ייִדישער מחשבֿה אויף ירמיהו 31:37

If we interpret the above to mean that Israel will be physically unable to break the covenant of its forefathers, the fact that throughout the ages large segments of our people have always defied the rules of the Torah, is mystifying. Also, if we cannot contravene the laws of the Torah physically, what about the concept of free will upon which the entire system of reward and punishment is built? Again, if G'd feels compelled to threaten retaliation for nonobservance of His laws, there evidently cannot be a question of physical inability to transgress these laws! Furthermore, if G'd had the power to make us live up to the covenant, threats of chastisement seem pointless. From all the above, we feel that it is clear that the matter of the oath needs to be understood somewhat differently from the manner most commentators have presented it. We must also subscribe to the notion that the eternal existence of the Jewish people as well as their special status amongst the nations is not tied to the observance or non observance of the covenant, but rather that it is anchored in the very nature of this people, which will not change even when defying the covenant. Although the impulse for self-destruction is abnormal, unnatural, G'd has seen fit to legislate against the commission of suicide, assuming that such legislation might dissuade a few people bent on self-destruction. The rare phenomenon of wilful self-destruction does not undermine the will of the vast majority to remain alive. Similarly, the estrangement of the nation from its G'd cannot be brought about by the desertion of a few, since the bond tying it to its G'd is far too deeply rooted in history. The following parable will illustrate the whole subject more clearly. A certain highly intelligent and courageous young man who successfully confronted his less highly principled peers, became the object of his peers' hatred. They did everything to make the young man's life unbearable until the young man sought refuge at the King's Court. There he was placed under Royal protection. The young man thereupon concentrated his abilities and energies on performing a series of duties for the king, until the latter decided to grant him a special status in recognition of his selfless devotion. The king entered into an agreement with the young man whereby his special status would also extend to his descendants, on the understanding that such descendants would keep faith with the king, and would continue to perform the duties assigned to them. The young man was overjoyed by this generous offer, and accepted with alacrity. For several generations the descendants of the young man prospered and kept their part of their ancestor's bargain. The fifth generation, having become extremely wealthy, decided that the services rendered to the king had become too onerous, and refused to carry out the terms of the agreement their forefather had entered into. Their complaint was directed at their forefather, whom they accused of having committed them to a life of servitude to the king. They therefore claimed the right of self determination, and the freedom to decide for themselves whom they would recognise as their Master. The king was quite agreeable, pointing out however, that since the family's obligations were being terminated, so was his own undertaking to grant this family special protection against its natural enemies, and to ensure its continued affluence. As soon as all the former enemies heard about the changed relationship of that family and the king, they resumed harassing the family with devastating results. No one in their right mind would accuse the king of having punished that family. Everyone understands that whatever evil befell that family from that time on had been their own doing, that they had only themselves to blame. Applied to the Jewish people, the comparison is quite simple. Jacob, choicest of our ancestors, had incurred the wrath of Esau, the jealousy of Laban, the enmity of the Canaanites around Shechem, and had led a life of frequent upheavals, daily skirmishes until he took refuge under the wings of the shechinah. (Genesis 35,8) "The Lord who has answered me on the day of my distress." Because his way of life had found favour in the eyes of G'd, He assured Jacob of protection against his enemies, and this support continued throughout the generations, (see beginning of Parshat Vayetze) The promise was spelled out in detail at Mount Sinai, (Exodus 19,5) when the condition "now you must hearken to My voice and observe My covenant etc" was made a prerequisite for this continued protection and special status of the Jewish people. These conditions were further emphasized in Deuteronomy 26,15-19, when the reciprocal relationship between Israel and G'd is repeated in clear and unmistakable language. If subsequent generations would repudiate the deal made by their ancestors by worshipping idols and other acts of disloyalty to their erstwhile king, then the ill fate that would befall them could not be described as punishment by that king. On the contrary, they would be considered the architects of their own misfortune, especially, since G'd is on record as withdrawing the special status this people had enjoyed heretofore. The crucial aspect of the eternal nature of the covenant is, that just as mass suicide committed by a whole people simultaneously is unthinkable, so the alienation of the entire Jewish people from its Torah and its G'd simultaneously, is equally beyond the realm of possibility. When the Talmud in Shabbat 88, discusses the coercion used by G'd in order to get the Jewish people to accept the Torah at Sinai on pain of immediate burial under the Mountain, Rabbi Acha bar Yaakov raises the issue of the validity of acceptance under duress. This issue is raised concerning the people standing at the foot of the mountain. How much more would this question apply to later generations who had not even been present on that occasion! Those later generation who had not experienced liberation from bondage in Egypt, had far less reason to accept the Torah out of a sense of gratitude for their deliverance! The argument in the Talmud is turned aside by a reference to the Jewish people accepting Torah completely voluntarily at the time of their deliverance from the threat of extinction by Haman. That acceptance is deemed binding for all future generations. That so-called voluntary acceptance was induced by the realisation that if G'd were to forsake them, their very existence would come to an end, as had been demonstrated by their experience with Haman. The latter had almost succeeded in wiping out a nation that had considered itself both secure and emancipated. When the wording of the covenant in Parshat Nitzavim stresses that the covenant did not only apply to the generation of the Exodus, but to all subsequent generations, the reference to the generation of the Exodus teaches that even that generation did not have to accept Torah out of a sense of gratitude, but rather because Torah had become a natural habitat for the Jewish people, just as water is for fish or blood for the body. "She is a tree of life to those who support her." (Proverbs 3,18) Just as G'd had promised never to bring another deluge, since conditions would not be allowed to recur which would call for such mass extinction, so conditions allowing a total rupture between Israel and its G'd would also not be allowed to recur. This is what the oath in our Parshah wishes to convey. Jeremiah 31,16, quoted earlier, describes a situation which is possible in theory, since all physical phenomena have measurable finite dimensions. Since the effort in actually taking those measurements is mind boggling, so is the idea of G'd despising the entire Jewish people. Isaiah 54, 9-10, may be understood in a similar vein.

