Desire Forms Destiny

The possuk in Re'ah (12:5) says כי אם אל המקום אשר יבחר ה אלקיכם מכל שבטיכם לשום א שמו שם לשכנו תדרשו ובאת שמה.  On the one hand the possuk calls it the place chosen by Hashem, המקום אשר יבחר ה אלקיכם, but on the other hand the possuk says לשכנו תדרשו, you have to seek it out.  Is it chosen or must it be sought?  The Malbim says that even though the exact place of the Mikdash was notified through the navi, Dovid still attempted to find the place before the prophet came to him, for the לשכנו תדרשו, the desire, the seeking, is a prerequisite for receiving the message of the המקום אשר יבחר ה, the place notified by Hashem.

The Radak at the end of Sefer Shmuel says ובדרש: כל האלפים האלה שנפלו בימי דוד לא נפלו אלא ע״י שלא תבעו בית המקדש. והרי דברים קל וחומר: ומה אם אלו שלא היה בימיהם ולא חרב בימיהם נפלו על שלא תבעו אותו, אנו שהיה בימינו וחרב בימינו על אחת כמה וכמה. לפיכך התקינו זקנים ונביאים ליטע בפיהם של ישראל להיות מתפללים שלשה פעמים בכל יום: השב שכינתך ומלכותך לציון וסדר עבודתך לירושלם אכי״ר סלה.

The Gemarah Sukkah (41a) says מנא לן דעבדינן זכר למקדש א"ר יוחנן דאמר קרא (ירמיהו ל, יז) כי אעלה ארוכה לך וממכותיך ארפאך נאם ה' כי נדחה קראו לך ציון היא דורש אין לה דורש אין לה מכלל דבעיא דרישה.  In light of this Malbim, this is not just a nice idea to remember the Mikdash even in its destruction, but the way to rebuild the Mikdash is to be דורש המקדש, to express a desire to have it built (from a shmuz by R' Elefant.)  

The Chasam Sofer on the Gemarah Sukkah says that is why the redemption of the second Mikdash was incomplete, because there was no דרישה, there was no expressed desire from Klal Yisrael to rebuild the Mikdash and that is what the possuk in Yermiyahu is saying, ממכותיך ארפאך, you will have a healing from the destruction of the first Mikdash, but not a healing that proceeds the makkah, because there is no דרישה, there is no yearning to rebuild the Mikdash, hence it will merely be a temporary building.   

At the end of Massay the Torah instructs woman to marry within their own tribe so that if they inherit, they will not transfer the land to a different tribe, (36:7)  וְלֹֽא־תִסֹּ֤ב נַחֲלָה֙ לִבְנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל מִמַּטֶּ֖ה אֶל־מַטֶּ֑ה.  However ,the same point is reiterated to verses later, וְלֹֽא־תִסֹּ֧ב נַחֲלָ֛ה מִמַּטֶּ֖ה לְמַטֶּ֣ה אַחֵ֑ר.  The Or Hachayim asks why the repetion?  Furthermore, why the switch in terminology, מִמַּטֶּ֖ה אֶל־מַטֶּ֑ה to מִמַּטֶּ֖ה לְמַטֶּ֣ה אַחֵ֑ר?  The Rodamsker (cited in Divrei Chaim 2021 and 2019,) explains that the parsha was given due to the complaint of the tribe of Yosef that they would lose the land given to the daughters of Tzlafchad.  It was the desire of the tribe of Yosef to hang on to the land that caused the prohibition of marrying outside the tribe.  It was the desire that created the issur.  Says the Rodamsker, from this we are to understand that is it the desire that creates our hold over Eretz Yisrael and the Mikdash.  That's why it is called דביר ביתך - "לשון דבור שצריך לבקש מהש"י עליו להבנות במהרה וכל המתאבל על חורבן ירושלים זוכה ורואה בנחמתה כי כל האומר כן באמת בתפלה ולירושלים עירך ברחמים תשוב הנה פועל באמת זה למעלה על קירוב הגאולה כנ"ל."  So he says by way of derush the first possuk is the prohibition of marrying into another tribe and causing the land to move to another shevet, ממטה אל מטה.  The second possuk is telling us that from the prohibition one should take a message to feel the pain over the fact that the נחלה of Yerushalayim is now in the hands of "ביד האחרים הישמעאלי' היושבי' עליה בעוה"ר וצריך להתעורר בתשוקה להמשיך הדין הזה להתקיי' לא תסוב נחלה למטה אחר הם הישמעאלי' כנ"ל."  

Rav Solevetchik (Rishimos Shiurim on the Gemarah Sukkah) differentiates between laws of זכר למקדש intended to arouse mourning over the destruction of the Mikdash vs. the זכר למקדש of the Gemarah in Sukkah which is a זכר למקדש as a positive remembrance of the mitzvot as done in the Mikdash, not to remember the past but as a preparation for the future when the Mikdash will be rebuilt.   This זכר למקדש is a forward-looking remembrance, not about what was lost, but about what will be restored.  It’s not nostalgia, it’s anticipation.  However, in light of the above, it is understood that the point of the mourning is not to be stuck in the past but to awaken feelings of yearning and longing for the Mikdash which serve as preparation of building Mikdash, in the Rodamsker's words," כי כל האומר כן באמת בתפלה ולירושלים עירך ברחמים תשוב הנה פועל באמת זה למעלה על קירוב הגאולה."

A Life Of Beracha

רְאֵ֗ה אָנֹכִ֛י נֹתֵ֥ן לִפְנֵיכֶ֖ם הַיּ֑וֹם בְּרָכָ֖ה וּקְלָלָֽה אֶֽת⁠־הַבְּרָכָ֑ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר תִּשְׁמְע֗וּ אֶל⁠־מִצְוֺת֙ ה אלקיכם אֲשֶׁ֧ר אָנֹכִ֛י מְצַוֶּ֥ה אֶתְכֶ֖ם הַיּֽוֹם וְהַקְּלָלָ֗ה אִם⁠־לֹ֤א תִשְׁמְעוּ֙ אֶל⁠־מִצְוֺת֙ ה אלקיכם וְסַרְתֶּ֣ם מִן⁠־הַדֶּ֔רֶךְ אֲשֶׁ֧ר אָנֹכִ֛י מְצַוֶּ֥ה אֶתְכֶ֖ם הַיּ֑וֹם לָלֶ֗כֶת אַחֲרֵ֛י אֱלֹהִ֥ים אֲחֵרִ֖ים אֲשֶׁ֥ר לֹֽא⁠־יְדַעְתֶּֽם

Why does it say הַיּ֑וֹם, obviously it was that day?  In the קְּלָלָ֗ה form it says it as a the condition, לֹ֤א תִשְׁמְע, why does it not say that in the beracha form, merely as a fat, אֲשֶׁ֣ר תִּשְׁמְע֗וּ, why the change?  What is the beracha and kellalah, there is nothing mentioned here? 

Rav Hirsch says that the listening is not the condition for the beracha but that is part of the beracha itself.  A life rich of following the mitzvot of Hashem, a life enriched with order, meaning and G-dly service is a life of beracha.  The kellalah is that if one's life strays from the path of Hashem, one's life will be unfulfilled, empty, devoid of meaning. Rav Hirsch relates the word קללה to the word קל, light, no weight, a life without any weight, any depth.  That may be hinted to in the usage of the word הַיּ֑וֹם, the Torah is instructing that these berachot and klallot are not something merely in the future, in the afterlife, but thy will be present and found in one's life.  One who follows Hashem's path is walking in the path of beracha and the opposite for one who is not (see Kedushas Levi.)

