In addition to subjecting the verses of the Tora to close reading in order to notice the many subtle nuances of language upon which are based numerous literary, legal and theological inferences and derivations, variations in the appearance of the words and letters of the Tora also are objects of scrutiny and interpretation. Examples of divergent forms of texts, words and letters, include whole sentences written in alternate spaces and/ or on alternate lines (e.g., Shemot 15; Shemot 20; Devarim 32), letters that are larger than normal (e.g., Devarim 6:4), smaller than normal (e.g., VaYikra 1:1), written in reverse (e.g., BaMidbar 10:35-6), and which are dotted (e.g., in this week's Parsha, Devarim 29:28).
Of the classical commentaries printed in the standard Mikraot Gedolot, only RaShI addresses the dots over the words Lanu U'LeVanainu Ad (to us and to our children until). At first glance, the commentator appears to do no more than paraphrase the relevant Talmudic passage appearing in Sanhedrin 43b. There follows a translation of the relevant Talmudic text: "Why are the words Lanu U'LeVanainu and the Ayin of Ad dotted? To teach that God Did Not Punish (the entire nation collectively) for transgressions committed (by individuals) in secret, until the Jews crossed the Jordan --- that is the view of R. Yehuda. R. Nechemia said to him: Did God ever Punish the Jews (collectively) for sins committed (by individuals) in secret? Doesn't the verse state Ad Olam (forever)? But just as God Did Not Punish the Jews (collectively) for secret sins (committed by individuals) at any time, so too He Did Not Punish them collectively for openly committed sins (by individuals) until they had crossed the Jordan."
RaShI, in his commentary on Devarim, follows a pattern that appears many times in his writings, when he basically quotes the primary Talmudic source, but also significantly edits the passage. "There are dots on the words Lanu U'Levanainu to suggest that even for the publicly committed sins (by individuals), He Did Not Punish the community until they had crossed the Jordan, (specifically) from the moment that they took upon themselves the oath on Mt. Grizim and Mt. Eival and had thereby become responsible for one another."
RaShI's understanding of the significance of the dots over the Biblical passage is further clarified when one turns to his Talmudic commentary on the passage in question: d.h. Elah: "The dotted letters are to teach you that when it is written VeHaNiglot Lanu U'LeVanainu (the publicly committed sins are our and our children's responsibility), this attribution of blame did not apply prior to this point in time (i.e., the moment when the people stands poised to cross into Canaan, as opposed to the prior forty years of traveling through the desert following the exodus from Egypt), but rather only from this point going forward, since all dotted letters are coming to exclude the conclusion that would ordinarily have been drawn from the text, and to state in this case, the collective community will not be punished for the commission of open sins on the part of individuals who are part of the group, until after the crossing of the Jordan River into Israel." RaShI therefore understands R. Nechemia's position in Sanhedrin to be, that had dots not appeared over the letters of the words in question, we would have understood Devarim 29:28 as maintaining a truism that had applied from the Exodus, i.e., that from the point that the Jewish people began to be considered a nation, as opposed to merely Yaakov's extended family, hidden transgressions were God's Business, whereas sins done publicly even by individuals, have always been the responsibility of the community as a whole to rebuke, bring to trial, and punish. The insertion of the dots over a portion of the verse in question, is designed to limit the scope of the latter clause and exclude from consideration for collective accountability the period prior to the time of Devarim, when Moshe is to pass away and the people are to enter the Promised Land. Consequently, we are forced to conclude that the transition of the Jews from a tribal family to a nation took place gradually, only beginning with their redemption from Egypt, and only culminating upon their entry into Israel. Perhaps they can only lay claim to being a people when they assume total responsibility for obtaining food, fighting wars, and settling land, from which they were exempt during their wanderings in the desert.
(RaShI's understanding of how dotted letters are exclusionary of the otherwise straightforward implications of a particular Biblical text should be investigated for consistency. Verses that should be scrutinized from this perspective are listed in BaMidbar Rabba 3:13, and are: Beraishit 16:5; 18:9; 19:33; 33:4; 37:12; BaMidbar 9:10; 21:30; and 28:21. It is possible that different implications are to be drawn for dotted sections, but RaShI does not indicate this in his comments to Devarim and Sanhedrin.)
