Our parsha begins with a unique aspect not commonly found in the Torah. When Moshe Rabbeinu is directed to speak to Bnei Yisrael, he is told יִ שְׂ רָ אֵ ל בְּנֵי עֲ דַ ת כׇּל דַּ בֵּ ר אֶ ל – Speak to the entire congregation. Rashi notes, based on the Midrash (Sifra, Kedoshim, 1:1; Vayikra Rabbah 24:5), the words עֲ דַ ת כׇּל teach us that this section was proclaimed בְּ הַ קְ הֵ ל – in full assembly, with all men, women, and children present – because most of the fundamental teachings of the Torah are contained in it.
The Ohr HaChaim Hakadosh provides the same explanation but expands on it through a question. Each mitzvah in the Torah was relayed to Bnei Yisrael through the chain detailed in the Gemara (Ervuin 54b): תָּנוּ רַ בָּנַן, כֵּיצַד סֵדֶר מִ שׁ ְ נ ָ ה. According to that Beraita, the people were always taught the Torah’s mitzvot by Moshe Rabbeinu, albeit after he first taught Aharon, Aharon’s sons, and the elders. If so, what is so special about these mitzvot in our Parsha that they are denoted as being told to the entire assembly? The Re’em, a commentator on Rashi quoted by the Ohr HaChaim Hakadosh, answers that the people would generally enter the tent of Moshe Rabbeinu one group at a time to learn the mitzvot. Here, however, they were relayed to the nation all together in one shot. The reason for this is שׁ ֶרֹב גִּין וּפֵי תוֹרָ ה תְלוּי בָּ הּ – most of the fundamental teachings of the Torah are contained in it, and if any doubt were to arise down the road as to how a mitzvah was to be fulfilled, anyone would be able to turn to their peer and say, “Were you not just told the following?” Had they been taught in smaller groups, there’d be room for someone to think or claim they were instructed slightly differently.
The Ohr HaChaim continues to explain why all teachings were reviewed four times through this chain – including by Hakadosh Baruch Hu before being relayed to Moshe Rabbeinu – and how such a system provided both a structure to ensure details were learned and relayed correctly, as well as a visible hierarchy among the nation that gave honor to Aharon, his sons, and the elders. If giving honor to Aharon through such a structured chain was so important, why was it bypassed in our Parsha when it came to a set of mitzvot that represented the entire Torah? The Ohr HaChaim explains that our Parsha is essentially מַ עֲמַ ד הַ ר סִ ינַי מְ חֻ דַּ שׁ – a re-enactment of Har Sinai and Matan Torah, and just as the entire nation was present at the foot of the mountain to receive the Torah, so too everyone was present here. The same idea is put forth by the Ibn Ezra, along with the Midrash (Tanchuma Kedoshim 3:1), which inspects the Aseret HaDibrot one by one and matches each with its peer mitzvah found in our Parsha.
After going through multiple layers to explain why this case was different in terms of how the mitzvot were conveyed and taught, we end up back at the starting line with a statement that our Parsha was the same as Har Sinai. This begs the question, why was a re-enactment of Har Sinai required? Everyone was there already, and everyone heard what needed to be heard. Why assemble them to hear it a second time? Besides, in five weeks’ time we’ll find ourselves once again re-enacting Har Sinai on the holiday of Shavuot, so why is there a need to insert this chapter and scene into the weekly Parsha?