Two Forms Of Atzeret

Parshat Pinchas (29:35) בַּיּוֹם֙ הַשְּׁמִינִ֔י עֲצֶ֖רֶת תִּהְיֶ֣ה לָכֶ֑ם כׇּל⁠־מְלֶ֥אכֶת עֲבֹדָ֖ה לֹ֥א תַעֲשֽׂוּ

Rashi - עצרת תהיה לכם – עצורים בעשיית מלאכה

Parshat Reah (16:8)  שֵׁ֥שֶׁת יָמִ֖ים תֹּאכַ֣ל מַצּ֑וֹת וּבַיּ֣וֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִ֗י עֲצֶ֙רֶת֙ לַי״י֣ אֱלֹקיך לֹ֥א תַעֲשֶׂ֖ה מְלָאכָֽה

Rashi - עצרת לה אלקיך -  עצור עצמך מן המלאכה

Presumably the intent of the Rashi is the same that Atzeret means to refrain from work, so why does he express it differently, in Pinchas, about Atzeret, he says you are restricted from working but in Reah, regarding Shevii Shel Pesach, he says keep yourself back from work?  

We have to look at the context of the parsha.  In Reah, the Torah is discussing them mitzvot of Pesach and says regarding Shevii that it doesn't have the mitzvah of korban or matzah but the only command for a person is not to do work, it is referring to the commandments on a person, עצור עצמך מן המלאכה.  It is a command on the gavra to refrain from doing work.  However, in Pinchas, the Torah is describing the kedusha of the day and the obligation of thee korbanot for the day.  Hence, Rashi explains the עצרת is a hagdarah in the day itself, the day has a kedusha which obligates one to be in a situation of being restricted from working  (Likutay Sichos volume 33 footnote 34.)

Outside The Boundary

 לֹ֥א תוּכַ֖ל לִזְבֹּ֣חַ אֶת־הַפָּ֑סַח בְּאַחַ֣ד שְׁעָרֶ֔יךָ אֲשֶׁר־י״י֥ אֱלֹהֶ֖יךָ נֹתֵ֥ן לָֽךְ

The Bechor Shor says והוא הדין לשאר קרבנות, אלא משום דכתיב: בכל מושבותיכם תאכלו מצות (שמות י״ב:כ׳) סלקא דעתך אמינא: מה מצה נוהגת בכל ארץ ישראל, אף פסח כן, קמשמע לן.  This is the opinion of Rashi Zevachim (114b) as well. 

The Rambam has a different opinion however.  He says (Korban Pesach 1:3)  וְכָל הַמַּקְרִיב אֶת הַפֶּסַח בְּבָמַת יָחִיד לוֹקֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים טז ה) "לֹא תוּכַל לִזְבֹּחַ אֶת הַפָּסַח בְּאַחַד שְׁעָרֶיךָ". מִפִּי הַשְּׁמוּעָה לָמְדוּ שֶׁזּוֹ אַזְהָרָה לַשּׁוֹחֵט בְּבָמַת יָחִיד אֲפִלּוּ בִּשְׁעַת הֶתֵּר הַבָּמוֹת.  He understands that the possuk is talking about korban pesach only.  

The backdrop of this Rambam is in Zevachim (114b) which says that the possuk is referring to the time of heter bammot and there is still an issur for the korban pesach to be shected.  Rashi understands the Gemarah is not a rule specific to korban pesach but is a din in all korbanot that are an obligation.  According to Rashi the possuk is telling us that the type of korban that is like a pesach, an obligation, can't be offered on a bammah, the heter of bammah does not apply to those types of korbanot.  However, the Rambam holds this is an issur unique to the korban pesach. 

Holy Averah

The Igra D'kallah in parshas Reah וירמוז עוד לא תעשון כן וכו' (דברים יב ד). על פי מה שאמרו רז"ל (נזיר כ"ג ע"ב) גדולה עבירה לשמה ממצוה שלא לשמה. והנה עבירה הגם שהיא באזהרת לא"ו מהש"י, עם כל זה כשיארע הדבר לשם שמים גדלה מאד מעלתו, כמו שידעת מענין יעל אשת חבר הקני, (צא ולמד מבנות לוט שהיתה כוונתן לשם שמים ויצא מהן חוטר מגזע ישי). וזה שרמזה התורה, ל"א, ר"ל מה שאתה מוזהר בל"א, היינו לאוין, תעשון כן לי"י אלקיכם, תעשון כזאת בעת יקרה לכם כוונת פעולה לשם שמים, כגון אסתר ויעל וכיוצא, אזי יהיה לרצון הפעולה ההיא בהכוונה הטובה לשם שמים, והבן.  He says a similar idea in this weeks parsha, Shoftim, וירמוז עוד ואתה לא כן וכו' (דברים יח יד). על פי מה דידוע (נזיר כ"ג ע"ב) גדולה עבירה לשמה וכו'. והנה הקשו הגדולים אשר בארץ הלא סגולת המצוה להשפיע טובות וישועות מאילן הקודש שורש מחצב המצוה, וסגולת העבירה להשפיע חרבות ושממה ויסורין ממקום תהו וצלמות אשר שם שורש העבירה, והנה מאין ולאין יבוא מפעולת העבירה, אפילו תהיה לשמה איך יבוא ממנה טובה. ותירצו כי באמת יבוא ממנה רעות, אך להיותה לשמה יושפע על ידי פעולתה רעות וחרבות לאומות העולם, וגדולה פעולתה בעשות נקם בשונאי הש"י וישראל, כן קבלתי מהקדושים אשר בארץ. וזהו כי הגוים וכו', אל מעוננים ואל קוסמים ישמעו בהצטרכם ללחום באויביהם, וכענין סיחון שלקח את בלעם הקוסם לקלל את מואב, וכן בלק שלח אחר בלעם. ואתה לא תצטרך לכל זה כי ל"א כ"ן נתן לך וכו', ר"ל נתן לך ל"א שהוא כ"ן, ר"ל לאוים שהם נכונים ויפים לפי שעתם בעשותם לשמה, ועל ידי כך תכריתו את אויביכם בעשות כל מעשיכם לשם שמים, והבן:

This idea can be found in the writing of his Rebbe, the Chozeh in Zikaron Zos parshas Pinchas:

 