Aside from the intriguing technical issue of how the Tora, while devoid of punctuation, nevertheless draws attention to particular parts of its contents by physically altering to various degrees, the appearance of its letters and words, the issue of collective responsibility in general, and the historical point at which it begins vis-à-vis the Jewish people in particular, is of interest. The dichotomy stated in Devarim 29:28 between transgressions which the nation is expected to enforce as opposed to those that are God's Domain, could be understood to be the culminating verse in a section of the Tora that began in last week's Parsha, Ki Tavo, with Devarim 27:9. On the one hand, v. 9 contends that the Jews have finally earned the appellation of "nation", which could be construed as their needing to take collective responsibility for all that takes place in their midst, both public and private. Verses 11-26 are categorized by RaShBaM and Ibn Ezra as sins that take place without public knowledge, as is clearly suggested in v. 15 and 24. By having everyone publicly affirm the curses that will apply to anyone violating any of these rules, in addition to emphasizing to each individual that s/he will be personally responsible for all of his/her actions, does this ritual also suggest that the entire nation must ferret out such individual perpetrators and bring them to justice? Chapter 28 makes clear that rewards for not transgressing these rules (v. 1-14), as well as the punishments that will be forthcoming as a result of their violation (v. 15-68) will be God-generated, rather than humanly administered. The emphasis upon God's Readiness to punish those who fail to conform to His Law continues in Chapter 29, with v. 1-14 describing the covenant between God and the people that originally was entered into at Sinai being once again ratified at Arvei Moav, and v. 15-24 placing particular emphasis upon the dire Divine Consequences of a reversion to idolatrous practices on the part of the Jews. Therefore, after so much discussion focusing upon how God Will Be the Enforcer of His Own Law even when it is violated secretly, it is understandable for the people and its leaders to think that they are being exempted from the need of any type of enforcement, and that God Will Take Care of all sinners, public and private. Devarim 29:28 can then be understood as putting such a misconception to rest, and iterating that while God Will Respond to the transgressors "beneath the radar", the people must bring to justice those who publicly disrespect Tora law.
The context for the discussion in Sanhedrin cited by RaShI, is the case of Achan, who deliberately violated a Divine Commandment, and took property from the city of Jericho, after it had fallen during the conquest of Canaan under the leadership of Yehoshua (see Yehoshua Chapt. 7). The subsequent defeat of the Jewish army at the battle of Ay is attributed to this lone act, raising the question of collective responsibility for an individual's transgression. Achan's confession, v. 21 "and behold they are hid in the earth, beneath my tent" suggests that at least the concealment of the contraband, if not also the manner in which it was obtained, was secret. But wasn't the point of R. Nechemia's interpretation of Devarim 29:28 that for secret transgressions, the entire people would not be held accountable? The Talmud (Sanhedrin 44a) suggests an intriguing as well as troubling rationale: "Because his (Achan's) wife and children knew about what he had done." Apparently, a sin can only be considered private and secretive when it is exclusively Bein Adam LeMakom (between man and God.) (It should be noted that such a conclusion is difficult in light of Devarim 27:20,22,23, the sexual transgressions listed among those that are defined as secret sins, since by definition more than one person is consciously involved in these activities, and therefore assuming that only a single perpetrator is aware of what has transpired is problematic. On the other hand, it could be claimed that each of the partners in his/her own right is secretly transgressing vis-à-vis everyone else, and that these actions are viewed paradoxically as individual secretive actions that are enacted by two people simultaneously.) While emotionally, and even legally (Ishto KeGufo [one's spouse is like one's own self] --- see e.g., Ketubot 66a) things that happen within an immediate family, would appear to be considered essentially private (the concept that an individual cannot testify against his/her spouse in a court of law because it is tantamount to self-incrimination reflects such an assumption), the case study of Achan is understood to posit that this is not true with respect to Tora transgressions and Divine Accountability. While the rule of Kol Yisrael Areivim Zeh BaZeh (all of Israel are guarantors for/inextricably bound up with one another --- see e.g., Sanhedrin 27b) applies to the Jewish people en masse, the mutual responsibility for one another's actions within a family is apparently not lessened, despite being literal blood relatives.
While the above discussion focuses upon how a transgression is to be viewed after the fact in terms of attributing blame and assigning responsibility, it is possible to understand the Tochecha (the sections in the Tora in Parshiot BeChukotai and Ki Tavo) as serving as a deterrent for inappropriate behavior, as well as an incentive for those who anticipate such behavior on the part of individuals, to try to intervene and prevent it from taking place. The potential for a Divine Response that will apply either to an individual or an entire people should serve to give any potential sinners pause, as well as spur on their families, friends and community members to try to nip malfeasance in the bud. A positive spin on Areivut would maintain that we are all responsible for one another to try to assure that appropriate, spiritually uplifting and morally exemplary behavior take place, rather than wrestling with communal blame and soul-searching once individuals have acted unthinkingly and irresponsibly.
Shabbat Shalom, and stay dry and safe!