Furthermore, a significant variation emerges when comparing the Aseret HaDibrot, all articulated using the singular form – זָכוֹר , כַּבֵּ ד , ל ֹא תִּ גְ נֹ ב, לֹהֶ יך-אָ נֹכִ י ה' אֱ, לֹא יִ הְ יֶה לְ ך – with the mitzvot found in our Parsha, which are expressed in the plural form – שׁ ַ ב ּ ְ ת ֹ ת ַ י תּ ִ שׁ ְ מ ֹ ר ו ּ , ל ֹא תִּ גְ נֹ בוּ אַ ל תִּ פְ נוּ אֶ ל הָ אֱ לִ ילִ ים , אֶ ת אֲנִי ה' אֱלֹהֵ יכֶם. What prompted this shift between the original enactment and its re-enactment? The Zohar explains that we were all as one person with one heart at Sinai, and thus the Torah is conveyed there in singular form. In our Parsha, however, that unity was no longer present, and thus the switch to plural. Another interesting answer I found is that Hakadosh Baruch Hu chose to repeat the commandments in plural form after Moshe Rabbeinu complained to Him after Cheit Ha’eiegel, Moshe said, “Ribono Shel Olam, what did you expect? At Har Sinai you spoke only to me!” Hakadosh Baruch Hu thus agreed to repeat the Aseret HaDibrot to the entirety of Bnei Yisrael and did so in the plural form.
I’d like to go in a different direction to explain the significance of what we find in our Parsha, based on the commentary of the Ramban together with an idea generated from it in the sefer B’Yam Derech.
קְדֹשִׁים תִּהְיוּ - קַדֵּשׁ עַצְמְךָ בְּמּוּתָּר לְךָ
The ideal of being holy – קְ ד ֹ שׁ ִ י ם תּ ִ ה ְ י ו ּ – is brought forth by the Ramban in the context of נָבָל בִּרְ שׁ וּת הַתּ וֹרָ ה, which we’ll explain in a moment. We’ll see that the holiness is the precursor to Ma’amad Har Sinai in Parshat Yitro, as Bnei Yisrael were told: ק ָ ד ו ֹ שׁ וְאַתֶּם תִּהְיוּ־לִי מַמְלֶכֶת כֹּהֲנִים וְגוֹי – You will be to Me a kingdom of kohanim, and a holy nation, and in our Parsha it is the introduction to the re-enactment of the Aseret HaDibrot. We’ll also see the subtle difference between מַ מְ לֶכֶת כֹּהֲנִים and גוֹי קָדוֹשׁ in that opening, along with commentary that bridges the two and reveals a yesod in our Avodat Hashem.
Let’s first review the meaning of נָבָל בִּרְ שׁ וּת הַתּ וֹרָ ה, which translates to a scoundrel in the permissions of the Torah, or a repugnant person within the permissible realm of the Torah. Using the example of eating to better understand the concept, the Torah doesn’t prescribe how much one must eat. We’re commanded to make a bracha, after which we can eat whatever quantity of food we desire. The Torah gives us no direction in terms of how much that should be. The Mishna in Avot (2:7) does say: מַ רְ בּ ֶ ה בָ ש ָׂ ר מַ רְ בּ ֶ ה רִ מּ ָ ה – eat as much meat as you want but know that in the end it’ll be the worms which consume it. We also find direction in the Kinyanei Torah (Avot 6:4), which states פַּת בְּמֶלַח תֹּאכַל – you shall eat bread with salt, but there is no concise prescription found in Torah law as to how much one should eat. If you want to eat three plates full, there is nothing stopping you in terms of Torah law. There is also no Torah law against drinking a bottle of wine after every meal, but we know the results of such a habit. Just look at Noach and Lot and you’ll quickly understand where over-indulging in wine will lead you. However, at the same time as there being no hard-coded rule, the Ramban says the idea of נָבָל בִּרְ שׁ וּת הַתּ וֹרָ ה is in play. A person can legitimately say, “There’s no restriction, so I’ll eat half a cow. What’s the problem with that? So, I’m a vacuum, how does that bother you? You’re not paying, so why do you care?” The Ramban says, such a person is repugnant within the permissible realm of the Torah. Just because it is permitted to eat everything in sight does not mean one should do so. It is permissible to drink a bottle or two of wine every night, but does that mean one should do so? Not everything permissible should be pursued, says the Ramban. When the Torah says קְ ד ֹ שׁ ִ י ם תּ ִ ה ְ י ו ּ, it is instructing not to be this נָבָל בִּרְ שׁ וּת הַתּ וֹרָ ה. Or in other words, קַ דֵּ שׁ עַ צְ מְ ך בְּ מּ וּ תּ ָ ר לְ ך – sanctify yourself by abstaining from that which is permitted to you.
