R’ Moshe Chaim Luzatto, likewise, in the fourth chapter of Mesilas Yesharim, cites that Yaakov was brought to task over the fact that he hid Dinah from Eisav. The act is categorized as “lamas meirei’eihu chesed – he holds back kindness from his fellow” (Iyov 6:14). Yaakov was certainly not permitted to arrange a marriage between Eisav and Dinah, as Eisav was a mumar, and Yaakov was prohibited from giving his daughter in marriage to an am ha’aretz. Moreover, if he wanted Dinah to marry someone else, Yaakov was certainly not obligated to give Dinah to Eisav in marriage.

This is also the explanation given for the gemara in Nedarim that states that the Bais Hamikdash was destroyed because Klal Yisroel did not recite the brachos preceding their learning of Torah. Although they fulfilled the core mitzvah of limud Torah, they were remiss in imbuing their learning with that extra spirit and energy to bring it to a higher plane. Their kavanos in learning were uninspired by an input from their soul, obviating the necessary fulfillment of kedoshim tiheyu. The neglect of that mitzvah is what brought about the destruction of the Bais Hamikdash.

Similarly, Chazal tell us in Bava Metzia 30b that Yerushalayim was destroyed because the courts ruled by the laws of the Torah – they only did exactly what they had to do, v’lo ovdu lifnim mishuras hadin -- and they didn’t do any more. They were not motivated to exert themselves on behalf of others in Klal Yisroel.

Ostensibly, this is difficult to understand, for we are saying that despite the fact that the courts followed the law, Yerushalayim and the Bais Hamikdash were destroyed for lack of a generous spirit.

The mitzvah of kedoshim tiheyu enjoins one not to indulge in excess, even in those activities which are permissible by Torah law. Accordingly, if one does not temper his actions it is possible he may be a “novol b’reshus haTorah – dishonorable within the parameters of Torah.” In such a case, then, the individual is faulted in Shamayim and is considered worthy of severe punishment, because he has failed to understand the significance of man as a part of Hashem.

The Talmud in Sanhedrin in discussing the matter of a ben sorer u’moreh -- a thirteen-year-old son who rebels against his parents and steals from them -- states that there never has been in history, nor will there ever be in the future, such an occurrence. Chazal explain there that this incident was cited in order for us to learn about it, expound on it, and receive reward for doing so.