Which can be found in the writing of his Rebbe, the Noam Elimelech in parshas Naso, ונראה כי בגמרא איתא "גדולה עבירה לשמה", וקשה מה זה שייכות אצל עבירה לשמה, וכי מי צוה לעשות עבירה שיהא שייך אצלה לשמה. אבל נראה דהאמת הוא כך, דהנה כל מה שברא הקב"ה בעולמו לא בראו כי אם להטיב לברואיו ע"י השפעות השפע מעילא לתתא, אלא שלזה צריך התערותא דלתתא ע"י מ"נ, וזה היה הכיון בנתינת התורה לישראל ובנסים ונפלאות שעשה עמנו, כדי שנאמין בו ית׳ באהבה ויראה, ונוכל לקבל טובותיו השפעה העליונה, נמצא השפע אינו כי אם ע"י הצדיק המשפיע, והצדיק אשר הוא רוצה להשפיע לבני אדם צריך הוא לדבק עצמו עמהם כדי להשפיע כל דבר הצורך לטובתם, כי מי שרוצה לעשות איזה טובה לחבירו אינו יכול לעשות לו הטובה בשלימות כי אם ע"י שידבק עמו באחדות גמור, וא"כ הצדיק צריך לדבק עצמו בכל ישראל כדי להטיב להם, ואיך הוא עושה עם הבעל עבירה חלילה, הלא אף שהוא בעל עבירה אעפ"כ צריך להשפעה ולחיות, ואיך יתקשר הצדיק עמו? לזה אמרה הגמרא "גדולה עבירה לשמה" שהצדיק עושה ג"כ איזה עבירה, אלא שהיא לשמה, ועי"ז יכול להתקשר עם הבעל עבירה ג"כ ויטיב לו ג"כ.  What is interesting is that he continues to give an example of Shaul Hamelech that should have ignored his conscience about killing the animals of Amalek and done the commandment of Hashem.  That is an odd example because his conscience went against the mitzvah and he had to ignore his conscience to fulfill the commandment of Hashem, not to violate it, so how does that prove his point? 

See more about this here.

A Personal And Historic Mission

We find a dichotomy in sefer Devarim where many of the parshiot are spoken to both the individual and community.  The well known parshiot of Shema contain this split with the first parsha said to the individual ושננתם, על ידך, בין עיניך while the second parsha is said to the community, ולמדתם, על ידכם, בין עיניכם.  Similarly in Reah, the message is spoken to the nation, רְאֵה אָנֹכִי נֹתֵן לִפְנֵיכֶם הַיּוֹם בְּרָכָה וּקְלָלָה  but in Nitzavim (30:15) a similar expression is expressed to the individual, רְאֵה נָתַתִּי לְפָנֶיךָ הַיּוֹם אֶת־הַחַיִּים וְאֶת־הַטּוֹב וְאֶת־הַמָּוֶת וְאֶת־הָרָע.  Again in Shoftim it says שופטים ושוטרים תתן לך, a communal obligation spoken to the individual.  We see that there are two dimensions to a person.  Every individual has their own private tikkun, their own mission, but one is also part of the community, a detail in history who has a page to complete in the ultimate history book.  This point is brought out by the Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom here. 

In the previous post the Sfas Emes was cited where he cites the Baal Shem Tov that when eats they are elevating the Godliness that exists within the food. There are different ways found in Chassidut as to how to explain this teaching of the Baal Shem.  The Sfas Emes views the sparks are inherently placed in the food and it draws food to the food so that it gets its tikkun.  Why is this specific person connected to this specific piece of food?  The Baal Shem לשיטתו holds that every action happens as part of the Divine plan.  The fact that this individual met up with this piece of food means that it is their neshema that is drawn to this spark. 

Other schools of Chassidic thought see the sparks in the food as an outgrowth of a breakdown.  In Keter Shem Tov 194 (cited in Baal Shem on the Torah Ekev,) it says the sparks in the food were planted by the בונה עולמות ומחריבן.  The breaking led to the sparks falling into the דומם חי וצומח  and it is the job of man to elevate them.  In this approach the elevating of the sparks in the food is viewed as party of the historical job of man to gather all the sparks sprinkled throughout the world.  One act of eating the food to elevate the sparks is part of the great chain of history to elevate all the sparks. 

The Rodomsker (Bechukosay) says the sparks of man’s sins get trapped in the food and therefore one is attracted to pick up the pieces of himself that became trapped in the world.  He views the desire of man to the find as the desire to fix him/herself.  This view puts the focus on mankind looking to fix themselves.  

These two approaches may reflect a generally different approach of different strands of Chassidut.  In Chabad the emphasis is placed (mainly) on man’s mission vis-à-vis making the world a Godly place.  Man’s mission is viewed as a detail in the wheels of history to come to the ultimate fruition.  The message of the Baal Shem of the sparks in the food is expressed as a form of fixing the world.  In Chagat Chassidut the emphasis is placed mainly on man’s job of perfecting himself.  Therefore, the teaching of the Baal Shem is taught as one perfecting themselves.  

The two go hand in hand.  קרבה אל נפשי גאלה, The Baal Shem (cited in Toldot Yaakov Yosef Shemini) teaches that the ultimate geulah depends on one redeeming their own soul.  One has a personal mission, ראה נתתי לפניך and a global mission, ראה אנכי נותן לפניכם (based upon this article.)

Expand Your Kedusha

The midrash comments on the possuk (12:20) כִּֽי־יַרְחִיב֩ י״י֨ אֱלֹהֶ֥יךָ אֶֽת־גְּבֻלְךָ֮ that there are times when Hashem goes further than one even wants.  Yosef would have been happy to merely get out of his servitude, but his was appointed as second to the king.  Klal Yisroel would have been happy to merely get out of Egypt, but they were also given riches.  What is the connection between these ideas and expanding boundaries?  The possuk says  כִּֽי־תְאַוֶּ֥ה נַפְשְׁךָ֖ לֶאֱכֹ֣ל בָּשָׂ֑ר, but the nefesh doesn't desire meat, the body does?  

The midrash (4:9) says וְאָמַרְתָּ אֹכְלָה בָשָׂר כִּי תְאַוֶּה נַפְשְׁךָ לֶאֱכֹל בָּשָׂר בְּכָל אַוַּת נַפְשְׁךָ תֹּאכַל בָּשָׂר (דברים יב, כ), זֶה שֶׁאָמַר הַכָּתוּב (תהלים קמו, ז): עוֹשֶׂה מִשְׁפָּט לַעֲשׁוּקִים נֹתֵן לֶחֶם לָרְעֵבִים ה' מַתִּיר אֲסוּרִים, מְדַבֵּר בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל.  What is the connection between eating and redeeming captives?  

The Sfas Emes (5634) explains from the Baal Shem Tov that a person elevates trapped sparks from within the food when one eats properly.  In Tehillim (107:5) it says רעבים דם צמאים נפשם בהם תתעטף.  The Baal Shem Tov translated as why is one hungry?  Because the sparks are concealed in the food and must be elevated.  That is why the Midrash compares this possuk of eating meat to redeeming captives for one redeems the captured sparks from within the food.  כי ירחיב ה את גבולך, the Torah gives boundaries of where kedusha must be contained.  In the parsha itself we have boundaries of the tamah and tahor animals.  To extend kedusha to the physical confines of the world one must extend the boundaries.  The גבולם  are expanded.  ואמרת אוכלה בשר, you want to eat meat, why? ואמרת אכלה בשר כי תאוה נפשך לאכל בשר בכל אות נפשך תאכל בשר, because your nefesh wants to access the sparks within the food.  Why the double expression?  The Sfas Emes (5656) adds אין ריבה אחר ריבה אלא למעט, the desire of the body is really just a cover up for the real desire for the meat which stems from the neshama. 