The Kli Yakar highlights that the concept of sanctifying oneself inherently entails actions that are permissible, as engaging in forbidden actions is inconceivable; they cannot be touched or utilized in any way. For instance, if one is prohibited from eating and refrains accordingly, they are not sanctifying themselves through this choice, but simply adhering to the commandment given. Is someone who doesn’t eat pork considered kadosh each moment they abstain from it? Certainly not. They aren’t eating pork because it’s forbidden to eat pork! However, the Kli Yakar suggests that one who chooses to consume only the minimum necessary for sustenance despite being permitted to eat as much as they desire – such a person exhibits holiness. This act of abstinence differentiates them in a way that is kadosh. One who enjoys wine and has a small cup rather than half a bottle, or two full bottles, distinguishes themselves in a holy way. Not every meal needs a specially paired wine with each course, and a recap of all selections for dessert along with some soda. They can drink the soda on its own without any wine and achieve ‘sod-a Hashem l'yereiav’. Save the wine for the Seder and holiday table.
Atop this principle from the Ramban comes an idea from B’Yam Derech. There are some mitzvot which are identical to every person. We’re told ל א תּ ִ רְ צ ָ ח, and each and every one of us, regardless of if a man, woman, or child, have the exact same prohibition against killing. The same is true for not stealing, and while we may have different types of mezuzot on our doors, even of varying quality, they all contain the identical Parshiot. There are, however, mitzvot which do contain differences between people. For instance, eating. One must eat to maintain their body and health, and one is not permitted to fast other than at designated times (Ta’anit 11b): אָמַר רֵ ישׁ לָקִ ישׁ : אֵין תַּלְמִיד חָכָם רַ שַּׁאי לֵישׁ ֵב בְּתַעֲנִית, מִפְּנֵי שׁ ֶמְּמַעֵט בִּמְ לֶאכֶת שׁ ָמַיִם. Reish Lakish said: A Torah scholar is not permitted to sit in a fast, due to his fasting [strength for] heavenly service.
One may not fast, and one must eat? Wonderful, but how much? It does not say. Each according to their own level. Rav Shteinman ztz’l barely ate at all. A cracker and soup and the meal was over. His body was accustomed to that level of nourishment and that was all he needed to consume each day. On Shabbat, when it was required to eat, he and his wife together finished half a challah roll. We eat half that challah just for Hamotzi, before the hummus, techina, and matbucha reach the table, plus another chai salatim that call for a brand new Viznitz challah to be devoured, Baruch Hashem! His hardest Avodat Hashem was eating four kizayits at the Seder. Eating so much was foreign to him, whereas to others, that amount is perfectly normal and pretty close to what their body require each day. On the other hand, Rav Chaim Kanievsky ztz’l ate everything. Whatever his wife gave him – he ate, without even knowing what it was called. She’d place three items in front of him and say, “This is mezonot, this is ha’adama, and this is she’hakol,” in reference to the bracha made on each food. Ten minutes later, she would ask him, “would you like anything else to eat?” and he would respond, “yes, please bring me a little more of the she’hakol.” He did not know the name of what he was eating because he was not eating for the sake of eating, or to enjoy it, but rather because he needed sustenance to keep going. Each person eats what they need to eat, and this is a good example of where there’s indeed a difference in how a mitzvah is applied to different individuals.
