Wednesday, May 18, 2005

Kedusha

A post I submitted to MJ way back when in '94 (MJ 12:92) - writing on my 386, no doubt!

No conversation ensued.

Perhaps here it might?

Kedusha

In honor of Lag Ba'Omer I thought I would post a question that I hope
will lead to a new thread of conversation on MJ: What is Kedusha?

This is certainly a critical question for us, especially at this time
of year, as at Mt. Sinai we were charged to be "Mamleches Kohanim
v'Goy Kadosh", a "Nation of Priests, a Holy Nation", so this is our
destiny - we better know what it is! Kedusha is a recurring theme in
the Torah and Chazal, and I wager to say that it is the pinnacle of
Jewish aspiration and achievement.

Preliminary comments: In my line of work I speak a lot, and I like to
speak on this topic. I find often that even Orthodox Jews take a very
reductionist viewpoint on Kedusha, i.e., it is a status of separation
and mission. Many audiences become uncomfortable when I explain that
in my understanding our status as the Chosen People imparts us a
uniquely elevated and special status, with more sacred neshamos and a
vastly different - and superior - role versus the Gentiles in
determining the destiny of the Universe. Indeed, many people are not
enthused when I invoke the Ramban and Reb Chaim Volozhiner to explain
how a mitzvah impacts mystically on both the character and sanctity of
an individual, and, indeed that of the entire world.

I refrain for now from proposing my own expanded definition of
Kedusha. If this thread does develop I will be pleased, and certainly
eager to discuss same. And, if it doesn't, why bore everybody :-) ?

33 comments:

  1. If you want a discussion of qedushah, rather than of your thought in particular, there is a better venue.

    This is a blog, which isn't really the ideal forum for discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ah, but I did submit the query to that venue - simultaneously with its posting here.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The politcally-correct obsessed society we live in has inculcated Orthodoxy, as well, and leaves most uncomfortable espousing these seemingly "elitist" views. But we mustn't shirk away from truth, however uncomfortable it may make us.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Instead if an opinion, I'll pose a question, the answer to which must inform any definition of kedushah.

    The assumption is that kedushah comes from some sort of separation or comparison. H' is "mavdil bein kodesh l'chol" and we are a "goy kadosh" as opposed to any other type of goy.

    However, we also refer to H' as "HaKadosh Boruch Hu", "Kadosh Kadosh Kadosh H' Tzivakos", "atah kadosh v'shimcha kadosh", etc.

    Now the "shimcha kadosh" part maybe fits because a name is an earthly concept. But how can H' be kadosh? Does not his yichud preclude such a thing?

    ReplyDelete
  5. I am not sure I understand what "Lone Bachur" means.

    But as to Boruch's comment, Reb Shimon Shkop in his Hakdama to Shaarei Yosher notes that Kadosh means more accurately "designated" than "separated."

    ReplyDelete
  6. From Avodah:

    From: Harry Maryles
    Subject: Re: Kedusha
    To: Avodah - High Level Torah Discussion Group

    "Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" wrote:


    > What is Kedusha?


    Kedusha.


    Here's is my off the cuff understanding of it... limited though it may be.


    First it must be stated that Kedusha is a spiritual concept of
    purity... of removal of Tumah. Kedusha is in no way a physical concept.


    The ultimate Kadosh is God. Kadosh, Kadosh, Kadosh HaShem Tzavakos,
    M'lo Kol HaArtez Kevodo...and... Kedoshim Tihiyu Ki Kadosh Ani HaShem
    Elokechem. All Kedusha as it applies in Olam Hazeh stems from Him. To the
    extent that we emulate Him is to the extent that we sanctify ourselves.


    There are certain items that God himself vests with Kedusha, such as
    Har Sinai during Matan Torah, or the Kodesh HaKodoshim in the Batei
    Mikdash. We, too, can vest living and inanimate objects with Kedusha
    through the medium of a Konam or by simply donating an item to the
    Beis Hamikdash.


    God mandates from us that we emulate Him: Kedoshim Tihiyu. In the
    sense that Kedusha applies to mankind one might say that it is achieved
    through Mitzvah observance. As we strive to fulfill God's will through his
    Mitzvos we spiritually elevate ourselves to higher levels of Kedusha. And
    contrarily as we fail to observe His Mitzvos we recede from Kedusha and
    fall into an abyss of Tumah.


    This is how Rashi on Parshas Kedoshim defines it: Separating oneself from
    the Aveirah of Arayos. Where one finds a Gader Ervah, one finds Kedusha.
    The Ramban famously disagrees with Rashi and says that Kedsohim Tihoyu
    refers to activity beyond Mitzvah observance. Kedoshim Tihiyu is about
    not being a Naval B'Reshus HaTorah. It would therefore seem from the words
    of the Ramban that Kedusha is to be acheived as something beyond actual
    Mitzvah observance. It is as though he is saying Mitzvah observance is
    the starting point and becoming Kadosh involves an activity beyond that.


