There are, however, a few parts of the parsha that seem to fail to fit into this presentation of the basic tenets of Yahadus (Judaism). Firstly, the parsha commences with Moshe Rabbeinu relating how he pled with Hashem to enter the Land but was denied entry, and Moshe notes that the episode that precipitated this punishment was brought about by the Jews themselves (3:25). Why was this section about Moshe Rabbeinu's plea being denied included in the parsha? It seems to really fit best into last week's parsha, where Moshe goes through some of the negative consequences of the national downfalls depicted in Sefer Bamidbar. Also, why did Moshe 'rub it in' and lay blame on the people for his inability to enter the Land?
Why interrupt the flow and suddenly address Arei Miklat?
Furthermore, we read in the middle of the parsha how Moshe Rabbeinu designated three Arei Miklat (Cities of Refuge). Again, this section seems totally unrelated to the balance of the parsha; why interrupt the flow and suddenly address Arei Miklat? Moshe's designation of Arei Miklat at this juncture seems very out of place.
One of the underlying motifs of Moshe's monologue in Parshas Va'eschanan is that of B'nei Yisroel taking responsibility for themselves. Moshe tried very hard to impress upon the nation that it was expected to adhere to Hashem's Torah and realize the consequences of failure to do so. Unlike in the Midbar (Desert), where Moshe unilaterally interceded on the Jews' behalf upon every major sin, and - irrespective of short-term punishment - national goals were realized, Moshe Rabbeinu sought for the people to be aware that henceforth, national sins would have permanent consequences. He therefore began the parsha with an example of this axiom, demonstrating that a misdeed had an eternal effect on his and the nation's future, for he would not be there to guide the people and intercede on their behalf any longer as a result of his action at Mei Merivah. Not only was Moshe's punishment irreversible; it also meant that the nation would lose his presence as a person who would plead their case even when they themselves did not even ask for it. This was a major lesson in teaching the virtue of taking full responsibility.
The designation of Arei Miklat teaches the same concept, for one who kills inadvertently while thrusting downward is not excused; rather, he must be exiled to an Ir Miklat or risk his life. Such a person did not kill intentionally, but his carelessness cannot be overlooked, and the Torah requires that he be treated as responsible for what he did. This is why the message of Arei Miklat is central to the theme of Parshas Va'eschanan, for the Jews were now being told that they were to bear the full consequences of their deeds on a permanent national level. No longer would the types of excuses proffered for many of the sins in the Midbar be accepted; the time had come for taking responsibility and being held fully accountable for abrogation of the basics of Torah values.
May we all take this lesson to heart and be ever careful in our commitment to Hashem and His mission for us.