That is why the midrash brings the examples of going beyond the boundaries from Yosef becoming second to the king and Klal Yisoel obtaining wealth.  The midrash is highlighting that Klal Yisroel needs a bridge to connect, to extend the kedudha into the gashmiut of the world.  It is only because of that connection that one can elevate the sparks.  It is when one’s גבול is widened that one can elevate more. 

בנים אתם לה אלקיכם.  The Sfas Emes (5654 and 5664) says that the נשמה is the level of בן and the body is likened to an עבד. With that idea he explains the machlokes in KIddushin (36b) if we are considered בנים of Hashme even if we are not fulfilling his will.  A son is always a son, how can that level be lost?  The question is if the neshama still has dominion over the body for one who has sinned.  החכם עיניו בראשו, the wise man is guided by his neshama who's place is in the brain.  לא תשימו קרחה בין עיניכם למת, one should not lose focus of his mission because of the façade of the world which is called death.  The neshama comes to find the kedusha, to taste it from afar, not to be consumed by it. 

It is only by the mitzvah of עלייה לרגל, the end of the parsha,  where the Torah promises וְהִרְחַבְתִּ֖י אֶת־גְּבֻלֶ֑ךָ וְלֹא־יַחְמֹ֥ד אִישׁ֙ אֶֽת־אַרְצְךָ֔ בַּעֲלֹֽתְךָ֗ לֵרָאוֹת֙ אֶת־פְּנֵי֙ י״י֣ אֱלקיך שלש פעמים בשנה (Shemos 34:24.)  Why is this promise in regard to this mitzvah?  The Sfas Emes Pesach (5639) says the eretz are the desires of a person (see Berashi Rabbah 5:8,) when one goes to be עולה לרגל it is an experience of  forgoing one's personal humdrum earthly concerns and one merits to come connect with Hashem.  לראות, one comes to see the the pnimious of the world.  With such a focus, with that vision, one looks to expand one's horizons of kedusha.  To see the ראה אני, to share in that vision. 

The Path To Blessing

The Targum Onkelus translates the first possuk of the parsha חֲזוֹ דַּאֲנָא יָהֵיב קֳדָמֵיכוֹן יוֹמָא דֵין בִּרְכָן וּלְוָטִין.  The Targum Yonason says .אמר משה נביא חמון דאנא סדר קדמיכון יומא דין בירכתא וחילופה.  Onkelus translates the word קללה literally as a curse while the Yonason translates it as the opposite (of beracha.)  Why does the Yonason deviate from the simple translation and why is there a deviation between the two Targumin? 

The Targum of Onkelus is written in the dark galut of Bavel where the pains and suffering of exile are all too clear.  In such an existence one feels the curses as curses.  The Yonason, written in Eretz Yisroel, was not experiencing the curses of goult in the most extreme form.  He is able to take a step back and understand that the curses are merely to bring a person closer to Hashem.  The curses are also berachot but they are perceived as klelalot because of the lack of ability of the recipient to take in such spiritual energy as discussed here. (Based upon Likutay Sichos volume 18 sicha 1.) 

The Midrash (4:1) says לִמְדוּנוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ לָמָּה אֵין מַפְסִיקִין בַּקְּלָלוֹת, אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּא בַּר גַּמְדָא לְפִי שֶׁכָּתוּב (משלי ג, יא): מוּסַר ה' בְּנִי אַל תִּמְאָס וְאַל תָּקֹץ בְּתוֹכַחְתּוֹ. אַל תַּעַשׂ אֶת הַתּוֹכָחוֹת קוֹצִין קוֹצִין, אֶלָּא אֶחָד קוֹרֵא אֶת כֻּלָּן.  The Shem Mishmuel brings from his father that one can't stop in the middle because the קללות are just the pathway to come to teshuva.  It is a long journey but one doesn't get off in the middle.  He adds that is the comparison to קוצין, small, insignificant pieces that have no point unto themselves.  The קללות are a חילוף of beracha which leads one to the beracha itself. 

Kindness

We learn in the parsha (14:8) that it is a positive commandment to give charity to a fellow Jew.   The Torah stresses that one should give charity with simcha (ibid verse 10.)  Why is there an emphasis on simcha by giving charity more than any mitzvah?  Why is it that if one gives charity for a reward he is considered a great tzaddik (Rosh Hashana 4a), he gave for his own purpose; it’s not a perfect mitzvah?  Why is it specifically by charity that G-d promises to pay back what one spent and one is even allowed to test G-d to fulfill his promise (see Malachi chapter 3)?  Similarly, the Gemora tells us in Taanis (9a) that if one gives maaser one will get rich.  Why are these promises made specially for charity?
The answer lies in the Gemora Yevomos (79a) which describes the nature of Bnei Yisroel as גומלי חסדים.  Doing chesed isn't an action one does, but rather is an outgrowth of the nature of Bnei Yisroel (see Or Hatzofon chapter 7.)  Doing chesed is a din in the gavra, not in the cheftzah of giving.  That is why even if one has an alternative reason for giving charity it still is considered a great deed, for it arouses the natural desire one has to do good for someone else.  (See Rashi in Rosh Hashana along these lines for why it is a positive deed only when a Jew gives charity for reward but not for a gentile.)
Tosfos in Bava Metziah (70b) says that if one takes interest from a loan he does not merit to be revived when the dead come alive.  Why is there such a severe punishment for taking interest?  The Gemorah at the end of Sanhedrin defines a wicked man as one who steals.  Why is this the ultimate evil doer?  And conversely why is the tzaddik one who gives to others?  The explanation may be along the same lines.  If one doesn’t give charity it shows he has even corrupted the basic traits of a Jew and therefore doesn’t merit to be resurrected.  One who goes even further, to steal is the ultimate evil.
We may add another label of explanation.  The whole creation is merely a kindness of G-d, which means one’s whole existence depends upon charity. Therefore, built into the very existence of the whole creation is the need for charity. Based upon this idea, the Bais Halevi in his drashos # 1 explains why by this mitzvah one can test G-d, for charity is what sustains the whole world and when one attaches himself to this trait he merits that G-d will pay him back for upholding the world. Based upon this Beis Halevi we can explain the need for simcha in giving charity as well.  Since kindness is what keeps the world running, it behooves one to be in a state of simcha to recognize this fulfillment of the world.  When one is fulfilling his potential, one will feel happy as the Maharal often writes.  (See the Bais Halevi’s explanation about simcha in a different vein.)   The Ekarim volume 3 chapter 33 says that in fact the reward of charity only comes from the simcha infused into it. Now we can understand the severity of taking interest.  When one takes interest, it shows a rejection of the kindness of Hashem to give him life and therefore, the person doesn’t merit further life in the time of techias hamasim.

