Parashas Haazinu is referred to in the Torah as a “shirah” (Dev. 31:19). The Ramban explains that this because it is always recited as a shirah; this may be a reference to what the Rambam mentions (Hilchos Tefilah 7:13), that there are places in which Haazinu is sung every day.

Nonetheless, the content of the parashah is very sobering; some suggest that the word is meant to convey “tzar” (R Avigdor Katz, in the Sefer Zikaron for R. B. Werner, cited in Pardes Yosef HaChadash); some connect it to the language of “ashurenu” (per Bamidbar 24:17) because of its predictions of future (Minchah Belulah). The Ksav V’HaKaballah asserts that the word shares the same root as the word for song, conveying “straightness”.

The Pardes Yosef quotes an idea from the Belzer Rebbe that our interaction with the negative themes of the parashah should be similar to how we interact with the korbanos today: through learning them, we should accomplish their purpose, rather than actually experiencing them.

The Talmud (Rosh HaShanah 31a) provides an acrostic to inform how the aliyos of the parashah should be divided: “Hazi”v Lac”h”. However, there are as many as six views in the rishonim as to how this is manifested. The prevalent view is in accordance with that of the Rif and the Rambam (Hil. Tefilah 13:5, Shulchan Aruch OC428:5).

Rav Soloveitchik (Nefesh Harav p. 140-141) understood that this arrangement was a Torah  requirement because of the obligation to read the Torah as it is written, “k’khsava”. Accordingly, he ruled that this applies even during the weekday readings, against the view of the Rama (OC 428:5, citing the Mordechai) and, like the Shiyarei Knesses HaGedolah. 

 Rabenu Bachya read a message into the phrase, understanding we are asking for “a return of the glory” and the Maharsha saw an allusion to the Ziv Panim of Moshe Rabenu.

 R. Moshe Wolfson compared the word “ziv” to the similar word “hadar” used to describe the esrog, and noted the Talmud’s interpretation of the esrog as a fruit “hadar b’ilan mishanah l’shanah” that lives on the tree throughout all the seasons. So too, the Jews endure throughout all the vicissitudes of history, as the parashah will address. 

 The Rambam (Hil. Tefilah 13:5) notes another unique halakhah about this parashah: the aliyos of this parashah do not have to end on a positive note, because they effect a theme of tokhachah. R. Nosson Gestetner notes that this goal is thus enhanced by stopping on a note of mussar; as we aspire to Teshuvah M’Ahavah, which converts our intentional misdeeds to merits, the result of an uplifting stopping point is accomplished.

  The parashah begins (32:1) with the words “Ha’azinu HaShamayim v’tishma ha’aretz”. The Sifrei notes that in Yeshayahu (ch 1) the language is reversed: “Shimu shamayim v’haazini eretz. Apparently, “ha’azanah” is for closer proximity, while “shmiyah” connotes greater distance; the language conveys Moshe’s greater closeness to Shamayim  (See Torah Temimah.)  

 Rashi explains that the Shamayim and Aretz will testify after Moshe is no longer present; the Ohr HaChaim  specifies that “Shamayim” is the gedolim, while “aretz” is everyone else; they are witness to the covenant.

The rest of the Aliyah, as interpreted by the Chazal, alludes to many themes of Torah and Avodah. We are told that Hashem’s teachings can drop harshly, as rain; this is a warning to those who engage in Torah for ulterior motives (Taanis 7a), specifically those who do so to act contentiously with others (see Tosafos).  By contrast, Torah is also presented as gentle dew; the Netziv explains this is a reference to drashos, which must be preceded by serious learning (“likchi”) and otherwise can lead to mistaken interpretations. The Torah is also compared to light rain, that fosters growth and development (Sifrei).

The words “Ki Shem Hashem ekra Havu Godel L’Elokeinu” (33:3) are cited as a possible source for the obligation of Birchos HaTorah (Berachos 21a); as the Maharsha notes, citing the Ramban, Torah is itself a name of Hashem. The Rambam (Sefer HaMitzvos aseh 15 indeed rules that Birchos HaTorah constitute a mitzvah d’oraysa, while the Ramban disagrees. The Sha’agas Aryeh suggests that the implication of the gemara (Nedarim 81a) that Yerushalayim was destroyed because of neglect of this mitzvah indicates it must be a Torah obligation; however, others suggest the reference is more to what the neglect represented, such as a disrespect to the endeavor of Torah study as a religious imperative. The Mishkenos Yaakov (Responsa OC, 63) rules that the berachos recited in public are d’oraysa. (Later (45a) the gemara connects this pasuk to the obligation of zimmun). 

The Aliyah also identifies “tzadik” and “yashar” as separate concepts (32:4); as expanded upon by the Talmud. Rashi there notes that “yashar” is a higher level; the Netziv identifies this as perfection in the interpersonal realm.