַתּוֹרֹת" – The terms "הַחֻקִּים וְהַמִּשְׁפָּטִים" can easily refer to the various mitzvot in Yitro, Mishpatim or Behar.¹⁴ Though these sections do not contain any ritual procedures that could be termed "תּוֹרֹת", this position could suggest that the term refers to the laws of sacrifices (תּוֹרַת הַחַטָּאת, תּוֹרַת הָעֹלָה) discussed in Vayikra 6-7 which are also said to have been given on Mt. Sinai.¹⁵  According to this variation, the blessings and curses were given regarding the laws of Shemot 20-23, Vayikra 6-7, and Vayikra 25.

"אֲשֶׁר נָתַן י"י... בְּהַר סִינַי" – According to this position, the verse is coming to teach that the rebuke was given only on those laws that were given at Mount Sinai, and excluded those which were commanded later at the Tent of Meeting.

"?מה עניין שמיטה אצל הר סיני" – According to these sources, the location marker teaches that the chapter is achronological. The laws of Shemittah, like the blessings and curses which follow, were commanded at Sinai, before the other laws of Sefer Vayikra which were only given after the Mishkan was constructed.

Relationship to Covenant of Shemot 24

• Connected – Ibn Ezra links the two chapters, suggesting that Vayikra 26 was part of the covenant of Chapter 24.  Right after Revelation, Hashem made a covenant on all the laws initially commanded.¹⁶  It is possible that Shemot 24 describes the covenant itself, while Vayikra 26 comprises its appendix, in the form of blessings and curses over its observance. This reading strengthens the question of why the two units are not placed together.
• Distinct – Ramban, in contrast, suggests that Vayikra 26 comprises a distinct covenant.  After the Sin of the Golden Calf, the people's actions annulled the original covenant of Shemot 24, necessitating a second one.  When Moshe ascended the mountain the second time,¹⁷ Hashem commanded him to renew it,¹⁸ and made it more stringent by adding blessings and curses.

Placement of the unit

• Technical reasons– Ibn Ezra maintains that the verses are placed out of order for technical reasons. Hashem wanted to unite all the passages which speak of the conditions required to live in the land.  Since violating the prohibition of both illicit relations and Shemittah results in being evicted form the land, the two units were juxtaposed.¹⁹
• Ordered according to transmission to the nation – Ramban suggests that the chapters are written not according to the order in which Hashem commanded the laws to Moshe, but based on how Moshe relayed them to the nation.²⁰  As soon as Moshe descended from the mountain after attaining forgiveness, Moshe relayed the laws of the Tabernacle (which he had received during his first ascent).  He waited for its completion before renewing the covenant, but in the meantime, Hashem introduced new laws relating to the Mishkan and priestly sanctity.²¹

"לְבִלְתִּי עֲשׂוֹת אֶת כׇּל מִצְוֺתַי לְהַפְרְכֶם אֶת בְּרִיתִי" – According to this position, the covenant which Hashem speaks of can refer to that in Shemot 24.

Comparison to ceremony in Devarim – According to Ibn Ezra, the the two ceremonies are parallel, each containing a covenantal aspect and blessings/curses over observance of all commandments given until that point.  The summary statement "אֵלֶּה דִבְרֵי הַבְּרִית... מִלְּבַד הַבְּרִית אֲשֶׁר כָּרַת אִתָּם בְּחֹרֵב" which compares the two supports this reading.

Content of Blessings/Curses – This position would suggest that the fact that Hashem speaks about general observance of mitzvot (כׇּל מִצְוֺתַי) throughout the blessings/curses, suggests that it was made over an entire corpus of law and not just just over Shemittah.  Nonetheless, it might agree that Hashem chose to focus more on the laws of Shemittah due to its challenging or fundamental nature.

All of the Mitzvot

The blessings and curses are dependent on the observance of all of the mitzvot.

Sources:Sifra Vayikra25:126:46About the Sifra Vayikra, RashiVayikra 25:1Vayikra 26:46About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki, RalbagVayikra 25:1Vayikra 26:46About R. Levi b. Gershom, SefornoVayikra 25:1Vayikra 26:46About R. Ovadyah Seforno

What about commandments not yet transmitted? These sources disagree regarding whether the blessings/curses were given even on commandments that were not yet relayed to the Children of Israel, or only on those that the nation had already received: 

• Everything – The Sifra and Rashi assert that the covenant covered the entire Written and Oral Torah.
• Through Vayikra 25 – Ralbag and Seforno, in contrast, maintain that the blessings and curses only refer to the laws already relayed, everything from Parashat Yitro through Vayikra 25.