    Rav Gedalia Shorr asks, "How can we as human beings aspire to any level
    of Kedusha? God, as the ultimate Kedusha implies that we humans are
    inherently incapable of ever reaching this "Godly: state? He answers
    that we are all created B'Tzelem Elokim and we can therefore strive to
    achieve the potential of Kedusha that Tzelem Elokim imlplies....never,
    of course reaching the level of God's Kedusha.


    To look at it from another perspective, I would say that Kedusha is the
    opposite of Tumah. Tahara, which one might think is Tumah's counterpart
    is in reality just the required state one must be in in order to achieve
    Kedusha.


    Just a few thoughts off the top of my head.

    HM

    ReplyDelete
  7. Seems to me a Jew is kadosh by virtue of his mission and responsibility. It follows that kedusha is an OPPORTUNITY that can be taken advantage of - in which case the individual is indeed elevated and plays a superior role in the destiny of the universe - or squandered, in which case the individual is not so elevated.
    Incidentally it also follows that a non-Jew can achieve such elevation as well, even though he may not have been charged with the responsibility to do so.
    YGB's post initially struck me as smug, but on re-reading I think we may be in agreement. YGB?

    ReplyDelete
  8. What Reb Harry writes is somewhat borne out by Reb Tzadok, who says taharah internally brings about kedushah externally:


    (24) ספר פרי צדיק פרשת פנחס - אות ה
    [ה] בחמרא גו כסא. בזוהר הקדוש פרשה זו (רמ"ה סע"א) כוס בגימטריה אלהים וכו' דכוס דאיהו אלהים חיים בינה. והיינו דשם אלהים הוא מדת הדין ובינה עלמא דאתי דאיהו יובלא דדינין מתערין מינה וזה שאמר אלהים חיים בינה. ושתיית יין מצינו אצל האבות רק ביצחק שנאמר ויבא לו יין וישת אף שבאברהם אבינו כתיב גם כן ויעש משתה גדול וסתם משתה הוא יין אך שם לא נזכר ששתה גם שם היה סעודת מצוה ביום הגמל את יצחק ואיתא בפרקי דר' אליעזר ביום ה"ג מל מה שאין כן ביצחק. רק באמת היה כל אכילותיו של יצחק סעודת מצוה. וכמו שאמר ועשה לי מטעמים כאשר אהבתי ואמרנו שהיה כונתו שיהיה המכוון של עשו לשם שמים לקיים מצות כיבוד ועל ידי זה יהיה אכילתו מצוה כיון שעל ידי אכילתו מקיים הבן מצות כיבוד על דרך סברת הר"ן (רפ"ב דקידושין) לענין אשה שמסייעת לבעל. ומהאי טעמא כתיב ויאהב יצחק את עשו כי ציד בפיו ומתרגמינן ארי מצידיה הוי אכיל, והיינו מטעם שהרגיש בזה טעם סעודת מצוה של כיבוד (ונתבאר בפרשת תולדות) ואצלו היה היין בבחינת צמצום כמדתו מדת פחד יצחק. וזה שאמר בחמרא גו כסא בבחינת צמצום דכוס גימטריה אלהים שהוא אלהים חיים וגבורה דהוא דינא תקיפא נפקא מבינה (כמו שכתב זח"ב קע"ה ב') ואמר ברעיא מהימנא אחר כך ואוקמוה בכוס שצריך הדחה ושטיפה הדחה מבחוץ ושטיפה מבפנים ורזא דמלה שיהא תוכו כברו וכו' ורזא דמלה וטהרו וקדשו טהרה מבפנים וקדושה מבחוץ וכו'. ומהלשון תוכו כברו משמע דתוכו עדיף מברו וכמו שטיפה מבפנים שהוא יותר מהדחה מבחוץ ובאמת טהרה מביאה לידי קדושה נראה שקדושה גדולה ולמה אמר טהרה מבפנים וקדושה מבחוץ. אך קדושה אינו כלל רק כשבא על ידי טהרה שהוא שיטהר מקודם הלב מכל וכל מהלב כסיל לשמאלו ואז הקדושה נקרא קדושה ובלאו הכי אינו קדושה כלל. וזה שנאמר בפרשת קרח כי כל העדה כולם קדושים ובתוכם הוי"ה, היינו שהשם יתברך שוכן בלבם וכל קדושת הוי"ה שהוא כולל שכינתא עלאה ותתאה ואתפני יצר הרע מתמן ועל ידי זה כל העדה כולם קדושים. וזה שאמר שיהא תוכו כברו טהרה מבפנים וקדושה מבחוץ שעל ידי טהרה מבפנים יוכל להיות הקדושה מבחוץ. ואמר ומה כוס לאו טהרתיה וקדושתיה מלגאו ומלבר בלא מיא אוף הכי נשמתא לאו טהרתה וקדושתה מלגאו ומלבר בלא אורייתא. והוא דהטהרה מיצר הרע הוא רק על ידי דברי תורה וכמו שכתב בזוהר הקדוש (ח"ב ר"ב רע"א) דהא לית לך מלה לתברא יצר הרע אלא אורייתא וכן הקדושה מבחוץ הוא רק על ידי דברי תורה דבלאו הכי אינה כלל בגדר קדושה. ואמר ובג"ד אמר רבן גמליאל מי שאין תוכו כברו אל יכנס לבית המדרש בגין דלאו איהו מסטרא דאילנא דחיי אלא מעץ הדעת טוב ורע. ואף דתורה שבעל פה הוא רק מסטרא דעץ הדעת טוב ורע איסור והיתר כשר ופסול טומאה וטהרה כמו שכתב בזוהר הקדוש (ח"א כ"ז א' וש"מ) היינו שעל ידי תורה שבעל פה שהוא הרב חכמה אף שהוא מסטרא דעץ הדעת טוב ורע יכולים לתקן הרב כעס שיהיה רק מסטרא דטוב ויהיה נעשה מעץ הדעת טוב ורע אילנא דחיי ואז הוא תוכו כברו. ובגמרא (ברכות כ"ח.) אותו היום סלקוהו לשומר הפתח וכו' ושמעתי שהקשו וכי שומר הפתח היה בעל רוח הקודש לידע אם הוא תוכו כברו. אך מאמר רבן גמליאל זה היה בעצמו שומר הפתח שעל ידי שהיה רבן גמליאל מכריז כל תלמיד שאין
    תוכו כברו אל יכנוס לבית המדרש על ידי זה לא יכול מי שאין תוכו כברו לכנוס ולא היה לו חשק כלל לכנוס. וכיון שנעשה ראב"ע לנשיא נתבטלה גזירתו ונכנסו הכל. ובשבת דשלטא ביה אילנא דחיי וכמו שכתב בזוהר הקדוש (פרשה זו רנ"ד ב') אז זוכין כל אחד מישראל לטהרה מבפנים וכמו שכתב הירושלמי (פ"ד דדמאי) אימת שבת על עם הארץ וזוכין על ידי שמירת שבת לדרתם דעביד דירה לון בשבת בתרי בתי לבא ואתפני יצר הרע מתמן כמו שאמר (תיקון מ"ח הנזכר) ואז מביאה לידי קדושה וזוכין לנשמתא חדתא שיהיה תוכו כברו וזה שאומרים בחמרא גו כסא:

