<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16414" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2>*************************************************************<BR>
THE TANACH STUDY CENTER
[http://www.tanach.org]<BR>
In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag<BR> Shiurim in
Chumash & Navi by Menachem
Leibtag<BR>*************************************************************</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
PARSHAT KEDOSHIM -shiur #1</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> PARSHAT KEDOSHIM & THE
TEN COMMANDMENTS</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> It's not very difficult to
find the Ten Commandments<BR>'hiding' in Parshat Kedoshim, at least most of
them. [See<BR>Ramban, Ibn Ezra, and Chizkuni on
19:2.]<BR> In the following shiur, we study the nature
of this<BR>parallel (and its 'missing links') in an attempt to uncover<BR>its
deeper meaning.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>INTRODUCTION<BR> In the
first four psukim of Parshat Kedoshim, the<BR>parallels to some of the 'dibrot'
[the Ten Commandments] are<BR>rather obvious [e.g. honoring one's parents,
keeping Shabbat,<BR>idol worship etc.]. However, as the Parsha continues,
the<BR>parallels become less obvious, and as we will see, some of
the<BR>parallels to the dibrot become rather 'stretched' and others<BR>appear to
be missing!<BR> Nonetheless, it would be logical to assume that there
must<BR>be a deeper reason for these parallels, and the manner of<BR>their
presentation.<BR> We begin our shiur by taking note of an interesting
internal<BR>pattern within Parshat Kedoshim, that may help us 'crack
the<BR>code'.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>THE ANI HASHEM
DELIMITERS<BR> As you review the first 18 psukim of
Parshat Kedoshim,<BR>note how the 'refrain' ANI HASHEM is repeated EIGHT TIMES
(at<BR>the end of just about every other pasuk). Note as well how<BR>this
refrain appears in two different forms:<BR> ANI HASHEM ELOKEICHEM - the
first four (see 19:1-10);<BR> ANI HASHEM - the next four times (see
19:11-18).<BR> <BR> This pattern
suggests that these mitzvot divide into TWO<BR>groups. The distinction
between them is also rather obvious:<BR> · The ANI
HASHEM ELOKEICHEM group contains primarily<BR> mitzvot
'bein adam la-Makom' (between man & God) and hence
is<BR> parallel to the first five
DIBROT;<BR>· The ANI HASHEM group contains primarily mitzvot
which are<BR>'bein adam le-chaveiro' (between man and his fellow man),
and<BR>hence is parallel to the last five DIBROT.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> To verify this, note how
the ANI HASHEM ELOKEICHEM group<BR>contains obvious parallels to four of the
five first DIBROT:<BR>· I. ANOCHI (see
19:2);<BR>· II. LO YIHIYEH (see
19:4);<BR>· III. LO TISA - [no apparent
parallel]<BR>· IV. SHABBAT (see 19:3);
&<BR>· V. KIBBUD AV (see
19:3).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Note, however, that we
have two problems. First of all,<BR>we did not find any obvious parallel
for the third<BR>Commandment. But we also did not find any parallel for
the<BR>laws discussed in 19:5-10 [i.e. the laws of 'pigul' and
'pe'a'<BR>etc.]. Before we return to this question, let's take a
look<BR>at the second group:<BR> In the ANI HASHEM group
(see 19:12,14,16,18) we find a<BR>variety of mitzvot bein adam le-chaveiro, the
most obvious<BR>parallels to the last five DIBROT being:<BR>·
VI. LO TIRTZACH - 'lo ta'amod al dam re'echa'
(19:15)<BR>· VII. LO TIN'AF - the laws of 'shifcha
charufa'(19:20-22)<BR>· VIII. LO TIGNOV - 'lo tignovu...' (see
19:11)<BR>· IX. LO TA'ANEH be-re'acha ED SHAKER -
'lo tishav'u
bi-<BR>
shmi la-SHAKER..." (see 19:12).<BR>· X. LO TACHMOD - 'lo
ta'ashok et re'acha ...' (19:18).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Even though some of these
parallels are a bit stronger<BR>than others, all of the mitzvot in this section
can definitely<BR>be categorized according to one of the last five
DIBROT.<BR> Let's return now to our question, i.e. we
are missing a<BR>parallel for the third DIBBUR - LO TISA ET SHEM
HASHEM<BR>ELOKEICHA LA-SHAV - in the ANI HASHEM ELOKEICHEM
group.<BR> Bothered by this question, Chizkuni (based on
Vayikra<BR>Rabba 24:5) suggests that LO TISA is parallel to 'lo
tishav'u<BR>bi-shmi la-shaker' (see 19:12). However, that parallel
would<BR>'violate' the pattern that we discerned above, for the<BR>parallel
should be found within the ANI HASHEM ELOKEICHEM<BR>group, i.e. in the first ten
psukim.<BR> Furthermore, based on the context of 19:12 -
Lo tishav'u<BR>bi-shmi la-SHAKER - and noting the use of the word 'shaker'
-<BR>its parallel to 'lo taaneh be-re'acha ed SHAKER' (Commandment<BR>#9)
appears to be much more convincing. [This also keeps it<BR>in the ANI
HASHEM group.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>THE MISSING 'LINK'<BR>
Let's return to the pattern set by the phrase "ANI HASHEM<BR>ELOKEICHEM".