Roots

At the beginning of Ch. 12 the Torah tells us when the Hebrews enter Eretz Yisroel they are to eradicate any trace of idolatry from the land.  Rashi says you have to go so far as to לשרש אחריה.
From the context of this possuk it is ruled (see Taz Yoreh Deah 146:12) that this law of לשרש אחריה only applies in Eretz Yisroel.  In other words, its a law in settling Eretz Yisroel, not a law in removing avodah zarah.
Many of the sifrei mussar and chassidus use this law as a metaphor for one's own conduct.  When one's אל זר has taken root, it is not enough to just remove the bad deeds, one must search for the source of why such conduct is happening to get rid of its very source to guarantee success for the future.  As the Gemorah in Shabbos (105b) says כך היא אומנתו של יצר הרע: היום אומר לו עשה כך, ולמחר אומר לו עשה כך, עד שאומר לו עבוד עבודה זרה, והולך ועושה.  Its not instantaneous that a person will come to such level of sin, it starts off as a small shoot and grows bigger and bigger.
In light of the previous halacha though, we have an additional twist on this.  It is only through the merit of being in Eretz Yisroel that one is able to fully eradicate the אל זר בגופו של אדם.  It is the great kedusha of Eretz Yisoel that shines a bright light even in under the dirt of a persons skin and allows one to uproot the roots of evil.  This idea is reflected in the Gemorah Arachin (32b) that understands that Moshe couldn't remove the yetzer harah for avodah zarah because he didn't have the merit of Eretz Yisroel, but the later generations, although not as great as Moshe could.  It is the merit of the kedusha of Eretz Yisroel that allows one to eradicate avodah zarah (based on Pnenei Harav and Emrei Emes 5670.)
In the ספר זכרון of Rav Hutner in the first section (written by his daughter) it seems he hold that uprooting all forms of avodah zarah is a prerequisite for yishuv Eretz Yisroel :

Sing

There are three times the Torah uses the expression עצרת regarding a holiday; twice regarding שמיני עצרת and once explaining שביעי של פסח.  In each instance the Targum Yonason says something different.  The word עצרת remains constant, it means (in his view) gathering; what changes is what you gather for.
In parshas Pinchas (29:35) on the possuk בַּיּוֹם֙ הַשְּׁמִינִ֔י עֲצֶ֖רֶת תִּהְיֶ֣ה לָכֶ֑ם, he says ביומא תמינאה כנישין תהוון בחדוא מן מט(יל){לי}כון לבתיכון כנישת חדוא ויומא טבא ואירוע קדיש תהוי לכון, you gather to your houses in happiness.  In Emor (23:36) the possuk says הַשְּׁמִינִ֡י מִקְרָא־קֹ֩דֶשׁ֩ יִהְיֶ֨ה לָכֶ֜ם וְהִקְרַבְתֶּ֨ם אִשֶּׁ֤ה לַֽי״י֙ עֲצֶ֣רֶת הִ֔וא and there the Targum Yonason says כנישין תהון לצלאה קדם ייי על מיטרא, you gather to pray for rain.  What prompts him to change his explanation of what we gather for in these two pessukim?
Regarding the last day of Pesach, the possuk in Reah (16:8) says  וּבַיּ֣וֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִ֗י עֲצֶ֙רֶת֙ לַי״י֣ אלקיך and there the Targum Yonason explains וביומא שביעאה ההוא תהון כנישין בתושבחא קדם ייי אלקכון, we gather to sing.  I understand why he says this only in the context of שביעי של פסח, not Shemini Atzeret, for it is only on שביעי של פסח that the holiday commemorates an act of singing.
The Sforno on this possuk says וביום השביעי עצרת – נעצרו בו ישראל יחדיו לעבודת האל יתברך, ושרו לו שירה בשביעי של חג המצות, לפיכך נקדש אותו היום.  He also seems to be translating that word עצרת as gathering but he explains it not in the future tense, that we should gather, but the possuk is giving the reason for the day being a holy day is because we gathered, to sing.  [Well I lied about him translating עצרת as a gathering , he really translates it as holding back, but it means Klal Yisroel remained near the sea to sing shirah, see the Sforno in Emor, but the point is the same.]  The Sukkot Dovid points out that we see the Sforno doesn't say the miracle of the splitting of the sea, it is the fact that we sang shirah that makes the day a holy day.  Another miracle wouldn't have made a holy day, not every day of miracles is a holy day, it is only the fact that we internalized the holiday through our shirah that made it a holy day.  In light of this Sforno that the whole source of the holiness of the day is our saying shirah we understand very well the Targum Yonason that the avodas hayom is to sing shirah.
Once I'm mentioning שמיני עצרת and parshas Reah, I was wondering why does שמיני עצרת not make an appearance there?

Between Bikkurim And Maaser Sheni

The Rambam in Sefer Hamitzvot #125 says להביא ביכורים לבית הבחירה, שנאמר: "רֵאשִׁית בִּכּוּרֵי אַדְמָתְךָ" (שמות כג, יט) (שמות לד, כו).  Regarding maaaser sheni, in mitzvah #128 he says להפריש מעשר שני להיאכל לבעליו בירושלים, שנאמר: "עַשֵּׂר תְּעַשֵּׂר" (דברים יד, כב) מפי השמועה למדו שזה הוא מעשר שני. He differentiates between maaser sheni, where the mitzvah is to designate the maaser vs. bikkurim where the mitzvah isn't only to designate the fruit but also to bring it to Yerushalaim. This is further demonstrated in the Rambam's list of the mitzvot at the beginning of the laws of maaser sheni and the laws of bikkurim.  At the beginning of the Laws of Maaser Sheni he says the first mitzvah is להפריש מעשר שני.  In the beginning of the Laws of Bikkurim he says the first mitzvah is להפריש בכורים ולהעלותן במקדש.  He adds the words להעלותן במקדש.  Obviously the question is why?  Why does the Rambam add that part of  the mitzvah is to to bring the bikkurim up to Yerushalaim but regarding maaser sheni he says the mitzvah is to separate the maaser but doesn't include the aspect of bringing it to Yerushaliam. Why is there such a difference?

We see that there is a major difference between that which maaser sheni must be eaten in Yerushaliam vs. the bikkurim.  The confines of maaser sheni inside Yerushaliam are dinim on the person eating it.  It is an obligation of the person to confine the place of his eating.  The bikkurim on the other hand must be eating in Yerushaliam is a limitation because of the cheftzah, the bikkurim demand that they must be eaten only in Yerushaliaim.  Hence, maaser sheni isn't defined as something that must be brought to Yerushaliaim for that is merely an obligation on the owner.  It is bikkurim that is defined as something that must be brought to Yerushaliaim.  That is what we see.  Why that is and/ or where it comes from, I haven't much of a clue.  The suggestion box is open.

You Decide The Blessings

Rav Hirsch explains on the possuk in Devarim (11:29) וְהָיָ֗ה כִּ֤י יְבִֽיאֲךָ֙ י״י֣ אֱלֹקיך אֶל־הָאָ֕רֶץ אֲשֶׁר־אַתָּ֥ה בָא־שָׁ֖מָּה לְרִשְׁתָּ֑הּ וְנָתַתָּ֤ה אֶת־הַבְּרָכָה֙ עַל־הַ֣ר גְּרִזִ֔ים וְאֶת־הַקְּלָלָ֖ה עַל־הַ֥ר עֵיבָֽל why did Klal Yisroel have to turn towards Har Grizin and Har Avel and to hear the blessings and curses?  What does the sight of the mountains add to the words?  He explains that the surroundings of mountains looked the same, they were in the same place and received the same rain.  So, how did one grow plants and the other was barren? The answer is that is depends on the internal qualities of the mountains.  The lesson is that the blessings and curses aren’t for or dependent upon the situation that one is in; rather on one’s ability to accept the blessings.  In his words: לפי זה, שני הרים אלה, העומדים זה לצד זה, מציגים באופן מוחשי ומרשים את הברכה והקללה. שניהם מתנשאים מאותה אדמה, שניהם מקבלים מימיהם מאותו טל ומטר. אותו אוויר עובר על שניהם; ואותה אבקת פרחים מתפזרת על ידי הרוח מעל שניהם. אך הר עיבל נשאר צחיח לחלוטין, בעוד שהר גריזים מכוסה צמחייה עבותה עד למרום פסגתו. באותו אופן, הברכה והקללה אינן תלויות במצבים חיצוניים, אלא בנכונותנו הפנימית לזו או לזו, ביחס שלנו למה שמביא ברכה.