"אֵלֶּה הַחֻקִּים וְהַמִּשְׁפָּטִים וְהַתּוֹרֹת" – These sources differ in the way they understand these terms, consistent with their disagreement regarding how inclusive the covenant was:

• The Sifra and Rashi  explain that the plural form of the word "הַתּוֹרֹת" refers to both the Written and Oral Torah, while "הַחֻקִּים וְהַמִּשְׁפָּטִים" refer to various types of commandments.²²  Together they comprise the entire body of Law.  It is not clear, however, why all three terms were needed, if the word "הַתּוֹרֹת" subsumes the others.
• Ralbag maintains that "מִשְׁפָּטִים" refers to the commandments of Parashat Mishpatim, while "חֻקִּים" include the non-intuitive laws of Sefer Vayikra,²³ such as the laws of holidays, purity, and Shemittah. "הַתּוֹרֹת" are the ritual procedures of Sefer Vayikra, such as the laws of sacrifices which are prefaced by the terms, "תּוֹרַת הָעֹלָה" ,"תּוֹרַת הַמִּנְחָה" etc.²⁴  As such, the terms refer to all the commandments given from Parashat Yitro through Parashat Behar.

"אֲשֶׁר נָתַן י"י... בְּהַר סִינַי"

• According to these sources, all of the commandments, with all details of their observance, were given when Moshe ascended to get the Tablets at Sinai. Thus, this phrase does not come to exclude commandments that were given again elsewhere, but simply states that all of Torah was transmitted to Moshe at the mountain, and that the rebuke refers to all.
• Seforno and Ralbag could have alternatively explained that the verse is not limiting itself to laws given when Moshe ascended Mt. Sinai, but refers to all laws given in the vicinity of Mt. Sinai, whether on the mountain, or in Ohel Moed at its foot.²⁵

"מה עניין שמיטה אצל הר סיני" – These sources need to explain why Vayikra 25:1 would specify that Hashem told Moshe about Shemittah at Sinai, if this is not unique, as everything else was taught there as well.  Sifra, Rashi, and Seforno²⁶ answer that the verse teaches that not only did Hashem teach generalities at Sinai, but He also explained all the minutiae of every law at the same time.²⁷

Chronology of Sefer Vayikra – Since this position does not read the phrase "בְּהַר סִינַי" to be in contrast to "the Ohel Moed",²⁸ it does not need to posit any achronology when passages said there appear in Torah after passages said in the Tent of Meeting.  As such, it can assume that the entire book is chronological and that Vayikra 25-26 is in its rightful place.

Why bless and curse now? Since at this point in the narrative the nation is about to enter the Land,²⁹ it is an appropriate time to motivate the nation to keep the commandments.

Content of Blessings/Curses – Throughout the blessings/curses, Hashem does not specify individual commandments that need to be observed,³⁰ but speaks in more general terms, saying "אִם בְּחֻקֹּתַי תֵּלֵכוּ וְאֶת מִצְוֺתַי תִּשְׁמְרוּ" and the like,³¹ which might suggest that He is speaking about observance of everything.  Similarly, the warning "לְבִלְתִּי עֲשׂוֹת אֶת כׇּל מִצְוֺתַי" could be brought as proof that that Hashem is referring of all of His commandments.

Why include all mitzvot? It is natural to make a covenant on all of Hashem's laws, as all commandments would seem to equally require warning of punishment/reward.

Relationship to covenant of Shemot 24 – According to these sources, the two ceremonies are totally distinct:

• Rashi asserts that the covenant of Shemot 24 took place before Matan Torah,³² and only referred to the seven Noachide laws and the handful of commandments that the people had received at Marah.³³  It is first in Vayikra that a covenant is made over the complete Torah. 
• According to Ralbag and Seforno, in contrast, the covenant of Shemot 24 was made over the laws of Shemot 20-23 (Parashat Yitro and Mishpatim).³⁴  Vayikra's ceremony took the nation a step further, warning them to observe not only these, but all the laws given since then as well.

