Our parsha details the mitzvah of the brachot and klalot at Har Grizim and Har Eval. Listing the shvatim that are to stand on each mountain, the Torah says "Eleh ya'amdu levarech et ha'am," and "Eleh ya'amdu al haklala". Why the difference? Should it not have said either "levarech et ha'am" and "lekakel et ha'am"? Or one can understand that it is not appropriate to state "lekalel et ha'am", so why not "al habracha" and "al haklala"?

The Kli Yakar states that the brachot would certainly come about, but that the curses would only come about if the Jewish nation did not listen. So there was no doubt about the "levarech" part, but there was about the curses, so the Torah could not state that they would definitely curse the Bnei Yisrael.

A second question is tha tat the beginning of Parshat Re'eh, the Torah begins describing what is to happen at Har Grizim and Har Eval, while going into greater detail in our parsha. But in Re'eh, the Torah states "Et Habracha asher tishme'un…" and "Vehaklala im lo tishme'un…". Why the difference here as well? Either "Asher" in both places, or "im" in both places.

Here again, the same answer applies. A bracha was a certainty, so we knew that the Jews would listen to the Torah. And "Asher tishme'un", when you listen, then you will get the brachot. But the curses are not a certainty. They only apply "if you don't listen", which is what the Torah says.

Chazal learn this from the story of Avraham and Eliezer. When Eliezer approached Avraham to ask whether his daughter could marry Yitzchak, Avraham's answer was "Ata Arur, Ubni Baruch" - you are cursed, and my son is blessed, "Ve'ain arur Midavek BeBaruch", and a cursed one cannot become attached to a blessed one. From this we learn that the curses mentioned at Har Eval were not a certainty for a nation that was blessed at its source.

A third question is that once the lineup of the shvatim is related, why are only the klalot described in the Torah? The Torah lists "arur…" numerous times. Yet Sforno states that for every "Arur", the levi'im also recited a corresponding "Baruch". Why are these not listed?

The Gemara in Kiddushin 39B states that if a person has the intention to do good, but through forces beyond his control he is prevented, Hashem considers it as if he actually did what he intended. But if a person has the intention to do evil and through forces beyond his control he is prevented, Hashem does not consider it as if he actually did what he intended. He considers good intentions as if the act was done, but does not consider bad intentions as if the act was done. But if a person committed an aveirah repeatedly, then it is as if the person already considers that aveirah to be permitted, and then Hashem does attach the intentions as if he committed the act.

So why is this the case?

Rabbenu Yonah in Sha'arei Teshuva A, says that the soul of a Jew belongs in its very identity to the good. A good thought is part of the Jew's identity, and it is natural that this thought will be put into action. Therefore, even if there were forces working against the implementation of the thought, and it was not actually acted upon, Hashem considers the thought as if the act had already been done. However, does not match the identity of the Jew. As long as such a thought has not been put into action, Hashem does not consider it as having been done. For instance, a person who is known as a great tzaddik, who says to someone else, "I will kill you," can be assumed to be joking. But if a person acts and repeats an even action, making it as if it was permitted - i.e. a part of his nature - then this action is a part of his identity and Hashem attaches the thought to the action and judges the thought as if it was an action.

Proof of this is brought in the declaration made by a person bringing Bikurim. He starts off by relating "Arami Oved Avi" - An Aramean destroyed my forefather. We know that Lavan never laid a hand on Yaakov, so why does this declaration claim that he destroyed him? The answer is that Lavan wanted to destroy Yaakov and uproot everything that would come from Yaakov. He chased after Yaakov to do just that, but Hashem told him not to touch Yaakov. Yet Lavan's intentions alone are sufficient for the Torah, and for every Jew who ever brought Bikurim, to claim that he did destroy Yaakov.

We also see by this reference that the soul of a non-Jew is different from that of a Jew. It does not belong through its identity to what is good and straight in Hashem's eyes.

One of the main differences between the Bnei Yisrael and the rest of the nations is the difference between the whole and the individual. The quote "Tzedaka Teromem Goy VeChesed Leumim Chatat" describes this difference. Tzedaka lifts up a non-Jew. It is not within that person's nature, but when he acts with kindness toward another person, when he connects to a community, he is lifted beyond his nature. In fact, emphasizes this quote, kindness is almost like a sin for him. It runs contrary to his basic nature since it involves a measure of responsibility for another person that is alien to the non-Jew.

How is this connected with our closeness to Hashem?

Hashem is the "Melech Malchei Hamlachim" - the king of all kings. Yet the Hebrew word for king, Melech, has the same letters are the word "Kulam" - all. The King is only defined by his subjects. There is no king without a nation. The kingdom is defined by the general wholeness of the population, not by any individual person among the subjects.

The Torah was given specifically to the Jewish nation and not to any other, because the Jewish nation was a nation as a whole, while the other nations are made up of individuals. The Gemara in Yevamot says that Hashem is close to an individual only during the Aseret Yemei Teshuva, but He is close to the Jewish nation "whenever we call on Him".

In next week's parsha, the Torah says "Hanistarot Lashem Elkieinu Vehaniglot Lanu Ulevanenu Ad Olam", that hidden things are in Hashem's realm, while revealed things are for us and our children." Rashi says that this pasuk refers to the story at Har Grizim and Har Eval, and that with this pasuk, the Jewish nation were made responsible for each other. The blessings and curses were the act that made the Jewish nation responsible for one another, according to the Gemara in Sanhedrin 42B.

Yet this only applies to things that are revealed - the Niglot. What is done in private no one knows about, so no one can be an "arev". The curses in our parsha are all things that are done behind closed doors, where no one else can see. In such cases, no one can warn those committing the aveirah, so no one else is responsible for the act.

When the Jewish nation accepted upon themselves to serve as areivim for each other, they also accepted that any person committing an Aveirah in private would be cursed - from Hashem - on his own, and that the rest of the nation would not bear his sin. That is why each of the curses is stated as "Arur Ha'Ish" - cursed is the man. Only the individual is cursed in such cases, not the whole nation.

This distinction is further emphasized at the beginning of Parshat Nitzavim: "Vehivdilo Hashem Lera'a Mikol Shivtei Yisrael…" "And Hashem will separate him from all of the tribes of Israel for the evil…" We see that it is the sinner who disconnects himself from the Jewish nation, and that he is punished on his own.

It is the middah of the Jewish nation that the person belongs to a nation, and that he has good intentions toward others. On this basis, he comes close to Hashem. There is no need for the Torah to enumerate the brachot that correspond to the klalot for individuals, because it is within our nature as Jews to fulfill these mitzvot with good intentions and actions. The curses were emphasized for those who go against this nature.