    ReplyDelete
  9. To Cyberdov:

    I do not think that the sources bear out that non-Jews possess or can achieve the same kedushah as Jews, although they have their own, distinct, form of it.

    I think what you describe is mostly kedushah in potential (to which I certainly agree), but you do not seem to address achieved kedushah - perhaps I am just missing your meaning.

    ReplyDelete
  10. From Avodah:

    From: Micha Berger
    To: Avodah - High Level Torah Discussion Group
    Subject: Re: Kedusha


    On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 02:11:14PM -0700, Harry Maryles wrote:
    : First it must be stated that Kedusha is a spiritual concept of
    : purity... of removal of Tumah. Kedusha is in no way a physical concept.


    That would make qedushah synonymous with taharah.


    Because RYGB raised the question, I finally cleaned up a blog entry I
    was working on based on my notes for a derashah I gave last parashas
    Qedoshim.


    See http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2005/05/qedushah.shtml


    My own conclusion:
    [Developing Rav Shimon Shkop's idea i]n other words (my words), qedushah
    isn't merely separation; it's separation FOR a given purpose. "Qedoshim atem Lashem..." Or the formula for marriage, "Harei at mequdeshes li" --
    and there the purpose isn't G-d's it's to be united with her husband's
    goals! In my humble opinion, this unites the position of the Rambam and
    Rashi with that of the Ramban. They focus on the word "separation?", he,
    on the "for". It's a definition of being qadosh that would explain both
    descriptions of what it means to act qadosh.



    BTW, I'd say taharah is separation /from/, qedushah is separation /for/.

    -mi

    ReplyDelete
  11. you wrote:


    My own conclusion:
    > [Developing Rav Shimon Shkop's idea i]n other words (my words), qedushah
    > isn't merely separation; it's separation FOR a given purpose. "Qedoshim
    > atem Lashem..." Or the formula for marriage, "Harei at mequdeshes li" --
    > and there the purpose isn't G-d's it's to be united with her husband's
    > goals! In my humble opinion, this unites the position of the Rambam and
    > Rashi with that of the Ramban. They focus on the word "separation?", he,
    > on the "for". It's a definition of being qadosh that would explain both
    > descriptions of what it means to act qadosh.



    True - but Reb Harry raised an interesting nekudah that should somehow be reconciled with Reb Shimon: How does "kedushas keli" or "kedushas korban" or "kedushas ha'aretz" fit in, contextually?

