The organization of parsha of Vaetchanan seems disjointed. Although the parsha commences with Moshe explaining that he will not be allowed to enter the land of Israel, it is largely a retelling of the revelation that took place at Har Sinai. However, in the middle of relating the Sinai revelation, we have a break with the first person narrative and the Torah tells us of Moshe setting aside three cities of refuge on the east bank of the Jordan. Why this disrupted structure?
First, we have explanation: At the very outset of the parsha (3:26), Moshe tells us that Hashem was displeased (or angry or wroth or enraged) at him for the sake of Bnei Yisrael (וַיִּתְעַבֵּ֨ר ה’ בִּי֙ לְמַ֣עַנְכֶ֔ם). (This statement is in relation to Moshe’s incessant prayer to be allowed into the land. In 4:21, Moshe will speak of not being allowed into the land.) Here, Moshe is not blaming Bnei Yisrael for what occurred, but explaining that his not being allowed into the land demonstrates that—although Hashem may forgive—actions still have consequences. Thus, Hashem’s displeasure with Moshe benefited Bnei Yisrael by teaching them an important lesson. Moreover, this fact—that Hashem both punishes and forgives and gives mankind the ability to choose their own path—is a testimony to Hashem’s greatness. This serves as an introduction to recounting the revelation at Har Sinai which not only was the greatest manifestation of Hashem’s power but set forth the Aseret Hadibrot which encodes all the 613 mitzvot.
Yet, before repeating the Aseret Hadibrot, there is the seeming aside concerning Moshe establishing three cities of refuge. This information is not part of Moshe’s speech but is once again a third person recitation by the Torah. With this digression, the Torah is making for us the point that punishment can be mitigated—and sin avoided in the first instance—by the study of Torah. The cities of refuge were Levite cities and, as such, centers of Torah learning. No better place existed to isolate the manslaughterer while providing spiritual reinforcement than in a city filled with Levites, whose sole calling was the service of Hashem. Only after reminding us of Torah’s power to influence our development are we invited to reexperience the theophany.
The second—or alternate or additional—purpose of the parsha’s structure is exculpation. As noted, at the parasha’s outset Moshe tells the people how he prayed to be allowed into the land. Moshe relates Hashem’s response that he, Moshe, was to no longer pray for permission to enter the land. The rabbis tell us that this statement should have been a hint to the people. Although Moshe could no longer pray to be allowed into the land, the people could pray on his behalf and obtain Moshe’s goal. Sadly, the people failed to pray.
The people did not willfully refuse to pray for Moshe, but simply lacked the spiritual capacity to perceive the need to pray. Although the people were not deserving of punishment, they need both to know of their failing and to receive spiritual reinforcement and reeducation. Thus, the placement at this point of Moshe establishing cities of refuge conveyed a message that the people’s failure to act for Moshe was of the same accidental nature that would force a person to a city of refuge. Relating Moshe’s creation of these east bank cities was, among other things, a subtle message to the people that he bore them no ill will. The failure to pray came from a spiritual deficit—just as the manslaughterer had a spiritual deficit that needed succor which the Levite cities could provide.
The parsha’s structure thus provides explanation and exculpation. This parsha reminds us of not just the consequence of not listening to Hashem—but of His power as experienced at Har Sinai—a power that is also manifested in His willingness to exculpate. The parsha contains a message of forgiveness and of hope. This is exactly what we need in the wake of Tisha B’Av and with Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur looming before us. May spiritual strength and forgiveness be granted to us all.
William S.J. Fraenkel received a Bachelors of Arts in Religion and a law degree from NYU and served as a Board member and officer of several orthodox shuls. The opinions expressed in this dvar Torah are solely his own.
