Parshas Va'eschanan contains the first parsha of Kriyas Shema. Next week’s parsha contains the second.
However, interestingly, the Mishna in Berachos asks why does Parshas Shema precede והיה אם שמוע?
Well, isn’t the answer obvious? That’s how they chronologically appear in the the Torah! You have Shema in Va'eschanan and V'haya Im Shamoa in Eikev, so what's the problem?
Tosfos asks this question and explains that the question is prompted by the fact that we have the third Parsha, which really precedes the other two in the Torah, in Shelach, and yet it is last. So, once it's out of order, obviously it was not the order of the Torah but some other order that chazal were sensitive to.
The other major Parsha is the Aseres Hadibros, The first dibbur is Anochi, which is debated whether it's even a mitzvah or not. It's not phrased as a command. Most mitzvos are phrased with an obligation or a prohibition. Do something or don't do something. Anochi is a statement. Chazal, noticing the language doesn’t sound like a commandment, give us a mashal. They say:
משל למלך בשר ודם שנכנס למדינה.
אמר לעבדיו גזרו להם גזירות.
Amar lahem: כשיקבלו מלכותי אגזור עליהם גזירות. Once they accept my malchus, then I will tell them what to do.
שאם מלכותי אינם מקבלים גזירותיי היאך הם מקיימים?
See Berachos 13a
Now, this mashal and nimshal are very, very strange.
It's true that today's day and age people are worried about being too assertive and offending people, or even legalities, which branch of government does it belong to, do we have the authority to do this?
Those are beautiful little games that we play. However, 2,000 years ago when this was written, the dynamic was different. The generals would report to the king: “there, we've conquered, you're in charge, you're the boss, tell them what to do.” And the emperor says, well ask them if they would like me to tell them what to do. I'm not aware that any event like that ever happened in history. So what's the mashal?
And what’s the nimshal? Hakadosh Baruch Hu is telling us what to do. Yes, we do have bechira and sometimes we fulfill Hashem’s commands, and sometimes we don’t. But, regardless, it certainly doesn't depend on us checking in and asking Hakadosh Baruch Hu if we think He ought to be our melech, or not. He's telling us what to do and the consequences are clear. So what exactly is the mashal and what is the nimshal? They both present a picture that seems to be not in line with reality.
Let’s be masbir.
We have a concept of being מקבל עול מלכות שמים and being mekabel ol mitzvos.
It’s strange because in every mitzvah there's an implicit קבלת עול מלכות שמים. In other words, if a person gets up and he does a mitzva that Hashem told us to do, he is implicitly saying that Hakadosh Baruch Hu is being mitzaveh him, is he not? And if a person transgresses, he’s stating that he’s not mekabel ol malchus shomayim. So isn't the practical aspect of קבלת עול מלכות שמים already implicit in the actions that the person does or doesn't do?
This is the Gemara's question. The Gemara's question is not about the order. Lama kadma doesn't mean we need to say both of them and why is the order this way? For that, the sequence in the pesukim would be enough. Rather the Gemara's question is why do we need this introduction of saying, I proclaim HKBH king and then do His mitzvos? I you do something because I tell you, then that automatically becomes a קבלת עול מלכות שמים as well. That’s the Gemara's question.
And what did the Gemara answer?
כדי שיקבל עליו עול מלכות שמיים תחילה ואחר כך יקבל עול מצוות
Berachos 13a
What’s the Gemara’s answer?
The Gra famously said the difference between Malchus and Memshala is Memshala means a kind of rule that is bal korchach, whether you like it or not. Whereas Malchus, is only beratzon, מלכותו ברצון קיבלו עליהם.
What is this critical difference that it needs a different word? Lashon Hakodesh is not rich in synonyms – this must express an essential difference.
The teretz is that Malchus is not another form of government. A melech provides the vision, the ideal of the kingdom. It’s not just the people, the subjects, checking boxes of what they’ve been commanded. It’s people trying to realize the ideal of the Melech.