    ReplyDelete
  12. From Avodah:

    From: Harry Maryles
    Subject: Re: Kedusha
    To: Avodah - High Level Torah Discussion Group




    Micha Berger wrote:
    > On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 02:11:14PM -0700, Harry Maryles wrote:
    >: First it must be stated that Kedusha is a spiritual concept of
    >: purity... of removal of Tumah. Kedusha is in no way a physical
    >: concept.



    > That would make qedushah synonymous with taharah.


    The above statement is inaccurate and I mis-spoke. Of course Kedusha
    does not mean spiritual purity. Tahara does. I was trying to say over-all
    is that Tahara is a pre-requisite for Kedusha and that Kedusha itself,
    rather than Tahara might in fact be the antithesis of Tumah. I thinkl
    the Bnei Yisroel's descent into the Mem-Tes Sharrei Tumah as slaves in
    Egypt reflects that idea.


    > BTW, I'd say taharah is separation /from/, qedushah is separation
    > /for/.


    That makes it part of the same continuum and doesn't really differentiate
    between Tahara and Kedusha. I look at Tahara's interscetion with Kedusha
    as its pre-condition. This for example is the reason the Cohen Gadol
    requires constant Mikva immersions as he continues his Avodah.

    HM

    ReplyDelete
  13. From Avodah:

    Subject: Kedusha
    From: "Shinnar, Meir"
    To: Avodah - High Level Torah Discussion Group


    To bite on RYGB's post on kdusha, and its criticism of MO responses
    to his citations of the ramban, the MO thinker who has addressed this
    most cogently is Yeshaya Lebowits. He has argued that there are two
    intellectual traditions about the nature of kdusha, one that viewed kdusha
    as something imbued in us by hakadosh baruchhu, and the other that kdusha
    is something that inherently refers only to hakadosh baruch hu - and
    to us only in a derived sense, to the extent that we strive for avodat
    hashem, and to other objects by their relationship to avodat hashem.
    By this second tradition, kdoshim tihyu is an imperative and an ideal,
    not a statement of fact - ki kol haeda kulam kdoshim is the statement
    of korach, not moshe rabbenu.


    The first intellectual tradition is one that can be viewed as perhaps
    more mainstream (RYGB before had a discussion where he distinguished
    between thinkers and machshava - eg, that RYBS did not do "machshava"
    in his meaning - and what he would consider machshava clearly adopts the
    first viewpoint), as in Kuzari, ramban, maharal, and all kabbala oriented
    writers...... The second one seems to be implicit (almost explicit)
    in the rambam, and some more modern thinkers


    The second position, or at least a variant of it (in dialectical
    tension with the first), is, however, (IMHO), quite common today,
    perhaps explaining the response to RYGB.

    Meir Shinnar

    ReplyDelete
  14. To RMS:

    Indeed, Reb Tzadok in many places makes the point that Korach was correct. For example:


    (2) ספר מחשבות חרוץ - אות יט
    ועיקר משה רבינו ע"ה הוא התורה, ועל כן עיקר השתלמותו היה באותן ארבעים שנה שהיה בבית יתרו, וביקש גם כהונה ומלכות ולא ניתן לו כמו שאמרו ז"ל (שמות רבה ב', ו') על פסוק (שמות ג', ה') אל תקרב הלום, כי שלושה כתרים הם לשלושה שלימיות הנזכרות שיש לאדם, כתר תורה לאוהב תורה והוא הפקר לכל אפילו לגרים מאומות, וזכה משה רבינו ע"ה ונטלו להיות רבן של כל תופשי התורה ואוהביה, וכתר כהונה הוא לעובדי ה' יתברך ואוהביו, שזהו עבודת הכהנים להעלות ריח ניחוח לה' לעשות נחת רוח לפניו יתברך וזכה אהרן ונטלו, אף על פי שכל ישראל נקראים ממלכת כהנים וכמו שאמרו (חולין נ"ו ע"ב) ממנו כהנים ממנו מלכים, ועד שלא נבחר אהרן ודוד היו כל ישראל ראוים כמו שאמרו במכילתא (פרשת בא) היינו ששורש מדת המלכות ומדת הכהונה הוא בכל ישראל וכולם כהנים ובני מלכים, ומה שנאמר (במדבר ט"ז, ג') כי כל העדה כולם קדושים וגו' ומדוע תתנשאו וגו' אינם דברי שקר שלא היה נכתב בתורה, אבל האמת לאמיתו כן דכל ישראל קדושים בקדושת הכהונה והמלכות, והן הם השני כתרים שקיבלו בשעת מתן תורה כמו שאמרו בפרק רבי עקיבא (שבת פ"ח.), היינו מלבד הכתר תורה שהוא קבלת התורה עצמה זכו עוד לכתר כהונה וכתר מלכות, בעבודה והשגת הלב שהוא המלך בגוף נגד נעשה ונשמע, שעל ידי זה נקראים ממלכת כהנים שהבטיח ה' יתברך שיהיו לו על ידי קבלת התורה, אלא שגרם החטא וניטלו מהם, ומכל מקום עתיד להחזירם לעתיד לבוא ולהיות השמחה שמעולם על ראשם (כמו שאמרו שם) כי עדיין הקדושה נשאר במעמקי לבם, אלא שאינו בהתגלות בעולם הזה, ומצד העולם הזה זכו לזה רק יחידים שאצלם הוא בהתגלות בעולם הזה:

    ReplyDelete
  15. I am curious about RMS's assertion about the Rambam.

