The pesukim that precede and introduce the second rendition of the aseret ha-dibrot in Vaetchanan understandably focus on the unique bond that defines the relationship between Hashem and Benei Yisrael. Examining these pesukim rigorously affords an indispensable opportunity to better illuminate the dynamic of that bond, and to more effectively facilitate its attainment.
The Torah twice utilizes the term "mi goy gadol" to convey Am Yisrael's singular status that justifies this sui generis link. While the second use of this expression (Devarim 4:8) explicitly develops the role of the Torah, the legal and spiritual constitution of Klal Yisrael, as the foundation of this inimitable bond - "u-mi goy gadol asher lo chukim u-misphatim tzadikim ke-kol ha-Torah hazot asher anochi notein lifneichem ha-yom", the first application (4:7), which actually projects the intimacy of the relationship - "ki mi goy gadol asher lo Elokim kerovim eilav ka-Hashem Elokeinu bekol kareinu elav" is decidedly ambiguous.
It is noteworthy, that Ramban (4:6-8, see also Kli Yakar) strikingly perceives both verses as a testament to the inherent and profound impact of Torah law - "ve-amar ki be-chukim u-be-mishpatim toalot gedolot...ve-od she-heim toelet gedolah she-ein kemotah she-Hashem yihiyeh karov lahem be-kol keraam eilav...". However, most of the parshanim projected distinctive themes for these two pesukim. While there were commentators (Rashbam, Ibn Ezra, Chizkuni, see also Rav Hirsch) who emphasized Hashem's general responsiveness to the laments, requests, needs, and wants of Am Yisrael, Chazal (Rosh Hashana 18a, Yerushalmi Berachot 9:1), Unkelos, Yonaton ben Uziel (Devarim 4:7), and Rambam (Introduction to Mishneh Torah, after the minyan ha-katzar) focused specifically on the vehicle and institution of tefillah.
The Talmud (Rosh Hashana 18a, Yevamot 49b) cites our verse to prove that notwithstanding the more selective implication of the pasuk in Yeshayah - "dirshu Hashem be-himazo" (which begins the minchah haftorah of a tzom and that defines the period of Aseret Yemei Teshuvah) - the fate of Am Yisrael is never beyond repair - "gezar din shel tzibur...af al pi shenechtam nikra". Thus, our intimate bond ("ki mi goy gadol asher lo Elokim kerovim eilav ka-Hashem Elokeinu") is not only attested to by past successes in prayerful petition ("bekol kareinu eilav"), but also constitutes an ongoing havtachah, an eternal binding commitment! [It is noteworthy that the "kirvah" and "keriah" in our pasuk resonates in the very next verse in Yeshayah - "kerauhu bihiyoto karov"!] The Griz (al ha-Torah) invokes our pasuk and the Talmudic passage in Rosh Hashana to underscore the difference between Jewish and non-Jewish prayer. [However, he specifically emphasizes the very concept of a communal entity and communal prayer - "de-inhu lav tzibbur". See also Rinat Yitzchak on Devarim 4:7 regarding Taanit 8a - "ein tefilato shel adam nishmaat ela im kein meisim nafsho bekapo". In my view, the special status of tefilat Yisrael, reflected by the principle and singular status of tefillah be-tzibur, also reflects upon individual prayer and differentiates it, as well, from the petition of other peoples and nations. The status of prayer during Aseret Yemei Teshuvah requires clarification but reinforces this theme, as well. I hope to elaborate this theme elsewhere.] Yerushalmi Berachot (9:1) invokes our pasuk to declare that while the distance between heaven and earth is vast indeed, it constitutes no impediment to the efficacy of even silent (individual) prayer ("adam nichnas le-beit hakenesset u-mitpalel be-lachash ve-Hakadosh Baruch Hu ma'azin tefilato").
Targum Unkeles and Targum Yonaton ben Uziel explicate the focus on tefillah. The typically terse Unkeles is exceedingly expansive in this context. He doubles his reference to prayer. Not only do the words "bekol kareinu eilav", a testament to the singular relationship, signify tefillah - "bekol idan de-anachnu metzalyan kadmohi", but the very methodology and manifestation of bonding with Hashem- "kerovim eilav" - is itself identified as through the medium and vehicle of crisis prayer - "le-kebala tzelotei be-idan akteih"! [The emphasis on tefillah be-eit tzarah is reminiscent of Rambam's comments in Hilchos Ta'anit 1:1-2 and Ramban's view in Sefer Hamitzvos (aseh no. 5) that only crisis prayer is biblically obligated.] [On Unkeles's view, see also his comments on Bereishit 48:22 - "be-charbi ubekashti" - which he renders "be-tzeloti u-be-vaoti". Meshech Chochmah op. cit. posits that these represent routine and crisis prayer respectively. Based upon the paradigms of cherev and keshet, he speculates that greater intention and focus is required for crisis prayer! See also Unekelos' perspective on tefillah referred to in my TorahWeb article on Beshalach 2024. I hope to broaden my presentation on Unkelos' position elsewhere.]
