[Par-reg] Parshat Kedoshim - shiur #1

Wed Apr 27 09:29:33 EDT 2011

**********************************************************
***

     THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]

          In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag

     Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag

**********************************************************
***

              PARSHAT KEDOSHIM  -shiur #1

     PARSHAT KEDOSHIM & THE TEN COMMANDMENTS

     It's not very difficult to find the Ten Commandments

'hiding' in Parshat Kedoshim, at least most of them.  [See

Ramban, Ibn Ezra, and Chizkuni on 19:2.]

     In the following shiur, we study the nature of this

parallel (and its 'missing links') in an attempt to
uncover

its deeper meaning.

INTRODUCTION

     In the first four psukim of Parshat Kedoshim, the

parallels to some of the 'dibrot' [the Ten Commandments]
are

rather obvious [e.g. honoring one's parents, keeping
Shabbat,

idol worship etc.].  However, as the Parsha continues, the

parallels become less obvious, and as we will see, some of
the

parallels to the dibrot become rather 'stretched' and
others

appear to be missing!

  Nonetheless, it would be logical to assume that there
must

be a deeper reason for these parallels, and the manner of

their presentation.

  We begin our shiur by taking note of an interesting
internal

pattern within Parshat Kedoshim, that may help us 'crack
the

code'.

THE ANI HASHEM DELIMITERS

     As you review the first 18 psukim of Parshat
Kedoshim,

note how the 'refrain' ANI HASHEM is repeated EIGHT TIMES
(at

the end of just about every other pasuk).  Note as well
how

this refrain appears in two different forms:

  ANI HASHEM ELOKEICHEM - the first four (see 19:1-10);

  ANI HASHEM - the next four times (see 19:11-18).

     This pattern suggests that these mitzvot divide into
TWO

groups.  The distinction between them is also rather
obvious:

  .    The ANI HASHEM ELOKEICHEM group contains primarily

     mitzvot 'bein adam la-Makom' (between man & God) and
hence is

     parallel to the first five DIBROT;

.    The ANI HASHEM group contains primarily mitzvot which
are

'bein adam le-chaveiro' (between man and his fellow man),
and

hence is parallel to the last five DIBROT.

     To verify this, note how the ANI HASHEM ELOKEICHEM
group

contains obvious parallels to four of the five first
DIBROT:

.     I.   ANOCHI (see 19:2);

.     II.  LO YIHIYEH (see 19:4);

.     III. LO TISA - [no apparent parallel]

.     IV.  SHABBAT (see 19:3); &

.     V.   KIBBUD AV (see 19:3).

     Note, however, that we have two problems.  First of
all,

we did not find any obvious parallel for the third

Commandment.  But we also did not find any parallel for
the

laws discussed in 19:5-10 [i.e. the laws of 'pigul' and
'pe'a'

etc.].  Before we return to this question, let's take a
look

at the second group:

     In the ANI HASHEM group (see 19:12,14,16,18) we find
a

variety of mitzvot bein adam le-chaveiro, the most obvious

parallels to the last five DIBROT being:

.    VI.   LO TIRTZACH - 'lo ta'amod al dam re'echa'
(19:15)

.    VII.  LO TIN'AF - the laws of 'shifcha
charufa'(19:20-22)

.    VIII. LO TIGNOV - 'lo tignovu...' (see 19:11)

.    IX.   LO TA'ANEH be-re'acha ED SHAKER - 'lo tishav'u
bi-

                      shmi la-SHAKER..." (see 19:12).

.    X.  LO TACHMOD - 'lo ta'ashok et re'acha ...'
(19:18).

     Even though some of these parallels are a bit
stronger

than others, all of the mitzvot in this section can
definitely

be categorized according to one of the last five DIBROT.

     Let's return now to our question, i.e. we are missing
a

parallel for the third DIBBUR - LO TISA ET SHEM HASHEM

ELOKEICHA LA-SHAV - in the ANI HASHEM ELOKEICHEM group.

     Bothered by this question, Chizkuni (based on Vayikra

Rabba 24:5) suggests that LO TISA is parallel to 'lo
tishav'u

bi-shmi la-shaker' (see 19:12).  However, that parallel
would

'violate' the pattern that we discerned above, for the

parallel should be found within the ANI HASHEM ELOKEICHEM

group, i.e. in the first ten psukim.

     Furthermore, based on the context of 19:12 - Lo
tishav'u

bi-shmi la-SHAKER - and noting the use of the word
'shaker' -

its parallel to 'lo taaneh be-re'acha ed SHAKER'
(Commandment

#9) appears to be much more convincing.  [This also keeps
it

in the ANI HASHEM group.]

