Parshat Nitzavim: The Torah as an Inherited Debt

In Parshat Nitzavim, Moshe, in one of his final acts as leader of Bnei Yisrael, renewed the covenant of the Jewish people with Hashem as they were on the cusp of entering the Promised Land. Moshe warned the people that the only thing that would guarantee an uninterrupted existence in the Holy Land was the observance of mitzvot and loyalty to Hashem.
The terms of the new covenant, however, are striking. The Torah states (Devarim 29:13-14),

ולא אתכם לבדכם אנכי כרת את הברית הזאת ואת האלה הזאת. כי את אשר ישנו פה עמנו עמד היום לפני ה' אלוקינו ואת אשר איננו פה עמנו היום
Not with you alone do I seal this covenant and this curse. But with whoever is here, standing with us today before Hashem, our God, and with whoever is not here with us today.

The question that arises from this passage has major theological implications. How can it be that we, living thousands of years after the giving of the Torah, are obligated to abide by its laws? We were not present at the time the agreement was ratified; why should the fact that our ancestors accepted the Torah on our behalf legally obligate us to observe it? How can God punish us for violating laws, which we ourselves never had a chance to accept or reject?
Rabbi Don Isaac Abrabanel (1437-1508) raises the question in the name of the wise men of Aragon.
The Abrabanel answers the question with the following analogy,

אין ספק שאם אדם קבל הלואה מאחר שחייב בפרעונה הוא ובניו עד עולם. כי כמו שהבנים זוכים בירושת נכסי אביהם. ככה הם מחוייבים לפרוע חובותיהם וחיוב האבות... מוטל על הבנים אף על פי שלא היו עדיין בעולם...

There is no doubt that if a man receives a loan from another that the duty of repayment falls on him and his descendants. Just as the children inherit their father's property so they inherit his debts. Even though the children were not alive when the debt was incurred they are still liable to repay it.

Abrabanel goes on to explain the Bnei Yisrael became indebted to Hashem when He physically saved them from the bondage of Egypt and spiritually rescued them by giving them the Torah.
He concludes by writing,

ולהיות יסוד הברית והשעבוד הנצחי כלו יציאת מצרים היה תמיד נזכר בפי השם יתברך ובפי נביאיו. והיו מועדי ה' כלם זכר ליציאת מצרים כי זה מורה על ההשתעבדות הנצחי
Since the foundation of the covenant and this eternal servitude to Hashem was derived from the departure from Egypt, this historic fact was continually referred to by Hashem and on the lips of His prophets, and all the feasts of the Lord were a "remembrance of the going out of Egypt," for this taught of their eternal servitude.

In her commentary on Sefer Devarim (עיונים חדשים בספר דברים pp. 281-282), Nehama Leibowitz cites a flaw in the analogy of the Abrabanel. She writes,

בתחילת דברי אברבנאל נמצא גם את חולשת פירושו. הוא משווה את חיובם של כל הדורות בקבלת עול תורה ומצוות - והוא הוא תוכן הברית כאן - לבן שזכה בירושת אביו החייב משום כך גם לפרוע את חובות אביו. אך נראה שמשל זה לא יקדם אותנו בהבנת חיובם של כל הדורות, שהרי הבן יכול לוותר על הירושה וממילא הוא נפטר מכל החובות של אביו ואין בכך כל פסול. לא כן החובה של קבלת עול תורה ומצוות, הברית אשר נכרתה עם עאשר ישנו פה עמנו היום, זאת לא תיבטל ואין בידינו להשתחרר ממנה.
The flaw in Abrabanel's approach can be found at the beginning of his commentary. He compares the obligation of future generations in relation to the Torah to the obligation of children and heirs to repay their father's debts. But this explanation is not adequate since a child can always forego his inheritance and consequently rid himself of any obligations and debts involved. On the other hand, the binding nature of the Sinaitic revelation on the Jewish people is absolute and cannot be foregone.

Leibowitz claims that the Abrabanel's analogy is flawed because a son can free himself of his father's debts if he also forgoes his inheritance. However we do not have such an option when it comes to Torah observance.
Perhaps the Abrabanel's explanation can be defended against Leibowitz's critique. While it is true that a child can renounce his rights to his inheritance and thereby absolve himself from his father's debts, no one would ever claim that they would rather have remained behind in Egypt as a people of slaves for eternity rather than becoming obligated to keep the Torah. Furthermore, a true understanding of the Torah and its laws would lead a person to view it as gift rather than a burden, as it is stated at the end of our parsha regarding our relationship with God and His Torah (Devarim 30:19),

כי הוא חייך וארך ימיך
for He is your life and the length of your days