Rambam's view of the prominence of this verse and the eternal promise of prayer is particularly significant and expansive. [One may speculate whether the polar opposite presentations of Rambam and Ramban regarding the connection of prayer to this pasuk is related to their debate in Sefer Hamitzvos, aseh no. 5.] In his introduction to the Yad (post minyan mitzvot ha-katzar), he asserts, based upon our pasuk, that Hashem's intimate presence and particularly Divine salvation is always accessible to Am Yisrael ("vehayah karov le-shavateinu"). [This assertion is linked to and exemplified by a brief analysis of the rabbinic mitzvah of keriat ha-megilah. I think it is conceivable that Rambam may also have been inspired to link these themes by the comment in Megilah 11a- "Rav Masna patach pitcha le-parshata de-megillah mikra 'ki mi goy gadol..."] He meaningfully adds that this receptivity to our urgent needs, embodied by the imperative to publicly read Megillat Esther, tasks us with thanking, blessing, and praising Him ("kedai le-varcho, u-lehalelo"), but also further demands that we publicize and educate future generations regarding this authentic tenet rooted in our verse in Vaetchanan ("u-kedai lehodia le-dorot habaim she-emet mah she-hivtachtanu ha-Torah 'ki mi goy gadol...be-kol kareinu eilav'"). [ See Chidushei ha-Grim, Devarim 4:7 for a similar assessment of Rambam's view.]. It is unsurprising that Rambam both codifies the passage in Rosh Hashana 18a (Hilchos Teshuvah 2:6) and praises Uneklos' interpretation of "kerovim eilav" ("beur sheimot kodesh ve-chol", see Torat ha-Rambam on Devarim 4:7, p. 92).
It is self-evident that the prominence and efficacy of tefillah is a major theme on Tisha B'Av. The pesukim in Eichah, the content of the kinnot, the tefillot and keriat ha-Torah on this day repeatedly underscore Hashem's eternal commitment to Am Yisrael, notwithstanding grim circumstances and grave disappointments. Divine accessibility and receptivity to repentance and tefillah is axiomatic, it stands at the center of our efforts during this extended period of aveilut yeshanah u-derabim (Yevamot 43b) - mourning the past, lamenting the present, but confidently aspiring to a maximalist future. On the pesukim (Eichah 3:20-21) "zachor tizkor ve-tashuah alai nafshi; zot ashiv el libi al kein ochil", Meshech Chochmah explains that while it is foolish to shed tears on a lost cause, confidence in the rebuilding of the Beit Hamikdash and Yerushalayim, embodying the restoration of maximal Jewish life, an eternal principled promise, is always worth prayers and tears. Moreover, he further notes that precisely the capacity to shed tears over the churban is itself a catalyst to ensure and speed the renewal of national halachic life. [See my TorahWeb article on Tisha B'av as a "moed" for a potential explanation of this theme.] This additional, singular dimension is encapsulated by the statement (Ta'anit 32b) "kol ha-mitabel al Yerushalyim zocheh ve-roeh be-simchatah" and numerous other rabbinic aphorisms. Thus, Eichah Rabbati (1:23) asserts "amar Hakadosh Baruch Hu le-Yisrael be-sechar otah habechiyah ani machnis galuyoteichem". In this respect, the proper perspective on tears and petition actually galvanizes hope and confidence- "al kein ochil". We may suggest that our verse in Va'ethanan, highlighting prayer and reliance on Hashem as both the expression and foundation of our intimate Divine "kurvah" bond, accounts for this acute impact.
We are presently deeply ensconced in a national eit zarah, in which the tefillah and tachanunim have been particularly accentuated. While the multifaceted structure and complex process of tefillah, characterized by the triad of praise, petition, and thanksgiving (shevach, bakashah, hodaah - see Rambam beginning of Hilchos Tefilah) is essential to its aspirational efficacy, the emphasis on petition that bares our vulnerability, promotes true introspection, and that underscores our absolute dependence and reliance upon Divine providence, is particularly crucial. This focus has facilitated a critical dimension of clarity that has enabled us to maintain our emotional, spiritual, and halachic equilibrium in a climate of crisis. Recognizing that ein lanu lehishaein ela al avinu shebashamayim, that our eternal, intimate relationship with Hashem is the exclusive foundation of our individual and national lives, has provided stability and direction as we focus on constructive ways to contribute to a successful national outcome, to the attainment of a confident and maximalist halachic future for Am Yisrael. The principle of "kerovim eilav" attested to and accomplished by "be-kol kareinu eilav", a timeless formula, remains an enduring linchpin of our personal and national identity, a source of inspiration and an effective program for spiritual success.