    In the Moreh 1:54 he explains Kedoshim Teeheyu as emulating Hashem:

    (7) ספר מורה נבוכים - חלק א פרק נד
    וכבר יצאנו מענין הפרק, אבל בארנו למה הספיק לו הנה מזכרון פעולותיו זכרון אלה לבד, והוא - מפני שהוא צריך אליהם בהנהגת המדינות. כי תכלית מעלת האדם - ההדמות בו ית' כפי היכולת - כלומר, שנדמה פעולותינו בפעולותיו - כמו שבארו בפרוש "קדושים תהיו", אמרו, "מה הוא חנון, אף אתה היה חנון; מה הוא רחום, אף אתה היה רחום". והוכנה כולה - כי התארים המיוחסים לו ית' הם תארי פעולותיו, לא שהוא ית' בעל איכות:

    and in 3:47 he explains it as "Kedushas Mitzvos:"

    (8) ספר מורה נבוכים - חלק ג פרק מז
    אמנם אמרו ית', "והתקדשתם והייתם קדושים, כי קדוש אני" אינו בענין 'טומאה וטהרה' כלל - לשון "ספרא", "זו קדושת מצוות". וכן מה שאמר, "קדושים תהיו" - אמרו, "זו קדושת מצוות". ומפני זה קרא העבירה על 'המצוות' גם כן 'טומאה' - אמר באבות ה'מצוות' ועקריהם, שהם 'עבודה זרה וגילוי עריות ושפיכות דמים' - אמר ב'עבודה זרה', "כי מזרעו נתן למולך, למען טמא את מקדשי"; וב'גילוי עריות', "אל תטמאו בכל אלה וגו'"; וב'שפיכות דמים', "ולא תטמאו את הארץ וגו'". הנה התבאר שמלת 'טומאה' נאמרת בשתלוף על שלושה ענינים, נאמרת על מרות האדם ועברו על המצווה בו, ממעשה או דעת; ועל הזיהומים ועל הלכלוכים, "טומאתה בשוליה"; ועל אלו הענינים המדומים - רצוני לומר, מגע דבר פלוני או משא דבר פלוני או לשאת דבר פלוני על כתפיו - ועל זה המין האחרון אמרו, "אין דברי תורה מקבלין טומאה". וכן ה'קדושה' נאמרת בשיתוף על שלושת ענינים שכנגד אלו השלושה:

    seems pretty conventional to me - I do not understand what Lebowits meant.

    ReplyDelete
  16. In industrial QA (Quality Assurance), you can see various degrees of goodness:

    1. The manufactured lot or object can pass the tests done on it. That is, its properties fall within specification limits. But other lots or objects made using the same process may or may not pass.

    2. The process itself has been demonstrated to be in control, so that all lots or objects made using the process (methods, equipment...) are expected to pass.

    3. The process in 2. is so under control that the items are not only expected to pass, but to be very close to optimum.

    To me there seems to be a similarity here to concepts like Kedusha and Tahara. If you see a connection, please comment.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I do not understand the parallel to QA. Could you elaborate a tad, please?

    ReplyDelete
  18. From Avodah:

    From: "kennethgmiller@juno.com"
    To: Avodah - High Level Torah Discussion Group
    Subject: Re: Kedusha


    R' Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer asked <<< What is Kedusha? ... many people
    are not enthused when I invoke the Ramban and Reb Chaim Volozhiner
    to explain how a mitzvah impacts mystically on both the character and
    sanctity of an individual, and, indeed that of the entire world. >>>


    I can't find my Lev Eliyahu, but I think it is on page 18 or 25 of the
    English edition where he gives my favorite explanation of Kedusha,
    comparing tefillin to a radio. Both will only work if all the wires
    (=letters) are intact and properly connected. When working, both can
    tap into an invisible and intangible force.


    Let's move the moshol to radio tranmitters, rather than receivers. The
    radio waves produced by a transmitter are not perceptible to any of our
    senses, but have undeniable effects in the physical world, if only one
    posesses a received tuned to the correct frequency.


    So too, I believe that kedusha is a real force in the world, like light
    or gravity. Kedusha is generated by whatever Chazal say generates it,
    such as Tefillin, Shabbos, or Eretz Yisrael. If has real effects too:
    A proper Mezuza can prevent certain things from happening in a home,
    no less than Vitamin C can prevent certain things from happening to a
    body. Certain chachamim over the generations have been so in-tune with
    kedusha that they can somehow tell whether a certain piece of meat is
    kosher or not, or whether a certain person is Jewish or not.

