Answers to Achrei Mot Kedoshim

Kedoshim 5709
Alef.

1.  Usually the introduction for a topic which HaShem Wishes Moshe to communicate to the Jewish people is: דבר אל בני ישראל, as in e.g., Shemot 14:15; 25:2; 31:13; VaYikra 1:2; 4:2; 7:21; BaMidbar 5:6; 6:2; 15:2. (Obviously there will be no instance in Beraishit since the Jewish people per se had not as yet been formed, as well as in Devarim since at this juncture, Moshe is giving his last speech to all members of the Jewish people, without God Dictating to him as to what to say (see Abravanel at the beginning of Devarim.)

2.  Even if Parashat Kedoshim was said BeHakhel, why was this necessary?

3.  Mizrachi: Since these matters are of great importance, it is necessary that there should not be created excuses for not comprehending what is being transmitted, i.e., people shouldn’t be able to say in the version with which they were presented certain elements were either missing or added, and people should be able to clarify for one another exactly was said, this being possible only if everyone is taught the same thing word for word.

   Korban Aharon: Whereas with respect to other aspects of the Tora, it was appropriate for each group to be able to understand what was being presented on their own levels, either deeper or less deep. However with respect to this Parasha, since the Peshat is so important, everyone needed to be exposed to the same material at the same time.

   Alshich: In order to preclude the excuse that only certain individuals are capable of observing certain Mitzvot, these are all given in the presence of everyone to symbolize that all people should see themselves as able to comply with these rules.

4.  Mizrachi implies that there are potential ambiguities that might be misunderstood. This appears to be in stark contrast with Korban Aharon who contends that there is a basic understanding that should be accessible to all, suggesting that misunderstandings will be minimal. Alshich does not appear as concerned with the understanding of the material as the readiness of the listeners to accept upon themselves the responsibility of carrying out what they are hearing.

5.  It would appear from Mizrachi’s interpretation that it will be insufficient for Moshe to simply present the material to the people, but rather it is his responsibility to explain what has been said in different ways and a number of times to assure that all has been clearly understood.  

Beit.

1.  RaShI defines Kedusha by the manner in which an individual avoids that which is prohibited to him, sins in general and prohibited sexual relationships in particular. (The latter comment is precipitated with the Semichat HaParshiot of the end of Acharei Mot.)

2.  The concept of “Naval B’Reshut HaTora” connotes where individuals have not actually violated a specific prohibition, but have nevertheless acted in a manner that is repulsive and anti-spiritual, e.g., a glutton who consumes only glatt Kosher or an individual who is intimate with only his wife, but does so in a repulsive and/or brutal manner. These individuals have abused that which is permitted to them.

3.  R. Yonatan defines proper asceticism as something that even if everyone would act in this manner, the world would be able to continue to function. (Kant has a similar test for whether something is ethical or not—if it becomes a universal practice, would the world be able to continue to exist. Consequently, e.g., if everyone would murder, society would be impossible to be maintained, we can determine what is truly moral and what is not.) RaMBaN did not apply a criteria of quantity, i.e., what would happen if everyone would act in this manner. On the other hand, if everyone would sanctify themselves only within the contexts of that which is permitted to them and in a manner that is middle-of-the-road rather than extreme, it does not seem that this would necessarily result in the destruction of civilization. While R. Yonatan criticizes “Nezirim” it is only those who prohibit everything upon themselves; if they would only distance themselves from wine and grape products, not cut their hair and strive not to become ritually impure, even if everyone would follow such a regimen, would this necessarily harm society?

4.   In light of the fact that Mizrachi emphasized the need for everyone to be together due to the necessity that all would hear the same instruction and be able to understand it and explain it to others cognitively; Korban Aharon stressed how the contents of the Parasha were   understandable to everyone even on the simplest of levels; and Alshich advocated the idea that all people were equally capable of carrying out the directives in the Parasha; it could be said that in contrast to these three positions, R. Yonatan interprets the insistence that everyone be present when these Commandments are conveyed to the people to demonstrate that holiness and self-sacrifice are considered appropriate only when they are the types of things that everyone would be able to do simultaneously without an overly adverse affect upon human civilization.

5.  Perhaps Yosifun is referring to early Christain ascetics, who emphasized the ideal of the World to Come as opposed to this world.