Using the 'process of elimination', the parallel<BR>to the third Commandment [LO
TISA] must be located somewhere<BR>within the mitzvot discussed between 19:5 and
19:10. However,<BR>these psukim simply discuss primarily the laws of
'pigul', a<BR>law that contains no obvious parallel to 'not stating
God's<BR>Name in vain'.<BR> On the other hand, the
pattern that we have seen thus far<BR>'begs' us to look for a connection; so
let's give it a try.<BR>To do so, we must first explain the law of
pigul.<BR> The korban SHLAMIM is a voluntary offering
that can be<BR>eaten by the owner; however, its meat must be consumed on
that<BR>same day or the next (see Vayikra 7:16-18). Parshat
Kedoshim<BR>presents this law once again (see 19:5-8), adding the<BR>information
that the punishment for eating the meat outside of<BR>this time frame is 'karet'
- being 'cut-off' from the people<BR>of Israel (see 19:8!) - one of the most
stringent of Biblical<BR>punishments.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Interestingly, Chazal [our
Sages] interpret this<BR>prohibition in an even more stringent manner.
They claim that<BR>the primary prohibition is not necessarily eating the
korban<BR>on the third day, but rather simply THINKING about eating
the<BR>KORBAN outside of its time frame! In other words, if at the<BR>time
of offering this sacrifice, one merely thinks about<BR>eating its meat outside
of its time frame - the offering is<BR>rendered PIGUL - and he who does so will
be punished with<BR>KARET! [Even if the meat is never eaten at the wrong
time.]<BR> This strange law raises two questions.
First of all, why<BR>would someone think of doing so in the first place?
Secondly,<BR>let's say he does, why is the punishment for simply
'thinking<BR>about it' so severe? And finally, what is so terrible if
one<BR>eats from this korban for an extra day? Is it really better<BR>that
he should let the meat 'go to waste'?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>'THINKING' IS WORSE THAN
EATING!<BR> To understand the logic behind the law of
PIGUL, we must<BR>consider that is quite impossible for a single person
to<BR>consume the meat of an entire animal in a day or two.<BR>Therefore,
practically speaking, the Torah's prohibition<BR>against eating the meat of a
shlamim outside its time frame<BR>forces the individual to SHARE the meat of
this korban with<BR>others!<BR> [Recall as well that the korban must also
be consumed<BR> within the walls of Yerushalayim. Therefore, the
option of<BR> bringing the korban 'home' to share with his family is
also<BR> precluded.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Let's say that are
assumption is correct that the owner<BR>of the KORBAN has no choice other than
to share his korban<BR>SHLAMIM with other visitors in Yerushalayim.
Consequently, we<BR>now have a logical reason for one to think of when he will
eat<BR>this KORBAN at the time of its offering. The very THOUGHT
of<BR>eating a korban outside its time frame implies that the owner<BR>does not
want to SHARE his korban with others. In other<BR>words, this person
offering the korban is being selfish, for<BR>he wants to save the meat for
himself.<BR> Clearly, being selfish is a bad
trait. But is it so evil<BR>that it deserves the punishment of KARET - to
be totally cut<BR>off from the people of Israel?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>A NECESSARY BALANCE<BR>
This law of PIGUL may contain an extremely important<BR>'mussar' (moral message)
concerning the necessary balance<BR>between our relationship with God and our
fellow man.<BR> Recall that the Korban SHLAMIM is a
voluntary offering<BR>where one wishes to express his closeness to God, to
re-affirm<BR>his commitment to the covenant of HAR SINAI (see TSC shiur
on<BR>Parshat Vayikra). If at the height of one's spiritual<BR>experience,
as he stands in front of God offering his KORBAN<BR>SHLAMIM, a selfish thought
can still enter his mind - i.e. he<BR>does not want to share his korban with
others - God becomes<BR>'disgusted' with this person, and the korban becomes
PIGUL. A<BR>person who has yet to inculcate the basic trait of
sharing,<BR>has no right to stand in front of the MIZBEIACH and offer
a<BR>voluntary korban to God!<BR> To support this
understanding, note how the next pasuk in<BR>Parshat Kedoshim contains a law
that stems from a similar<BR>reason. The obligation of the farmer to leave
over a part of<BR>his field for the poor ['pe'a', 'shichecha', and 'leket' /
see<BR>19:9-10] teaches the owner not to be so selfish as to keep all<BR>of its
produce for himself. Here we find yet another mitzva<BR>that requires the
sharing of prosperity, and thus supports our<BR>interpretation of the underlying
reason for the law of pigul.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>PIGUL & LO TISA<BR> If
'sharing' is indeed the underlying reason for PIGUL<BR>and PE'A, then the
parallel between Parshat Kedoshim and the<BR>Ten Commandments, as discussed
above, would suggest that these<BR>laws should be in some manner related to the
third Commandment<BR>of LO TISA - not to proclaim God's Name in vain. To