THE MISSING 'LINK'

     Let's return to the pattern set by the phrase "ANI
HASHEM

ELOKEICHEM".  Using the 'process of elimination', the
parallel

to the third Commandment [LO TISA] must be located
somewhere

within the mitzvot discussed between 19:5 and 19:10.
However,

these psukim simply discuss primarily the laws of 'pigul',
a

law that contains no obvious parallel to 'not stating
God's

Name in vain'.

     On the other hand, the pattern that we have seen thus
far

'begs' us to look for a connection; so let's give it a
try.

To do so, we must first explain the law of pigul.

     The korban SHLAMIM is a voluntary offering that can
be

eaten by the owner; however, its meat must be consumed on
that

same day or the next (see Vayikra 7:16-18).  Parshat
Kedoshim

presents this law once again (see 19:5-8), adding the

information that the punishment for eating the meat
outside of

this time frame is 'karet' - being 'cut-off' from the
people

of Israel (see 19:8!) - one of the most stringent of
Biblical

punishments.

     Interestingly, Chazal [our Sages] interpret this

prohibition in an even more stringent manner.  They claim
that

the primary prohibition is not necessarily eating the
korban

on the third day, but rather simply THINKING about eating
the

KORBAN outside of its time frame!  In other words, if at
the

time of offering this sacrifice, one merely thinks about

eating its meat outside of its time frame - the offering
is

rendered PIGUL - and he who does so will be punished with

KARET!  [Even if the meat is never eaten at the wrong
time.]

     This strange law raises two questions.  First of all,
why

would someone think of doing so in the first place?
Secondly,

let's say he does, why is the punishment for simply
'thinking

about it' so severe?  And finally, what is so terrible if
one

eats from this korban for an extra day?  Is it really
better

that he should let the meat 'go to waste'?

'THINKING' IS WORSE THAN EATING!

     To understand the logic behind the law of PIGUL, we
must

consider that is quite impossible for a single person to

consume the meat of an entire animal in a day or two.

Therefore, practically speaking, the Torah's prohibition

against eating the meat of a shlamim outside its time
frame

forces the individual to SHARE the meat of this korban
with

others!

  [Recall as well that the korban must also be consumed

  within the walls of Yerushalayim.  Therefore, the option
of

  bringing the korban 'home' to share with his family is
also

  precluded.]

     Let's say that are assumption is correct that the
owner

of the KORBAN has no choice other than to share his korban

SHLAMIM with other visitors in Yerushalayim.
Consequently, we

now have a logical reason for one to think of when he will
eat

this KORBAN at the time of its offering.  The very THOUGHT
of

eating a korban outside its time frame implies that the
owner

does not want to SHARE his korban with others.  In other

words, this person offering the korban is being selfish,
for

he wants to save the meat for himself.

     Clearly, being selfish is a bad trait.  But is it so
evil

that it deserves the punishment of KARET - to be totally
cut

off from the people of Israel?

A NECESSARY BALANCE

     This law of PIGUL may contain an extremely important

'mussar' (moral message) concerning the necessary balance

between our relationship with God and our fellow man.

     Recall that the Korban SHLAMIM is a voluntary
offering

where one wishes to express his closeness to God, to
re-affirm

his commitment to the covenant of HAR SINAI (see TSC shiur
on

Parshat Vayikra).  If at the height of one's spiritual

experience, as he stands in front of God offering his
KORBAN

SHLAMIM, a selfish thought can still enter his mind - i.e.
he

does not want to share his korban with others - God
becomes

'disgusted' with this person, and the korban becomes
PIGUL.  A

person who has yet to inculcate the basic trait of
sharing,

has no right to stand in front of the MIZBEIACH and offer
a

voluntary korban to God!

     To support this understanding, note how the next
pasuk in

Parshat Kedoshim contains a law that stems from a similar

reason.  The obligation of the farmer to leave over a part
of

his field for the poor ['pe'a', 'shichecha', and 'leket' /
see

19:9-10] teaches the owner not to be so selfish as to keep
all

of its produce for himself.  Here we find yet another
mitzva

that requires the sharing of prosperity, and thus supports
our

interpretation of the underlying reason for the law of
pigul.

PIGUL & LO TISA

     If 'sharing' is indeed the underlying reason for
PIGUL

and PE'A, then the parallel between Parshat Kedoshim and
the

Ten Commandments, as discussed above, would suggest that
these

laws should be in some manner related to the third
Commandment

of LO TISA - not to proclaim God's Name in vain.  To
uncover

that connection, we must return to our study of the
meaning of

God's Name in Sefer Breishit, and its connection to the
laws

of the MIZBEIACH and hence to korbanot in general.

