<BODY><P><FONT face=Western>RSZNewman</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Western><FONT size=+0>>></FONT></FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=Western><FONT size=+0>please point me to a source on the connection between the 3 issurim- moving the baddim, lo yiznach hachoshen , and lo yikareah of the meil</FONT><BR>>></P></FONT>
<P><FONT face=Western>I can't answer the qustion at the moment. but I have such a good vort on "lo yikareah" of the meil, from the Rogochover, that I want to share it with the chevra.</FONT></P>
<P>The Rambam (Klei Mikdash 9:3) says that one who tears the meil gets malkot because of "lo yikareah". Furthermore, the Rambam says, one who tears *any* of the bigdei k'huna in a destructive way gets malkot ; the m'forshim say that this is from the pasuk "lo taasu ken Lashem...". The obvious question is, since tearing the meil is assur even without the issur of "lo yikarea", why is there any such an issur at all? What is the nafka mina between these two issurim?</P>
<P>The Rogochover cites the gemara Shabbat 120b, which says about "lo taasu kol m'lacha": "asiya hu d'assur, ha gramma shari" Since the issur of destroying any part of the Beit MaMikdash or its keilim is also formulated as "lo taasu", this principle applies to that case as well: gramma is patur.</P>
<P>However, the issur of tearing the meil is in the passive "lo yikareah". Thus anyone who *causes* the meil to be torn violates this prohibition, and is loke. Unlike most issurim, gramma is chayyav by the tearing of the meil.</P>
<P>I saw this in the 5 volume "Tzafnat Paneach al HaTorah", edited by R. M. Kasher.</P>
<P>Saul Mashbaum</P>
<P> </P>
<P> </P>
<P>There is a difference between "lo taasu ken" and "lo yikarea" which is indicated by the active and passive voices in these commandments -- grama. Grama would be patur in "lo taasu ken", which forbids active asiyah. But "yo yikarea", being passive, means that someone who *causes* the meil to be torn has violated this issur, and thus is chayav.</P>
<P>Saul Mashbaum</P></BODY>