uncover<BR>that connection, we must return to our study of the meaning
of<BR>God's Name in Sefer Breishit, and its connection to the laws<BR>of the
MIZBEIACH and hence to korbanot in general.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>SHEM HASHEM & THE
MIZBEIACH<BR> Recall from Parshat Lech Lecha how Avraham
Avinu,<BR>immediately upon his arrival in Eretz Canaan, built a<BR>MIZBEIACH and
'calls out in God's Name' in BET EL [lit. the<BR>HOUSE of God] (see Breishit
12:8 & 13:4). As we explained in<BR>our shiur on this topic, Avraham's
MIZBEIACH served as a<BR>vehicle enabling him to 'call out in God's Name', or as
Ramban<BR>on 12:8 explained, teaching mankind concerning their need
to<BR>recognize God and His Creation.<BR> Later at Har
Sinai we find a similar connection between<BR>the mizbeiach and 'shem Hashem'
[God's Name]. Immediately<BR>upon the completion of the Ten Commandments,
God commands Bnei<BR>Yisrael:<BR> "An earthen MIZBEIACH you shall
make for Me... where ever I<BR> CALL OUT MY NAME I will come and
bless you" (Shmot 20:21).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> [Note that the psukim in Shmot 20:19-23 can
also be<BR> understood as parallel to the first three DIBROT, while
the<BR> remaining DIBROT are parallel to the mitzvot which
continue<BR> in Parshat Mishpatim (very similar to what happens
in<BR> Parshat Kedoshim). According to that parallel, the law
of<BR> MIZBEIACH is clearly the parallel to LO TISA! (Read
20:22-<BR> 23 carefully to verify this.)]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> As the above examples
show, the concept of 'shem Hashem'<BR>relates directly to the MIZBEIACH.
In fact, the bet ha-<BR>mikdash itself is consistently referred to in Sefer
Devarim as<BR>'ha-Makom asher yivchar Hashem leshaken SHMO sham' - the
place<BR>that God will choose to allow His Name to dwell (see for<BR>example
Devarim 12:5-12, 16:1-17, and 26:1-2).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> As the very purpose of the bet ha-mikdash
and the mizbeiach<BR>is to properly publicize the Name of God, any law relating
to<BR>the proper offering of a sacrifice could be considered as<BR>parallel to
LO TISA, especially the laws of pigul.<BR> If so, then our parallel
between the DIBROT and opening<BR>psukim Parshat Kedoshim is complete, as pigul
becomes the<BR>parallel for Lo Tisa in the 'Ani Hashem Elokeichem'
section!<BR> This parallel also follows the
differentiation between<BR>the mitzvot bein adam la-Makom (first five) and the
mitzvot<BR>bein adam le-chaveiro (last five). It should not surprise
us<BR>now to find that the Torah's presentation of the of law of<BR>PIGUL
includes the phrase -'et kodesh HASHEM chillel' - for he<BR>has desecrated that
what is holy to God (see 19:8).<BR> As the primary
concept of the Third Commandment is not to<BR>desecrate God's Name, then its
parallel could include any law<BR>that may cause God's Name (or reputation) to
become tainted.<BR>An individual who comes to the bet ha-mikdash to express
his<BR>special closeness to God - by offering a korban shlamim, yet<BR>at the
same time thinks selfishly about himself, causes God's<BR>Name to be
desecrated.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>SHNEI LUCHOT HA-BRIT<BR>
One could suggest that this may be the underlying message<BR>of the two sections
of the Ten Commandments, [i.e the two<BR>LUCHOT of BRIT SINAI]. The
mitzvot bein adam la-Makom' of the<BR>first five DIBROT come 'part and parcel'
with the mitzvot bein<BR>adam le-chaveiro of the last five DIBROT.<BR> In
fact, the law of pigul forms a meaningful transition<BR>between these two
sections, for it is a law relating to both<BR>man & God, and his fellow
man. This necessary blend between<BR>one's worship of God and his respect
and care for his fellow<BR>man, so typical of the other laws of Parshat
Kedoshim, should<BR>be the most prominent character of the Jewish
nation.<BR> When Am Yisrael act in this manner, they
become a true AM<BR>KADOSH, a holy nation that truly testifies that God is
KADOSH<BR>and His Name is KADOSH. By doing so, they facilitate
bringing<BR>'shem Hashem' God's Name (and hence His reputation)
to<BR>mankind.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2>
shabbat
shalom,<BR>
menachem</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>FOR FURTHER IYUN<BR>A. Can you suggest a
reason why ANI HASHEM ELOKEICHEM relates<BR>to the mitzvot bein adam la-Makom
while ANI HASHEM relates to<BR>the mitzvot bein adam le-chaveiro (at least in
the first 18<BR>psukim)? [Hint: Which mitzvot are more universal, and
which<BR>are more special for Am Yisrael?]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>B. In Parshat Kedoshim, we find a pattern
where there appears<BR>to be no or very little connection from one mitzva to
the<BR>next. Do you think that this is
intentional?<BR> If so, based on the above shiur, what
is its<BR>significance?<BR> See Ibn Ezra in
19:3-18. Do you agree with all of his<BR>associations concerning the flow
of the parsha?<BR></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>