The meforshim are bothered that the parsha starts in the singular language, talking directly to every individual, ראה, but then switches to לשון רבים, לפניכם, why does it switch in the middle? The Shem M'Shmuel (5676) brings his grandfather, the Kotzker who explains that things are given to everyone equally, but each individual sees according to his own perspective.  It is up to the individual to take what is given to him.

The midrash says that when this verse was said at Sinai the possuk says evil doesn’t come from Hashem rather it comes by itself on those that do evil.  What does the midrash mean?  According to the Kotzker the peshat may be that inherently there isn’t evil it just is the perspective of the person.

The Kli Yakar asks why does it the possuk say היום, obviously he was speaking to them on that day?  In the obove light we can understand that it is all up to today, it isn’t one’s past situation that determines one’s blessings; it is what he does today. 

Chosen Place

The possuk (12:4-6) says לֹא־תַֽעֲשׂ֣וּן כֵּ֔ן לה' אלוקיכם כִּ֠י אִֽם־אֶל־הַמָּק֞וֹם אֲשֶׁר־יִבְחַ֨ר י״י֤ אֱלֹֽקיכם מִכָּל־שִׁבְטֵיכֶ֔ם לָשׂ֥וּם אֶת־שְׁמ֖וֹ שָׁ֑ם לְשִׁכְנ֥וֹ תִדְרְשׁ֖וּ  וּבָ֥אתָ שָּֽׁמָּה וַֽהֲבֵאתֶ֣ם שָׁ֗מָּה עֹלֹֽתֵיכֶם֙ וְזִבְחֵיכֶ֔ם.  Rashi says לשכנו תדרשו: זה משכן שילה:  This possuk tells us that when the Mishkan was in Shilo, one wasn't allowed to sacrifice on a bammah.  In possuk 11 it says הָיָ֣ה הַמָּק֗וֹם אֲשֶׁר־יִבְחַר֩ יְהֹוָ֨ה אֱלֹֽקיכם בּוֹ֙ לְשַׁכֵּ֤ן שְׁמוֹ֙ שָׁ֔ם שָׁ֣מָּה תָבִ֔יאוּ אֵ֛ת כָּל־אֲשֶׁ֥ר אָֽנֹכִ֖י מְצַוֶּ֣ה אֶתְכֶ֑ם.  Rashi explains that possuk is referring to the Beis Hamikdash; when there is a Beis Hamikdash, there also is an issur bammos.

There is a difference in the obligation to bring a korban to Shilo vs. the obligation to bring to the Beis Hamikdash.  The difference between Shilo and the Beis Hamikdash is that the issur bammos in Shilo is a result from לֹא־תַֽעֲשׂ֣וּן כֵּ֔ן.  Therefore, there had to be a place to sacrifice and that is Shilo.  The place is chosen by Hashem לָשׂ֥וּם אֶת־שְׁמ֖וֹ שָׁ֑ם, but the place itself isn't inherently the "chosen place."  Hence, the  possuk puts the focus on the person bringing the korban to the place, וַֽהֲבֵאתֶ֣ם שָׁ֗מָּה.  It isn't the place that demands the korban be offered there, it is the place that happens to be designated to bring everyone together.  The second possuk focuses on the place, שָׁ֣מָּה תָבִ֔יאוּ, which forces a person to bring the korban there.  It is in the place of the Beis Hamikdash that is 'הַמָּק֗וֹם אֲשֶׁר־יִבְחַר֩ ה, the actual place is desired to be the place of the Mikdash and the issur bammos is an outgrowth from there.  It is the kedusha of the place that causes the issur bammos.  Therefore, the possuk mentions first that the place is "chosen" and the issur bammos is the outgrowth from that (based upon Likutay sichos volume 24.)
 
The Mishna in Megillah (10a) and Zevachim (112a) says that once the Beis Hamikdash was built its no longer permitted to sacrifice on a bammah.  The Mishna says that the intent of the possuk, כִּ֥י לֹא־בָאתֶ֖ם עַד־עָ֑תָּה אֶל־הַמְּנוּחָה֙ וְאֶל־הַֽנַּחֲלָ֔ה, menucha refers to the Beis Hamikdash that once it was built one can no longer use a bammah.  The Gemorah in Megillah assumes this is true only according to the opinion that קדושה ראשונה קדושה לעתיד לבא, however, if the קדושה doesn't continue after the Beis Hamikdash is destroyed, then one can sacrifice on a bammah nowadays.  Rashi (Zevachim 119a) follows this approach and says the Mishna is dependent on the machlokes tannaim.  However, Tosfos (Megillah, Zevachim) understands according to the conclusion of the Gemorah that everyone agrees even after the destruction of the Mikdash the bammos are prohibited.

Why does Tosfos holds even if there is no more kedusha that the issur bammos still applies?  The Achronim explain that even though there isn't kedusha to be able to bring a korban, however, it still is the 'מָּק֗וֹם אֲשֶׁר־יִבְחַר֩ ה.  It isn't the kedusha of the Mikdash that causes the issur bammos, it is sacrificing outside the "chosen place." (See Toras Hakodesh siman 2.)

Shechitah

The Rambam mitzvah 146 counts the mitzvah of shechitah.  His source is from this week's parsha, וְזָבַחְתָּ֞ מִבְּקָרְךָ֣ וּמִצֹּֽאנְךָ֗ אֲשֶׁ֨ר נָתַ֤ן י״י֙ לְךָ֔ כַּאֲשֶׁ֖ר צִוִּיתִ֑ךָ.  Other Rishonim disagree and hold its merely a מתיר to remove the issur of אבר מן החי.  [See Rambam Shoresh 1, Raavad on Sefer Hamitzvot, Tosfos Shevous 24b.]

The Taz (1:17) explains why a person that can't speak can't separate terumah because he can't say the beracha, but can shect and someone else will recite the beracha.  He says אלא דבשחיטה נראה טעמו דאחר מברך שפיר דברכת השחיטה אינה באה על השחיטה עצמה דהא אין חיוב לשחיטה אם אינו רוצה לאכול אלא עיקר הכוונה לתת שבח למקום ב"ה על שאסר לנו אכילת בשר בלא שחיטה ובזה ודאי כל ישראל שייך באותה ברכה שהרי על כולם יש איסור.  He seems to say that the beracha on shechitah is only a ברכת השבח.  This would seem to fit better with the approach that shechitah isn't counted as a mitzvah.  However, this seems to run contrary to the Gemorah in Pesachim (7b) that equates the blessing on shechitah to other birchat hamitzvot.