    Akiva Miller

    ------------

    From: Zev Sero
    To: Avodah - High Level Torah Discussion Group
    Subject: Re: Kedusha


    Micha Berger


    [Developing Rav Shimon Shkop's idea i]n other words (my words), qedushah
    isn't merely separation; it's separation FOR a given purpose.


    Do you take into account "pen tikdash hamele'ah", where the word is used
    to mean "destroy"? I was taught that this was because one separates it
    from oneself, by destroying it. Clearly it is not being separated for
    a purpose.

    ----------

    From: hlampel@thejnet.com
    To: Avodah - High Level Torah Discussion Group
    Subject: Re: Kedusha


    micha@aishdas.org posted on: May 20, 2005:


    >That would make qedushah synonymous with taharah.


    Cf. Kuzari III:49:


    "HaTum'a v'haKedusha sh'nay inyanim zeh knegged zeh; lo yimatsei ha-achad
    ella b'himatzai ha-shayni. U-[b']makom sheh-ain kedushah ain tum'a,
    ki inyan ha-tum'a aynenu ki im davar sh-assar al baalav lingo'a b'davar
    mi-divrei ka-kedushah mi-mah she-hu mehudash lei-lokim."


    This of course is not saying that tum'a and kedusha are opposites
    (which would implyi that taharah and kedusha are synonymous), but that
    they are interdependent in the sense that tum'a is only relevant, only
    makes a difference, when there is kedusha, because its sole effect is
    to adversely influence one's connection to kedusha.

    Zvi Lampel

    ReplyDelete
  19. From Avodah:

    From: T613K@aol.com
    Subject: Re: Kedusha
    To: Avodah - High Level Torah Discussion Group


    In Avodah V15 #19 dated 5/22/2005 Zev Sero writes:
    RMB:
    >> [Developing Rav Shimon Shkop's idea i]n other words (my words),
    >> qedushah isn't merely separation; it's separation FOR a given purpose.


    RZS:
    > Do you take into account "pen tikdash hamele'ah", where the word is used
    > to mean "destroy"? I was taught that this was because one separates it
    > from oneself, by destroying it. Clearly it is not being separated for
    > a purpose.


    How would you explain the meaning of the root of the word "kedeisha,"
    as in what Yehuda thought Tamar was when he met her on the road?


    I can think of two ways of explaining it:
    1) as a euphemism where "holy" woman is a refined word meant to indicate
    just the opposite or
    2) that certain women were "set aside" or sanctified in the understanding
    of their religions, for use in certain religious ceremonies.


    The second meaning, which I'm pretty sure is the more accurate of the two,
    suggests that something can be considered holy in another religion even
    though it is not REALLY holy and the same Hebrew word will be used for
    both genuine holiness and the ersatz product worshipped in an A'Z sect.
    This root must have some intrinsic meaning that would make sense in
    both contexts, something like "dedicated for some special reason" or
    "separated."


    BTW this is one of those speculative posts where I am not actually saying
    anything (so don't argue with me, because I quite literally do not know
    what I'm talking about). I am, rather, asking for enlightenment.


    -Toby Katz
    =============

    ReplyDelete
  20. As regards the QA idea, my thought was this:
    How could an observer know that another person is a kadosh?
    It's when the observed person's demeanor, actions, ideas, etc., are so invariably on the mark that you can deduce that he/she is under "Torah control" and is not swayed by the world's distractions. You'd be willing to wager that he/she would continue to respond appropriately to whatever situation came up in the future. But there are others who have not achieved such perfection, but have kedusha in some lesser measure that one could also detect.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Why would your QA person not be just a standard Torah Jew as opposed to a Kadosh - or does Standard Torah Jew = Kadosh?

    ReplyDelete
  22. The latter. "Kedoshim tihyu" defines a key aspect of the "Standard Torah Jew", a member of the Mamlechet Kohanim. This commandment is addressed to every Jew, so HaShem considers it attainable by every Jew. A big, demanding challenge---but that's what a standard often is. "Standard" is not determined by a pollster using a survey or focus group.

    Regarding objects, holidays, etc., that we label as "kadosh", these are the things that fortify our kedusha when they are part of our lives.

    ReplyDelete
  23. From: T613K@aol.com
    Subject: Re: Kedusha
    To: Avodah - High Level Torah Discussion Group

    How would you explain the meaning of the root of the word "kedeisha,"
    as in what Yehuda thought Tamar was when he met her on the road?

    I can think of two ways of explaining it:
    1) as a euphemism where "holy" woman is a refined word meant to indicate
    just the opposite or
    2) that certain women were "set aside" or sanctified in the understanding
    of their religions, for use in certain religious ceremonies.