There is a story told of the Taz (Rabbi David HaLevi Segal, author of the commentary on the Shulchan Aruch - Turei Zahav) and his father-in-law, the Bach (Rabbi Yoel Sirkes, author of the commentary on the Tur - Bayt Chadash). The Taz required daily meat in order to have proper energy for his learning, and his father-in-law pledged to provide it for him. One day, the Bach was short on funds and decided to replace the fancier cut of meat in the dish served to his son-in-law, with liver. The Taz took his father-in-law to beit din, claiming that what he was served was not meat! The beit din analyzed the details of the case and ruled that what the Bach was using in his stew was indeed considered meat. When asked why he took his father-in-law to court, the Taz responded, “I did not want there to be any claims against my father-in-law in heaven should I be unable to learn to my maximum potential as a result of the food I ate. Let the claim instead be against me and my inability to learn.” He wanted to clear his father-in-law from any wrongdoing in heaven, as he couldn't afford real meat, and the ruling of the beit din achieved this result. What we can glean from this story for our topic is that the Taz had a nightly need for meat, yet another example of our idea that some mitzvot are different depending on who you are.
Everyone eats according to their own needs, but nowhere does it say that you’ll be prosecuted in Heaven for not eating eggrolls! You can move on from this world even without eggrolls. The same holds true for sushi. No angel will ask, “You were down there for 90 years, did you eat sushi?” And if you respond negatively, the angel will not say you’re required to return as a gilgul until you fulfill ‘sushi v’asi ugot’. You can get by in this world and move on to Olam Haba even without eggrolls and sushi. What do you need to eat? You need to eat. You need to eat what you require for sustenance but aren’t required to eat every delicacy on the planet. There’s no need to taste every flavor and cuisine from all corners of the globe. The Ramban says, one who seeks to eat everything and justifies it by saying, “Hakadosh Baruch Hu created the world and I want to enjoy it all,” such a person is a נָבָל בִּרְ שׁ וּת הַתּ וֹרָ ה. You are allowed to eat and allowed to enjoy what you eat, but there’s no need to chase after food and become a vacuum cleaner.
Let’s now continue to the next stage. We’ll take one of the Aseret HaDibrot and expand on it, as an example.
Idolatry and Sanctifying the Permissible
אֱלֹהִ ים אֲחֵ רִ ים עַל־פָּנָיַ לֹא יִהְ יֶה־לְך פֶסֶל וְכָל־תְּמוּנָה לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה־לְך אֲשׁ ֶר בַּשָּׁמַיִם מִמַּעַל וַאֲשׁ ֶר בָּאָרֶ ץ מִתַָּחַת וַאֲשׁ ֶר בַּמַּיִם מִתַּחַת לָאָרֶ ץ ל ֹא־תִ שׁ ְ תּ ַ חְ וֶ ה לָ הֶ ם וְ ל ֹא תָ עָ בְ דֵ ם...
You must not have any other gods before My Presence. You must not make for yourself any carved image, or picture of anything that is in the heaven above, or on the earth below, or in the water below the earth. You must not prostrate yourself to them, and you must not worship them...
Please allow me to ask: Is it permissible to gaze at avodah zarah? Can one look at idolatry? According to the text, one is forbidden to make an idol, and forbidden to bow before an idol and worship it; but there is nothing that indicates one may not glance or stare at avodah zarah. In our Parsha, we once again find such a commandment:
אַל־תִּפְנוּ אֶל־הָאֱלִילִם וֵאלֹהֵי מַסֵּכָה לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ לָכֶם אֲנִי ה' אֱ -לֹהֵ יכֶ ם׃
Do not turn to the idols and do not make molten gods for yourselves, I am Hashem, your G-d.
What does the re-enactment of the original commandment, found in our Parsha, translate to? The Minchat Chinuch (213) says it means not to follow idolatry in thought, in speech, and even in vision. When you’re walking on the street and pass by idolatry, shield your eyes and look away. This is how we rule in Halacha – the Gemara (Shabbat 149a) says:
וּרָ ה וְתַחַת הַדְּ יוֹקְנָאוֹת תַּחַת הַצ מְהַל — אָ סוּר לִקְרוֹתוֹ בְּשׁ ַבָּת. ו ּ דְ י וֹ קְ נ ָ א עַ צְ מָ הּ — אַף בַּחוֹל אָסוּר לְהִסְתַּכֵּל בָּהּ, מִשּׁ וּם שׁ ֶנֶּאֱמַר ״אַל תִּפְנוּ אֶל הָאֱילִים״. מַאי תַּלְמוּדָא? אָמַר רַ בִּי חָנִין: אַל תְּפַנּוּ אֵל מִדַּעְתְּכֶם.