Just like in a person himself: we have an idea, an ideal that we think of and then our body and even our mind work at realizing that idea. The body and mind act cohesively to express the ideal of the person.
One of the tell-tale differences between a malchus and a moshel is whether you only care to do the letter of the law or do you care to do the spirit of the law. The subjects of the moshel have no interest in the spirit of the law.
When a moshel goes in and imposes his laws, he may get compliance, but not an interest in realizing his vision. They will do whatever it is that I force them to do. That's the point of compliance. But I can't say it's an expression of an ideal. It’s not like they have real bechira. It's an expression of not wanting to get their heads lopped off, but nothing communicating an interest in the ideal. It's an expression of nothing.
But with a Melech, the king’s subjects use their bechira to align themselves with the vision, with the ideal, and they see themselves as a vehicle for expressing that ideal that Hakadosh Baruch Hu has put into the beriah.
Let's go back to that mashal that Chazal gave us. A king comes and conquers a place. If he is a Roman emperor and his desire is just to tax the people, or oppress them, or whatever, then sure, as soon as he has the upper hand, orders go out real fast and real hard and people comply because they've just been beaten into submission. No problem with that.
But that's why the staff came into the king and the staff said, okay, they're under control, shoot. And the king said, I'm not interested in getting stuff out of this. I'm interested in building my malchus. Meaning, I want the people to buy into my vision and want to express it. Unless they buy in, then this whole city or state only is just exercising compliance. That's what the mashal is. Not a Melech.
And if you look at the words of the Chazal: שאם מלכותי אין מקבלים גזרותיי היך מקיימין. The word mekayem means to fulfill something faithfully as opposed to doing. When a person does something, he does it. Mekayem means affirm. I affirm your gezeira as your gezeira.
Just like the brain gives orders to the body and the body fulfills them accurately and exactly the way I want my body to do it, then the body is being mekayem my seichel. So that was the king. The king said, I need you to be mekayem my gezeiros and if they're not mekabel the malchus, then those gezeiros are not being miskayem.
Chazal are pointing out there’s a flow from קבלת עול מלכות שמים to Ol Mitzvos. If you'll take a closer look at the 2nd parsha of shema, the ol mitzvos seems to be about consequences. If you do it, fine. If you don't do it, terrible. Mitzvos validate themselves, even without being viewed as part of a larger ideal. Mitzvahs are good for you, aveiras are bad for you. That's how we understand the whole mitzvahs, which is fine, but that's not what Hakadosh Baruch Hu wants. Hakadosh Baruch Hu wants an Ol Malchus Shamayim from which emanates an Ol of Mitzvos.
So Chazal say we need to have the introduction to mitzvos – and that is kabbalas Ol malchus shomayim.. Hiktima doesn't mean what came first, but Hiktima means we need to precede Ol Mitzvos with Ol Malchus Shamayim because that's really the intention of Hakadosh Baruch Hu.
On a practical note, it used to be historically that many movements were people who sort of drifted away from Yiddishkeit but they would retain at least a professed belief in faith and ideals of Judaism and God. HKBH wants kindness, and chessed, and so on. But when it came to mitzvos, they shrugged and said they can't do the mitzvahs, they don't feel like doing the mitzvahs, the mitzvahs are not so relevant. They bought into the ideal, but threw out the ol mitzvos.
Today we have a phenomenon where people feel the opposite. That they're obligated to do the mitzvahs and they might fulfill them, and yet they reject the notion that there’s something loftier. It's extraordinary! The argument sounds like this: “well, I'm doing everything I'm supposed to do, what's your problem with me?” These people do but there’s no sense of HKBH’s ideal, and they also feel a lack of idealism in their Yiddishkeit.
The mitzvos are an expression of HKBH’s ideal. I am fulfilling it as a way of establishing Hakadosh Baruch Hu's vision and chochma for the world. I’m not just checking boxes! I am sensitive to ensure that my ma’asei mitzvos correctly carry, correctly convey the ideals of malchus shomayim.
Good Shabbos!