The Binyan Av (volume 2 #36) says that the Taz doesn't mean its not at all a bracha on a mitzvah, he means that when it comes to terumah the bracha is on the action of the mitzvah but on shechitah the beracha is on the result of the animal being schechted, hence the beracha can be recited by anyone.

Serving Hashem

The possuk (13:5) says אַחֲרֵ֨י י״י֧ אֱלֹקיכם תֵּלֵ֖כוּ וְאֹת֣וֹ תִירָ֑אוּ וְאֶת־מִצְוֺתָ֤יו תִּשְׁמֹ֙רוּ֙ וּבְקֹל֣וֹ תִשְׁמָ֔עוּ וְאֹת֥וֹ תַעֲבֹ֖דוּ וּב֥וֹ תִדְבָּקֽוּן.  What does it mean וְאֹת֥וֹ תַעֲבֹ֖דוּ? The Sifri says that it means learning Torah and serving Him via the mikdash.  (There are similar Sifri in Ve’eschanan on verse 6: 13, and in Akev chapter 11 verses 13 and 22.)  We see from the Sifri that learning Torah is called the service of Hashem.  The Netziv however, understands the Sifri is only a reference to the study of the laws of the korbanot for then the learning counts in place of offering sacrifices which would be avodah.  However, it seems apparent from the Ramban (that will be cited shortly) that this is not the case, rather it’s a perspective on all Torah learning.

The meaning of mikdash according to the Rambam in his count of the mitzvot #5 refers to prayer which ideally should take place in the mikdash.  The Ramban disagrees (hasagos on Sefer Hamitzvot and in Va’eschanan 6:13) and understands it refers to coming to the mikdash to bow and sing to Hashem. Therefore, the Ramban rejects the counting of prayer as a mitzvah rather its merely an opportunity for man to beseech God.   We see the Ramban understands the Sifri is reflecting different modes of serving Hashem either via Torah learning or coming close to Hashem via service in the mikdash.  This would seem to be a Chassidic approach that all these ideas come under the rubric of serving Hashem

[The Ramban ends of his comment on the possuk says that  one should be like a slave constantly ready to do the bidding of his master and therefore the work of his master is his main work.  Furthermore, one should reach the level were all he does is for the sake of Hashem even what he does for his own body as the possuk (Tehillim 146:2) says “ahallelah Hashem bechayai.”  How does the Ramban see in that possuk in Tehillim that all of one’s actions should be for the sake of Hashem, the possuk seems to be saying that one should thank Hashem for the life that he has been given?  Rav Yeruchem Levovitz (journal Hatevuna from year 5707) explains that we see from the Ramban that the peshat in the possuk isn’t that one should thank Hashem for the life he has, rather the point of one’s life is to thank Hashem.  The whole point of living is to give thanks to Hashem; therefore, it follows that all one’s actions should be for this purpose, for the sake of Hashem.]

The halacha is that Rashbi and his colleagues are except from prayer (Shulchan Aruch 106:2.)  Why is it different than any other mitzvah that they must fulfill?  Based upon the Sifri we can understand for Torah and Tefillah are really two sides of the same coin, that is service of Hashem.  Since Rashbi served via learning he didn’t need to pray.

Bring It To The House

The Rambam counts mitzvah 84 to bring korbanot to the Beis Hamikdash, היא שצונו להקריב כל הקרבנות בבית הבחירה. והוא אמרו יתעלה שם תעלה עולותיך ושם תעשה,.  Mitzvah 85 is even if the korbanot are outside of Eretz Yisroel one must still bring them to the Beis Hamikdash, ואע"פ שהם בחוצה לארץ כלומר שנתחייב בהם בחוצה לארץ הנה נצטוינו להביא לבית הבחירה, והוא אמרו רק קדשיך אשר יהיו וגו'.  The Ramban holds that these two are only counted as one mitzah.  The Achronim mostly understand that the additional mitzvah of bringing from outside Eretz Yisroel is that even though it is hard to bring the animals, still one is obligated (see the Chinuch.)  It is difficult to understand the הוא אמינא that difficulty would be a פטור.

Rav Avrohom Gurovitz wants to suggest a different interpretation.  He says that the chiddush is specifically from outside Eretz Yisroel.  I would have said just as korbanot can only be offered in Eretz Yisroel, so too only animals from Eretz Yisroel assume the obligation to be offered in the Mikdash.  However, animals from outside Eretz Yisroel don't assume the obligation ot be offered in the Mikdash, for its not a place of korbanot.  Hence, we need an addition mitzvah to tell us even outside Eretz Yisroel there is an obligation to bring the korban to the Mikdash.

He also questions why there is a need for an asseh to bring one’s korban to the Mikdash, one should be obligated because of his vow?  He understands that really there isn’t a need for the asseh and the main point is that it’s a negative commandment not to sacrifice outside the Mikdash.

Rashi Meilah (19a,) Tosfos Chullin (22b) that say that the obligation to bring a korban only requires one to bring the korban into the azarah, but doesn't require one to actually bring it on the altar.  According to this, we can argue on the whole premise of the question.  One's neder doesn't require him to actually offer the korban on the alter.  However, the Turay Even Megillah (8b) asks many questions on this idea.  The Roshei Yeshiva explain the Rashi that there are two obligations to a korban.  There is a monetary obligation, that one owes the value of the korban to hekdesh.  It is regarding this obligation that Rashi says bringing it to the Mikdash and handing it to the gizbur suffices for the korban is now in propery of hekdesh.  However, there is another obligation upon the individual to bring the korban as an obligation of nidrei mitzvah and thar obligation still hangs over his head.  According to this, the question still stands.

The Chinuch says (#440) אבל אין הכונה לומר, שיהיה עליה חיוב להקריב קרבן בבית המקדש עכשו שהוא חרב, זה דבר ברור הוא.  The Achronim ask why, מקריבין אע"פ שאין בית?  The Steipler (Zevachim #32) says we see from the Chinuch that מקריבין אע"פ שאין בית means one can bring the korban, however there is no obligation to offer the korban.  Why this would be isn't very clear, the Steipler struggles for an explanation.     

Don't Add

The possuk in Vaeschanan says (4:2) לֹ֣א תֹסִ֗פוּ עַל־הַדָּבָר֙ אֲשֶׁ֤ר אָנֹכִי֙ מְצַוֶּ֣ה אֶתְכֶ֔ם וְלֹ֥א תִגְרְע֖וּ מִמֶּ֑נּוּ.  A similar verse appears in our parsha (13:1) .לֹא־תֹסֵ֣ף עָלָ֔יו וְלֹ֥א תִגְרַ֖ע מִמֶּֽנּו.  The Gra says that the first possuk is referring to beis din not to add onto the mitzvot, hence it’s said in the plural tense, referring to the collective beis din.  The possuk in our parsha is talking to the individual not to add to the specific mitzvah that he does.  (See the Ktav V’kabbalah in both places.)

This would be the source for the Rishonim that assume that it’s a prohibition to add to the number of the mitzvot (see Ramban on the possuk here, Rambam Ch. 2 of Mamrim etc.)  The Gemorah only assumes בל תוסיף in the context of adding to a mitzvoh, we don’t see that adding to the number of mitzvot is בל תוסיף?  According to the Gra the source is the possuk in Vaseschanan.  [Though it is noteworthy that the Rambam reverses the pessukim, in Birchat Kohanim (14:12) regarding adding to a mitzvah, he cites the verse in Vaeschanan, in Mamrim he cites the verse in our parsha.  See more in Minchas Asher Vaeschanan.]   

