[Par-reg] Parshat Kedoshim - shiur #1

[Menachem Leibtag]

*************************************************************
     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?