    The second meaning, which I'm pretty sure is the more accurate of the two,
    suggests that something can be considered holy in another religion even
    though it is not REALLY holy and the same Hebrew word will be used for
    both genuine holiness and the ersatz product worshipped in an A'Z sect.
    This root must have some intrinsic meaning that would make sense in
    both contexts, something like "dedicated for some special reason" or
    "separated."

    BTW this is one of those speculative posts where I am not actually saying
    anything (so don't argue with me, because I quite literally do not know
    what I'm talking about). I am, rather, asking for enlightenment.

    Reb Shimon, translating KDSh as designation or devotion explains that hence it is neutral - just as Kadosh is designated for Hashem, Kedeisha is designated for znus.

    YGB

    ReplyDelete
  24. From Avodah:

    I wrote:
    : qedushah is separation /for/.

    This generated many questions. Some of the responses made me wonder
    whether the author read the blog entry I pointed you to or are
    just responding to the teaser that I posted to the list. Again, see
    http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2005/05/qedushah.shtml before responding,
    if you haven't already.

    On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 05:01:39PM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
    : So what does it mean to say that God is kadosh?

    HQBH doesn't have conflicting desires. Therefore, He is entirely dedicated
    for a single Divine Purpose to the exclusion of all else.

    As RSS writes, the key to embuing our lives with qedushah is to dedicate
    our lives to that Divine Purpose -- which RSS tells us is lehativ others.
    Even one's entertainment can be qadosh if one rests for the sake of
    being a better meitiv.

    On Fri, May 20, 2005 at 06:29:39PM -0400, RYGB wrote:
    : Reb Harry raised an interesting nekudah that should somehow be
    : reconciled with Reb Shimon: How does "kedushas keli" or "kedushas korban"
    : or "kedushas ha'aretz" fit in, contextually?

    These items are set aside for the purpose of Avodah Hashem. Therefore,
    they have qedushah. I don't see the question.




    On Sat, May 21, 2005 at 11:57:42PM -0400, hlampel@thejnet.com wrote:
    : Cf. Kuzari III:49:
    ...
    : This of course is not saying that tum'a and kedusha are opposites
    : (which would implyi that taharah and kedusha are synonymous), but that
    : they are interdependent in the sense that tum'a is only relevant, only
    : makes a difference, when there is kedusha, because its sole effect is
    : to adversely influence one's connection to kedusha.

    On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 02:11:14PM -0700, Harry Maryles wrote:
    :> First it must be stated that Kedusha is a spiritual concept of
    :> purity... of removal of Tumah. Kedusha is in no way a physical concept.

    In the aforementioned post of Fri, May 20, 2005 at 06:29:39PM -0400,
    RYGB wrote:
    : What Reb Harry writes is somewhat borne out by Reb Tzadok, who says taharah
    : internally brings about kedushah externally. See Pri Tzaddik Pinchas #5
    : where he discusses shetifah of a kos shel beracha inside and outside with
    : the concept of tocho k'baro. I can't cite the Hebrew on Avodah, but I cite
    : in my blog: http://rygb.blogspot.com/2005/05/kedusha.html

    Tum'ah seems to be an adulteration of one's bechirah with the notion
    that one is just an animal. The Ramchal defines it in terms of taavos
    gashmiyos. RSRH, in terms of human mortality and being a physical object
    moved by fate rather than a conscious being in control of oneself. RYBS
    also writes about tum'ah as that which causes us to think of ourselves
    as the object of a sentence rather than the subject.

    Of course one would have to free himself of baser taavos and realize
    one's full bechirah chafshi and tzelem E-lokim before one can dedicate
    that self-determination to doing His Will.

    Tum'ah is the topic of another pair of blog entries:
    http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2005/04/tumah-and-taharah.shtml
    http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2005/04/tumah-and-taharah-part-ii.shtml
    My own thoughts are at the second half of the second entry.

    Seperation from the wrong thing is a precondition of being seperated for
    the right One.



    On Sat, May 21, 2005 at 11:53:12PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
    : Do you take into account "pen tikdash hamele'ah", where the word is used
    : to mean "destroy"? I was taught that this was because one separates it
    : from oneself, by destroying it. Clearly it is not being separated for
    : a purpose.

    This text is bichlal difficult. Chazal (Qiddushin 56b) feel motivated to
    turn it into a contraction of "tuqad eish". See also Hil' Kelayim 5:7.

    (But it is also possible that the problem with kelayim is not that kelayim
    is a negative, but that it's too qadosh. That is an idea I toyed with WRT
    shaatnez, which is both assur and the cornerstone of bigdei kohein gadol.
    But I don't have this idea developed well enough to want to defend it.)



    On Sun, May 22, 2005 at 12:29:00PM -0400, T613K@aol.com wrote:
    : How would you explain the meaning of the root of the word "kedeisha,"
    : as in what Yehuda thought Tamar was when he met her on the road?
    ...
    : 1) as a euphemism where "holy" woman is a refined word meant to indicate
    : just the opposite or
    : 2) that certain women were "set aside" or sanctified in the understanding
    : of their religions, for use in certain religious ceremonies.

