Ve'Ethchanan: Unity

In the parsha, the  restatement of the (now modified) Ten commandments are introduced by a strange sentence:

לֹ֣א אֶת־אֲבֹתֵ֔ינוּ כָּרַ֥ת  . אֶת־הַבְּרִ֣ית הַזֹּ֑את כִּ֣י אִתָּ֔נוּ אֲנַ֨חְנוּ אֵ֥לֶּה פֹ֛ה הַיּ֖וֹם כֻּלָּ֥נוּ חַיִּֽים׃ It was not with our fathers that the LORD made this covenant, but with us, the living, every one of us who is here today. 

Huh? How did that happen? How did an event thousands of years ago get transported to the present?  This sounds like a fait accompli, not an offer. The first few words:  It was not with our fathers  implies that the agreement had not even taken effect at the great Sinai spectacle; it is only here today that the agreement begins. 

There is an element of truth to the statement It was not with our fathers.  The covenant takes hold only after the entry into the Promised Land.  The introduction to the Shema, the Loyalty Oath, states: 

וְזֹ֣את הַמִּצְוָ֗ה הַֽחֻקִּים֙ וְהַמִּשְׁפָּטִ֔ים אֲשֶׁ֥ר צִוָּ֛ה . לְלַמֵּ֣ד אֶתְכֶ֑ם לַעֲשׂ֣וֹת בָּאָ֔רֶץ אֲשֶׁ֥ר אַתֶּ֛ם עֹבְרִ֥ים שָׁ֖מָּה לְרִשְׁתָּֽהּ׃ And this is the Instruction—the laws and the rules—that the LORD your God has commanded [me] to impart to you, to be observed in the land that you are about to cross into and occupy,

The use of the singular mitzvah could imply the inseparability of all of these commandments.  Also, since these words are the introduction to the Shema, a recommitment to the first Commandment,  the bond between the covent and entry into the Land, the fulfillment of the seller's obligation, seems significant. 

Casting the sentence in the context of the moment of its statement trivializes it. Why preserve a historical detail that applied 3500 years ago? To  me, the sentence makes the more powerful statement: the Covenant is with us, our generations living today; and it will be with generations of Hebrews that follow ours. That seems to generate the problem of commitment in the absence of agreement.  The solution is that we, whose ancestors bound us to this contract do, indeed, live with a deal that was made millenia before our births.  It was written in stone ( twice). Our choice is whether to abide. (the Dude?)

The second commandment contains.

כִּ֣י אָנֹכִ֞י ..  אֵ֣ל קַנָּ֔א פֹּ֠קֵד עֲוֺ֨ן אָב֧וֹת עַל־בָּנִ֛ים וְעַל־שִׁלֵּשִׁ֥ים וְעַל־רִבֵּעִ֖ים לְשֹׂנְאָֽ֑י׃ You shall not bow down to them or serve them. For I the LORD your God am an impassioned God, visiting the guilt of the parents upon the children, upon the third and upon the fourth generations of those who reject Me,

It reinforces the legacy nature of the covenant.  The debts of the estate can also be passed on to ( a limited number of) futures generations. 

Taken with the introductory verse, stating that the covenant is (re)made with the current generation, leads to a jarring result.  The people of now enter into a pact that means they will be punished for the sins of their ancestors. The next verse states 

וְעֹ֥֤שֶׂה חֶ֖֙סֶד֙ לַֽאֲלָפִ֑֔ים לְאֹהֲבַ֖י וּלְשֹׁמְרֵ֥י (מצותו) [מִצְוֺתָֽי]׃ {ס}         but showing kindness to the thousandth generation of those who love Me and keep My commandments.

It makes  the chance of benefit considerably higher  than retribution, but I imagine my grandparents, at the edge of their Einsatzgrupen pit considering the contract they were born into. And I imagine my own life, choosing between actions of comfort and actions of consequence. 

The great legacy prominently includes the Oneness. The Shema, the reassertion of the principle that "Gd is One" is  in this parsha.  It is the denial of this principle that is followed by the intergenerational admonition. This is a core principle; what does it mean? 

Is the statement symmetrical, does "is" mean "equals"  The introduction of the number one invites this kind of mathematical question ( The concepts attached to "one" have become richer over the last several hundred years).  If the is means equals, then (any) One is Gd. This is possibly an idolatrous statement, but I am not sure. I can refer to Gd as The One and that seems acceptable. 

In our world One is also the value assigned to certainty in probability. That concept seems to fit how we are instructed to think about Gd. ( Perhaps it can also help us think about certainty) 

Th,  UNIverse is an interesting concept in this regard. The universe is the one thing that contains everything. It is probably  a concept, not a logical necessity; it is perhaps a more  comfortable idea in an intellectual world dominated by monotheism. The Gd of Spinoza lives in a UNIverse. 

Gd as one  implies that we accept all of Gd's aspects as a package: The Creator, the banisher from Eden, the creator of Cain, the flooder, the covenant maker etc. etc..  This requires some suspension of values in favor of humility.  The oblecional parts are relegated to "We do not understand" (Generally, the packaging of political entities is a big problem)

Consider how the word Echad (One) is traditionally pronounced.  The chet is easily prolonged. The string of multifaceted aspects that are unified can be considered, but the final daleth is a plosive, it cannot be prolonged much, it closes the door on the ALL.

One means all; all means one