(8) According to some, the promise that Abraham and Sarah would sire a child, made Abraham wonder if perchance Ishmael was destined to die, since otherwise his existence would have enabled G-d to fulfil His promise to Abraham to become the ancestor of a multitude of nations in a far more natural way. This consideration prompted Abraham to pray for Ishmael's continued existence. (6) When Abraham questioned G-d’s promise, his concern was legitimate, whereas when Sarah did so she had no such legitimate concern. Therefore, G-d criticized Sarah without criticizing Abraham. However, it is more likely that Abraham's remark was just as unseemly as Sarah's later, just as was that of Moses when he questioned G-d’s ability to feed all of Israel meat in the desert (Numbers 11,21). Since however, it was a day of glad tidings, a day on which Abraham had cheerfully accepted the commandment to circumcise himself, G-d did not want to spoil the occasion by criticizing him. Similarly, on the day the Torah was given, the leaders of Israel were not punished, although their conduct was deserving of punishment (Exodus 24, see Vayikra Rabbah 20). When G-d did criticize Sarah eventually for her similar lack of belief, He did so via Abraham. "Why does Sarah laugh?" (Genesis 18,13). He could have criticized Sarah without addressing Abraham on the subject. However, G-d wanted Abraham to get the message that he, too, had erred in a similar fashion on the same subject. (9) As it was, G-d’s answer was only meant to emphasize that Sarah deserved to bear a son. Ishmael's future was not in doubt at all. Abraham was to call the new son Isaac, as a reminder that he had considered his conception and birth as too amusing a flight of fancy to entertain seriously. G-d would let Ishmael become great, but the new covenant under discussion would be maintained with Isaac. (10) The statement that "G-d had finished speaking with Abraham" proves, that this whole vision had been of a superior nature compared to previous ones. This vision was more like the ones Abraham would enjoy from this point on, though in this instance we still find Abraham falling down due to the overwhelming impact of G-d’s Presence. The promptness with which Abraham carried out G-d’s commandment reflects the newly won awareness that he was as yet incomplete as a human being. Rabbi Berechya points out in Bereshit Rabbah 39 that in promising Isaac, G-d did not say, "I will place you," but rather "I will make you." This indicates a direct action on G-d’s part, similar to such actions by G-d during the creation of man. The meaning is "When I make a new creature out of you, be fruitful and multiply!" When G-d had made a covenant with Noach, the sign of which was the rainbow, He limited the power of the forces of water and assured the continued existence of man. He promised that the future of a nation based on Abraham and Isaac would be assured just as the future of mankind had been assured through the covenant with Noach. No matter what sins will call for retribution, the nation as a whole will not perish. This implies that Israel's character even amid persecutions due to its infidelity vis a vis the Almighty, will exhibit traits that will qualitfy it for eventual redemption.

To emphasize that the prophecies should be understood according to their simple meaning, Rav Yitzchak Abarbanel also cites Yirmeyahu’s prophecy concerning Jerusalem in the Ultimate Future, saying:³⁷Yirmeyahu 31:37-39. “ ‘Behold, days are coming,’ says God, ‘when the city shall be built… from the Tower of Chananel to the Corner Gate… and the entire Valley of the Corpses… as far as the brook of Kidron, to the corner of the Horse Gate toward the east, it shall be consecrated to God.’ ” Rav Yitzchak Abarbanel asks: The names of these places are well-known landmarks in the surroundings of Jerusalem. Can it be said that the names of these landmarks should be understood in any way other than their simple meaning?