The Sages taught: With regard to writing that is under a picture or under graven images, it is prohibited to read it on Shabbat. And with regard to an idolatrous image itself, even on a weekday it is prohibited to look at it, because it says: “Do not turn toward idols. What is the biblical derivation? Rabbi Ḥanin said: Do not push G-d out of your mind.
The Shulchan Aruch rules accordingly (Orach Chaim 307): מְלִיצוֹת וּמְ שׁ ָלִים שׁ ֶל שִׂיחַת חֻלִין וְדִ בְרֵ י חֵשׁ ֶק כְּגוֹן סֵפֶר עִמָּנוּאֵל וְכֵן סִפְרֵ י מִלְחָמוֹת אָסוּר לִקְ רוֹת בָּהֶם בְּשׁ ַבָּת וְאַף בַּחוֹל אָסוּר מִ שּׁ וּם מוֹשׁ ַב לֵצִים וְ עוֹבֵ ר מִ שׁ ּ וּם אַ ל תִּ פְ נוּ אֶ ל הָ אֱ לִ ילִ ים.
One may not read on Shabbat secular books of phrases and parables, books of passion and war books. One may not read them during the week as well because it is a “sitting of scoffers” and because one is “removing Hashem from one’s mind”.
This addition to the original commandment of לֹא יִהְיֶה־לְך given at Sinai is an element of קַ דֵּ שׁ עַ צְ מְ ך בְּ מּ וּ תּ ָ ר לְ ך – sanctify yourself by abstaining from that which is permitted to you, and it is for this reason the (re-enactment) commandment found in our Parsha is written in the plural form, emphasizing these are additions to what was told to us in singular form at Sinai.
I’ll ask another similar question: Is it permissible to look at a coin that bears images of idolatry? If the idol of a country is depicted on its coin, can one use that coin? Can one look at it? The Gemara (Avodah Zarah 50a) brings such a case. Rabbi Menacḥem bar Simai was referred to as the son of holy ones because he would not even gaze at the image on a coin, as it was sometimes an idolatrous symbol. Tosafot adds, if it was forbidden to look at such a coin, it would be forbidden to everyone, and he’d not be referred to as any holier. Clearly, the coin was permissible, as it was the local currency, but Rabbi Menachem elevated himself by restricting himself even within what was permissible.
How was he rewarded for this? The Gemara (Moed Katan 25b) recounts incidents that took place when the souls of gedolei Yisrael departed. When Rabbi Abbahu passed away, the pillars of Caesarea, his city, ran with water as if they were shedding tears. When Rabbi Yosei passed away, the gutters of Tzippori, his city, flowed with blood. When Rabbi Ya’akov passed away, the stars were visible during the day. When Rabbi Asi passed away, all the trees were uprooted in a storm. When Rabbi Ḥiyya passed away, fiery stones fell from the sky. When Rabbi Menacḥem bar Simai passed away, the faces of the statues on the coins were erased and the coins became smooth. Imagine the face of George Washington on the one-dollar bill disappearing, with no George and no Washington to be found. Rabbi Menachem did what was not required, and his noble and holy actions were broadcast to all at the time of his death.
The same principle is found with the commandment not to steal. In the Aseret HaDibrot it appears as ל ֹא תִּ גְ נֹ ב, and in our Parsha we find ל ֹא תִּ גְ נֹ בוּ. The Gemara says (Bava Kamma 119a): אָמַר רַ בִּי יוֹחָנָן: כׇּל הַגפּ ְ רוּ טָ ה – וּ נוֹ טֵ ל כְּ אִ ילּוּ גּוֹזֵל אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ שׁ ָוֶה נִ שׁ ְ מָ תוֹ מִ מּ ֶ נּ וּ . Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Anyone who robs another of an item worth one peruta is considered as though he takes his soul from him.