Comparison to ceremony in Devarim

• Rashi views this ceremony as being exactly parallel to that in Devarim 28-29, as both were all inclusive.³⁵ According to him, each time the nation found itself on the eve of entry into the land, Hashem made a covenant over all of Torah to motivate observance.
• For Ralbag and Seforno, the covenant in Devarim moved beyond that in Vayikra, as it included all the new commandments given in the intervening 38 years.  According to them, each of the three ceremonies (Shemot 24, Vayikra 26 and Devarim 28) was based on the same premise, to warn the nation to observe all that had been commanded. They differed only in that each covered more laws than the previous one, since more had been relayed.

¹ In Chapter 26: 34-35 the word comes up six times in relation to letting the land rest, and the same root is used once to connote settlement on the land: "אָז תִּרְצֶה הָאָרֶץ אֶת שַׁבְּתֹתֶיהָ כֹּל יְמֵי הׇשַּׁמָּה וְאַתֶּם בְּאֶרֶץ אֹיְבֵיכֶם אָז תִּשְׁבַּת הָאָרֶץ וְהִרְצָת אֶת שַׁבְּתֹתֶיהָ. כׇּל יְמֵי הׇשַּׁמָּה תִּשְׁבֹּת אֵת אֲשֶׁר לֹא שָׁבְתָה בְּשַׁבְּתֹתֵיכֶם בְּשִׁבְתְּכֶם עָלֶיהָ".  In verse 43, as well, the root appears in the same context, "וְהָאָרֶץ תֵּעָזֵב מֵהֶם וְתִרֶץ אֶת שַׁבְּתֹתֶיהָ בׇּהְשַׁמָּה מֵהֶם".  Not surprisingly, in Chapter 25 as well, the root appears throughout the opening verses which speak of the mitzvah of Shemittah.

² undefined

³ See Vayikra 26:18, 21, 24 and 28, where variations of the phrase "וְיִסַּרְתִּי אֶתְכֶם אַף אָנִי שֶׁבַע עַל חַטֹּאתֵיכֶם" occur.  See R"Y Grossman, "פרשיות בהר-בחוקותי - 'נספח אחרון' למעמד הר סיני " who notes this point.

⁴ See E. Emanuel, "שבת הארץ כביטוי לרצון ה' בבריאה", Megadim 23 (1995): 36, who notes these parallels.

⁵ See SefornoBereshit IntroductionAbout R. Ovadyah Seforno in his introduction to the Torah, who asserts that the observance of these specific laws will merit the inheritance of the land.

⁶ See Ramban Vayikra 25:18About R. Moshe b. Nachmanand Seforno Vayikra 25:18About R. Ovadyah Sefornoon Vayikra 25:18 who apply the terms in this manner and R. D"Z Hoffmann Vayikra 18:4About R. David Zvi Hoffmannon Vayikra 18:4 who defines the terms "חק" and "משפט" as laws between man and God or man and man.

⁷ See RashbamShemot 12:1Bemidbar 1:1Bemidbar 3:1About R. Shemuel b. Meir on Shemot 12:1, Bemidbar 1:1 and Bemidbar 3:1 where he consistently points out that Hashem marks the location in which all legal sections of Torah were commanded, differentiating between those given on Mt. Sinai, in Ohel Moed, in Midbar Sinai etc.

⁸ undefined

⁹ See his article, "שמיטה ומקדש", Megadim 3 (1987):9-19.

¹⁰ He does not explain, why, if they are equally important Shemittah and Yovel are discussed in more than 50 verses while they are mentioned in only two.

¹¹ See verses 30-31 which reference idolatry and the Mikdash, and verses 34-35 which speak of Shemittah, and perhaps Shabbat.  It should be noted, however, that the Mikdash is mentioned only as part of the people's punishment and not in reference to their observing related laws.

¹² R. Whitman points to Nechemyah 10:31-34.  These verses do mention Shabbat, Shemittah and the Mikdash but are only tangentially related to idolatry in that they speak of intermarriage.  Moreover, it is likely that Nechemyah picks these laws not because he sees them as fundamental, but becase these were the laws being transgressed in his time period.