The Rashba in Rosh Hashana (16a) asks when Chazal said not to blow shofar on Rosh Hashana that falls out on Shabbos, why is it not a violation of בל תגרע?  The Turay Even questions that seemingly according to the Rashba , every time one doesn't fulfill a positive commandment, it will be a violation of בל תגרע as well?  The Baruch Taam and Rav Peurlo (on Rav Saisai Gaon pg. 81b) explain that the Rashba doesn't mean anyone who doesn't fulfill a commandment it will be a violation of בל תגרע; he is questioning that Beis Din should be violating the issur by cancelling out the mitzvah.

The Raavad (Mamrim 2:9) says א''א כל אלה ישא רוח שכל דבר שגזרו עליו ואסרוהו לסייג ולמשמרת של תורה אין בו משום לא תוסיף אפילו קבעוהו לדורות ועשאוהו כשל תורה וסמכוהו למקרא כדאשכחן בכמה דוכתי מדרבנן וקרא אסמכתא בעלמא ואם גרע לפי צורך שעה כגון אליהו בהר הכרמל אף זה דבר תורה הוא עת לעשות לה' הפרו תורתך. ולא תמצא איסור מוסיף אלא במצות עשה כגון לולב ותפילין וציצית וכיוצא בהן בין לשעה בין לדורות בין שקבעה בדבר תורה בין שלא קבעה:  Many understand the Raavad to mean that he disagrees with this additional principle of the Rambam and holds בל תוסיף is only when an individual adds to a mitzvah.  The Briskor Rav said that's not the peshat.  The words of the Raavad, בין לשעה בין לדורות בין שקבעה בדבר תורה can only be referring to Beis Din adding a mitzvah.  What he disagrees is that he holds the issur is only when adding a positive  command, not when adding a negative command (like the Rambam talks about, adding to the issur of milk and meat.)  However, the Rambam holds the issur is any addition. (Yeshurin volume 11 pg. 494.)

Of course, Rashi doesn’t learn this way and holds both pessukim are an issur not to add to a mitzvah being done.  What is noteworthy, is the differences in the Rashi.  In Vaeschanan, he says כגון: חמש פרשיות בתפילין, חמשת מינין בלולב, חמש ציציות.  In our parsha, he says חמש טוטפות, חמשה מינין בלולב, ארבע ברכות לברכת כהנים.  Why switch the third ex. from tzitzit to birchas kohanim and why switch terminology from פרשיות  to טוטפות?  You can find answers yourself.

Many Rashis

There are various pessukin in the Ekev and Re’ah that contain the same message of דביקות בה'.  In Ekev (10:20) it says אֶת־י״י֧ אֱלֹקיך תִּירָ֖א אֹת֣וֹ תַעֲבֹ֑ד וּב֣וֹ תִדְבָּ֔ק וּבִשְׁמ֖וֹ תִּשָּׁבֵֽעַ.  A Ch. later (11:22,) it says כִּי֩ אִם־שָׁמֹ֨ר תִּשְׁמְר֜וּן אֶת־כׇּל־הַמִּצְוָ֣ה הַזֹּ֗את אֲשֶׁ֧ר אָנֹכִ֛י מְצַוֶּ֥ה אֶתְכֶ֖ם לַעֲשֹׂתָ֑הּ לְאַהֲבָ֞ה אֶת־י״י֧ אֱלֹקיכם לָלֶ֥כֶת בְּכׇל־דְּרָכָ֖יו וּלְדׇבְקָה־בֽוֹ.  Rashi there says ולדבקה בו – אי איפשר, והלא אש אוכלה הוא? אלא: הדבק בחכמים ובתלמידים, ומעלה עליך כאילו נדבקתא בו.  Finally, in Re’ah it says (13:5) אַחֲרֵ֨י י״י֧ אֱלֹקיכם תֵּלֵ֖כוּ וְאֹת֣וֹ תִירָ֑אוּ וְאֶת־מִצְוֺתָ֤יו תִּשְׁמֹ֙רוּ֙ וּבְקֹל֣וֹ תִשְׁמָ֔עוּ וְאֹת֥וֹ תַעֲבֹ֖דוּ וּב֥וֹ תִדְבָּקֽוּן.  Here Rashi says ובו תדבקון – הדבק בדרכיו וגמול חסדים, קבור מתים, בקר חולים, כמו שעשה הקב״ה.  Why does Rashi say nothing in one place and change his interpretation in the other places?

In Likutay Sichos volume 14, the Rebbe explains that in the first possuk, Rashi doesn’t need to say anything because we can understand וּב֣וֹ תִדְבָּ֔ק just as we understand ואתם הדבקים בה' in Vaeschanan that it means to love ה'.  However, in the second possuk, it already mentions אהבת ה' and therefore, Rashi must explain it means something else.  In our parsha, Rashi understands that we can’t mean one of those explanations for the previous possuk says the whole point of the false prophet is to test if you have love for Hashem, that is the backdrop for the whole topic so it won’t be repeated as a detail.  It also can’t mean cleaving to talmedei chachamim for the possuk mentions this at the end of the line so it must be the highest level, not someone who merely cleaves to others.  Hence, Rashi gives a different explanation.  

                          An interesting interpretation of the Maggid on the Rashi (11:22.) 

Two Counts

The Gemorah Menachos 65b says וספרתם לכם tells us that every individual must count.  Tosfos explain that we would have thought there is an obligation only on בית דין like the counting of the years of shmittah, קמ"ל there is an obligation on every individual.  Why would we have thought there is only an obligation on the בית דין if it is a mitzvah like any other?  The Chizkuni in Behar says that in regard to shmittah the Torah mentions the counting once and its merely an obligation on the בית דין.  Siferas Haomer is mentioned in Reah and in Emor to tell us there is an obligation on the בית דין and an obligation on the individual.  He holds even at the end of the day there remains an element of obligation on the בית דין alone.  What is the nature of this obligation?

In regard to the counting of the shmittah cycle Reb Chaim explains that the mitzvah isn’t merely to count but that it is the count of the cycle that gives the kedusha to the year of yovel.  The Torah calls the holiday Shavout indicating that it is the חפצא of the counted weeks that give the kedusha to the holiday.  Therefore, we would have said (and according to Chikuni we do say,) that the counting is part of establishing the holiday and has to be done by בית דין just as they are entrusted with being מקדש the months. 

Based upon this idea we can understand the Gemorah in Menachot 66a that Amemar counted the days but not the weeks because it is a mere זכר למקדש.  It is צ"ע why not count the weeks as well because of זכר למקדש?  However, in light of the Chizkuni it is beautiful for the counting of the weeks is mentioned in Reah where it says וספרת לך meaning to ב"ד that they must count the weeks.  It is in Emor where the Torah says to count the days and it says וספרתם לכם, an obligation on every individual.  Therefore, the mitzvah onב"ד  is the weeks so there is no זכר למקדש for the individual to do it, is it only the mitzvah to count the days that there is זכר למקדש for every individual (Eretz Hatzvi (Shecter) siman 3 and footnote 3, see also Bad Kodesh on Moadim.)