SHEM HASHEM & THE MIZBEIACH

     Recall from Parshat Lech Lecha how Avraham Avinu,

immediately upon his arrival in Eretz Canaan, built a

MIZBEIACH and 'calls out in God's Name' in BET EL [lit.
the

HOUSE of God] (see Breishit 12:8 & 13:4).  As we explained
in

our shiur on this topic, Avraham's MIZBEIACH served as a

vehicle enabling him to 'call out in God's Name', or as
Ramban

on 12:8 explained, teaching mankind concerning their need
to

recognize God and His Creation.

     Later at Har Sinai we find a similar connection
between

the mizbeiach and 'shem Hashem' [God's Name].  Immediately

upon the completion of the Ten Commandments, God commands
Bnei

Yisrael:

   "An earthen MIZBEIACH you shall make for Me... where
ever I

   CALL OUT MY NAME I will come and bless you" (Shmot
20:21).

  [Note that the psukim in Shmot 20:19-23 can also be

  understood as parallel to the first three DIBROT, while
the

  remaining DIBROT are parallel to the mitzvot which
continue

  in Parshat Mishpatim (very similar to what happens in

  Parshat Kedoshim).  According to that parallel, the law
of

  MIZBEIACH  is clearly the parallel to LO TISA!  (Read
20:22-

  23 carefully to verify this.)]

     As the above examples show, the concept of 'shem
Hashem'

relates directly to the MIZBEIACH.  In fact, the bet ha-

mikdash itself is consistently referred to in Sefer
Devarim as

'ha-Makom asher yivchar Hashem leshaken SHMO sham' - the
place

that God will choose to allow His Name to dwell (see for

example Devarim 12:5-12, 16:1-17, and 26:1-2).

  As the very purpose of the bet ha-mikdash and the
mizbeiach

is to properly publicize the Name of God, any law relating
to

the proper offering of a sacrifice could be considered as

parallel to LO TISA, especially the laws of pigul.

  If so, then our parallel between the DIBROT and opening

psukim Parshat Kedoshim is complete, as pigul becomes the

parallel for Lo Tisa in the 'Ani Hashem Elokeichem'
section!

     This parallel also follows the differentiation
between

the mitzvot bein adam la-Makom (first five) and the
mitzvot

bein adam le-chaveiro (last five).  It should not surprise
us

now to find that the Torah's presentation of the of law of

PIGUL includes the phrase -'et kodesh HASHEM chillel' -
for he

has desecrated that what is holy to God (see 19:8).

     As the primary concept of the Third Commandment is
not to

desecrate God's Name, then its parallel could include any
law

that may cause God's Name (or reputation) to become
tainted.

An individual who comes to the bet ha-mikdash to express
his

special closeness to God - by offering a korban shlamim,
yet

at the same time thinks selfishly about himself, causes
God's

Name to be desecrated.

SHNEI LUCHOT HA-BRIT

     One could suggest that this may be the underlying
message

of the two sections of the Ten Commandments, [i.e the two

LUCHOT of BRIT SINAI].  The mitzvot bein adam la-Makom' of
the

first five DIBROT come 'part and parcel' with the mitzvot
bein

adam le-chaveiro of the last five DIBROT.

  In fact, the law of pigul forms a meaningful transition

between these two sections, for it is a law relating to
both

man & God, and his fellow man.  This necessary blend
between

one's worship of God and his respect and care for his
fellow

man, so typical of the other laws of Parshat Kedoshim,
should

be the most prominent character of the Jewish nation.

     When Am Yisrael act in this manner, they become a
true AM

KADOSH, a holy nation that truly testifies that God is
KADOSH

and His Name is KADOSH.  By doing so, they facilitate
bringing

'shem Hashem' God's Name (and hence His reputation) to

mankind.

                              shabbat shalom,

                              menachem

FOR FURTHER IYUN

A.  Can you suggest a reason why ANI HASHEM ELOKEICHEM
relates

to the mitzvot bein adam la-Makom while ANI HASHEM relates
to

the mitzvot bein adam le-chaveiro (at least in the first
18

psukim)?  [Hint: Which mitzvot are more universal, and
which

are more special for Am Yisrael?]

B.  In Parshat Kedoshim, we find a pattern where there
appears

to be no or very little connection from one mitzva to the

next.  Do you think that this is intentional?

     If so, based on the above shiur, what is its

significance?

     See Ibn Ezra in 19:3-18.  Do you agree with all of
his

associations concerning the flow of the parsha?

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: kdosh1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 37295 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20110427/0f5bfb82/attachment-0001.pdf 