¹³ R. Whitman's approach faces the same difficulties as that of Rashbam: understanding the phrase "הַתּוֹרֹת" in the summary verse of Vayikra 26:46, and explaining the achronological placement of the chapters.

¹⁴ Whether one understands the terms like Rashi, to refer to intuitive and non-intuitive commandments, or like R. D"Z Hoffmann, to refer to laws between man and man or man and Hashem, these passages contain a wide enough array of laws that they cover all the possibilities.

¹⁵ See Vayikra 7:37-38

¹⁶ According to this, when the verse states that Vayikra 26 was commanded "בְּהַר סִינַי", it means before Moshe went to get the Tablets

¹⁷ According to him, then, the phrase "בְּהַר סִינַי" refers not to Moshe's first ascent but to his second.

¹⁸ See Shemot 34:10 and Shemot 34:27.

¹⁹ This is a fairly weak explanation, especially considering that other laws are placed between those of illicit relations and Shemittah.

²⁰ See Abarbanel who explains similarly but assumes that the original covenant of Chapter 24 was never annulled and Vayikra 26 does not constitute a new covenant, but more simply blessings/curses over the original one.  These were first mentioned to Moshe when he ascended the mountain to get the Tablets.

²¹ Though Ramban does not explain the placement of every law, one might take his general premise and explain as follows: Since laws of priestly sacrifices (Vayikra 6-7) were necessary for the Mishkan's inauguration, those were relayed immediately, and accompanied by the general sacrificial laws relevant for the nation (Vayikra 1-5). [The latter were recorded first, perhaps. because that is most logical for future generations].  Though the covenant could have been renewed at this point, the unforseen death of Nadav and Avihu on the eighth day, necessitated another entire corpus of laws (chapters 11-24) relating to guarding the Mishkan and priests.  Only after all these matters were taught, did Moshe renew the covenant with the blessings and curses of Vayikra 26.

²² In his comments to Bereshit 26:5, RashiBereshit 26:5About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki explains that "חֻקִּים" are laws like kashrut, which had they not been decreed, no one would have naturally observed on their own since the reasoning behind them is unclear.  On Shemot 15:25, RashiShemot 15:25About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki suggests that "מִשְׁפָּטִים" simply means laws in general.

²³ Ralbag appears to understand the term in a manner similar to Rashi above, claiming that "חֻקִּים" refers to commandments which demand an action which a person, through his intellect alone, would not have concluded was necessary.

²⁴ See R. Akiva in the Sifra26:46About the Sifra Vayikra as well.

²⁵ This is one possibility raised by RambanVayikra 7:38About R. Moshe b. Nachman to explain the term in Vayikra 7:38.  According to this reading, however, it is not clear why sometimes the Torah would use one term, and sometimes another. 

²⁶ Ralbag explains differently.  Since the passage immediately preceding the laws of Shemittah dealt with the blasphemer and took place after Moshe's descent from the mountain, the Torah tells the reader that the laws of Shemittah were not given after this incident, but also while Moshe was on the mountain.

²⁷ This is learned from Shemittah because it is mentioned in Shemot 23 in a general way, but elaborated upon in Vayikra 26, where it specifies that this elaboration took place at Sinai.

²⁸ See point above.

²⁹ It is only due to the sin of the spies that entry is delayed for forty years.

³⁰ The only two exceptions are allusions to the nation's idolatry and explicit mention that lack of observance of the laws of Shemittah will lead to the future desolation of the land.  See Rashbam below who notes the latter and concludes that all of the blessings/curses refer only to the laws of Shemittah and Yovel.

³¹ See Vayikra 26:3 and 15.

³² He assumes that the events of Chapter 24 actually occurred alongside those described in Chapter 19.

³³ He asserts that the "סֵפֶר הַבְּרִית" that Moshe wrote at the time comprised Sefer Bereshit through Matan Torah.

³⁴ They maintain the choronology of the verses and assume that Chapter 24 occurs where it is written..

³⁵ See Hashem's words there, "אֵלֶּה דִבְרֵי הַבְּרִית... מִלְּבַד הַבְּרִית אֲשֶׁר כָּרַת אִתָּם בְּחֹרֵב."  Rashi asserts that the covenant at Horev refers to our chapter (even though it never says explicitly that this is a covenant) and could suggest that Hashem is comparing the two because they played the same role.