    : The second meaning, which I'm pretty sure is the more accurate of the two,
    : suggests that something can be considered holy in another religion even
    : though it is not REALLY holy and the same Hebrew word will be used for
    : both genuine holiness and the ersatz product worshipped in an A'Z sect.

    Or that the Torah is using the title given such women in the Asheirah
    worshipping community. /QDSh/ is a shoresh in their language too.

    RNTK cont.:
    : This root must have some intrinsic meaning that would make sense in
    : both contexts, something like "dedicated for some special reason" or
    : "separated."

    On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 10:52:55PM -0400, RYGB wrote:
    : Reb Shimon, translating KDSh as designation or devotion explains that hence
    : it is neutral - just as Kadosh is designated for Hashem, Kedeisha is
    : designated for znus.

    But whether designated for Asheirah or for zenus, the concept of
    "seperated FOR" comes through.

    Tangent: She isn't a "qedoshah" but a "qedeishah". Perhaps it's not she who
    is being set aside, but that she causes her customers to be. Or, perhaps
    it's simply proof that the word is Canaanite.

    BTW, "harei at mequdeshes li" is another case where the "for" does not
    mean "for HQBH". Many is the derashah that says that the Jewish word for
    wedding is "Sanctifications". But IMHO, it's more like "separating the
    couple so that they may share common goals". From the man's perspective,
    "li".

    Micha Berger

    ReplyDelete
  25. As Micha points out on his blog,
    http://www.aishdas.org/asp/

    the definitive definition of kedusha to which we both subscribe it at:

    http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/shaareiyosher.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  26. Hi,

    If you think of the known worlds (ABY'A)as a downwards cascade of light, ending in our physical world where the light is totally hidden, then you could imagine the possibility of light from one level being drawn down to a lower level, or even to the physical. The term for this would be 'hashro'oh', resting. If this light was from a high enough level it would be 'kedusha' - as opposed to say a metaphysical energy. I think the difference is whether the Divine name is revealed in the light or not. The prior state required to allow this drawing down would be one of purity, or cleanliness, i.e. taharah. This is acieved on a physical level by washing and mikve, and on a metaphysical (nefesh) level by tikkun hamidos, which means cleaning up nefesh and restoring it to its original pristine state - teshuva. The effect of this drawing down of light on a person receiving it would be to elevate him and make him more spiritually aware.

    How does that feel?

    ReplyDelete
  27. It is not a bad definition, if one is willing or wants to define Kedushah with Kabbalistic terminology. (Some people are not comfortable with the jargon.)

    ReplyDelete
  28. i don't see how you can do otherwise; kabalistic terminology is the one that is designed to deal with these sort of realities. To describe electronic circuitry you need electronic jargon too.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I do not think that is the case. Surely non-Kabbalistic works have dealt with Kedushah?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Yes of course, but from the outside. As I understand it the way to grasp kedusha is through experiencing it - da'as. You could read books about flying an aircraft, but the only way to know it is to get in the cockpit and do it. Once up in the air, you need a whole new range of words to capture the experiential aspect of flight. Kabala is the doing, and it has a language that reflects this by allowing expression of the detailed nuances and subtleties that exist. Since these are experiences that are totally strange to the uninitiated, the language makes little sense if you are on the outside. I appreciate that the techniques used by kabbalists are not exclusive - gedolei hachasidus achieved kedusha in different ways - but the map of what is out there to be achieved, the shemos, olomos elyonim, etc., is the same, even if there are different perspectives.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I do not necessarily agree. I believe parallel approaches to kedushah exist in several systems of Jewish thought, each fully developed with nomenclature and paradigms of its own - that may be compared and contrasted, resulting in more similarities than disparities. However, just because you and I find some measure of sippuk in the Kabbalistic system does not mean for a moment that, say, the Maimonidean system is lacking.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Hi,

    I thought a lot about what you wrote. I agree there does not have to be anything lacking with another system. But take a moshol of a car. There are many perspectives on cars, you could imagine that of a tax collector, parking warden, environmentalist, industrialist, sports enthusiast. All are valid. But your question was 'what is kedusha', which I take as 'what is the essence of kedusha, a somehthing in the world, beyond our conceptual approaches. In the case of 'what is a car', you would have to say something like 'a box on wheels with non-biological propulsion'. (It's actually quite hard to formulate a definition!)

    ReplyDelete
  33. Again, I do not personally disagree with you. But, nevertheless, I think that if one were to take the Ramban's definition of Kedushah from the beginning of Parashas Kedoshim, or even Reb Shimon's defintion in the Hakdama to Shaarei Yosher, one might very well argue that the models are very different. So much so, that, to use your analogy, we might say that all models for the accomplishments of kedushah are forms of transportation - but one is cart and horse, one a car, another a boat and yet another a plane.

    ReplyDelete