Stealing even a small amount is considered like taking one’s soul when they are adversely affected by not having that amount. The ל ֹ א תּ ִ רְ צ ָ ח in Parshat Yitro was generic in nature – do not take the life of another with your hands, plain and simple. From there we don’t derive other situations that may result in one being considered to have taken another’s life. The commandment in our Parsha – לֹא תַעֲמֹד עַל־דַּם רֵ עֶך – extends the original commandment to encompass scenarios like witnessing someone drowning and not intervening despite possessing the ability to swim and assist without endangering oneself. At the time of Matan Torah, failing to jump into the water to save a drowning neighbor did not constitute a violation of ל ֹ א תּ ִ רְ צ ָ ח. However, in contemporary times, refraining from acting to save one's peer is regarded as a transgression of לֹא תַעֲמֹד עַל־דַּם רֵ עֶך – You shall not stand idly by the blood of your neighbor.
Returning to the parallel between our Parsha and that of Yitro (Matan Torah), the Kli Yakar points out that holiness was the precursor to both. While our Parsha visibly opens with the words תִּ הְ יוּ קְ ד ֹ שׁ ִ י ם, just prior to Matan Torah, Bnei Yisrael are told they’ll be a ק ָ ד ו ֹ שׁ מַמְלֶכֶת כֹּהֲנִים וְגוֹי. It is the same introduction and serves the same purpose. Namely, to show Bnei Yisrael that through the mitzvot they will merit a level of holiness, a quality not to be taken lightly as it reflects their Creator Himself: כ ּ ִ י ק ָ ד ו ֹ שׁ א ֲ נ ִ י. The Kli Yakar then adds what we learned earlier. Any place where we find fences, or restrictions, placed around our behavior, we also find kedusha, because holiness is attained through how we treat what is permissible to us. Where do we find this fence in Ma’amad Har Sinai? Just prior to Matan Torah, Moshe instructed Bnei Yisrael: ה ֱ י ו ּ נ ְ כ ֹ נ ִ י ם ל ִ שׁ ְ ל ֹ שׁ ֶ ת י ָ מִ י ם א ַ ל ־ תּ ִ גְ שׁ ו ּ א ֶ ל ־ אִ שׁ ּ ָ ה – Be ready by the third day; do not approach a woman. It was entirely permissible for a man to approach his wife, yet, separating from her for these three days helped them achieve the level of kedusha required. Just like our Parsha adds additional restrictions atop what is permitted, so too at Har Sinai did the people take on added restrictions which resulted in kedusha. קַ דֵּ שׁ עַ צְ מְ ך בְּ מּ וּ תּ ָ ר לְ ך was present there as well.
The Be'er Moshe of Ozharov brings an amazing idea. It says in Patach Eliyahu: פֶּה, תּוֹרָ ה שׁ ֶבְּעַל פֶּה –מַ לְ כוּת. We refer to the Oral Torah as Malchut. The pasuk prior to Matan Torah reads: וְאַתֶּם תִּהְיוּ־לִי מַמְלֶכֶת כֹּהֲנִים וְגוֹי קָדוֹשׁ. Breaking down this pasuk, its beginning, וְאַתֶּם תִּהְיוּ־לִי מַמְלֶכֶת, refers to Bnei Yisrael as Torah Shebe’al Peh, as it is the Rabbanan who establish all fences around the Torah, determining what is permissible and what is forbidden. The next part, כּ ֹהֲנִים, involves a class of people also separated from those around them, as many things permissible to Klal Yisrael are forbidden to Kohanim. The final part, גוֹי קָדוֹשׁ then brings the whole picture together for us, says the Be’er Moshe. If Bnei Yisrael separate themselves by way of setting limits on their behavior, they will become a holy nation, one that is set apart from all others. And this is all achieved through Torah Shebe’al Peh, just as the Gemara (Yevamot 20a) teaches:
