Holiness and Emuna, Part II: The Eternal Betrothal
Bein Adam Le-chavero: Ethics of Interpersonal Conduct
By Rav
Binyamin Zimmerman
Shiur #31:
Holiness and Emuna, Part II:
The Eternal Betrothal
The Humanity of Holiness
In the first part of this
final lesson in our series on the ethics of interpersonal conduct, we will
search for an underlying foundation for the mitzvot found in Vayikra
19 the mitzvot that guide man to a life of holiness. We have seen that
many of the chapters ritual mitzvot facilitate a proper outlook and
understanding of God, thus permitting for a life of holiness and emulating God.
As discussed previously, a major component of this outlook and of honest
behavior in life is emuna (faith).
The question that will
concern us in this lesson is, do the mitzvot found here share any
underlying theme? The chapter includes some of the most basic ritual mitzvot
alongside one of the longest listings of interpersonal mitzva obligations in the
whole Torah. If that is not enough, it also intersperses these mitzvot,
beginning with the ritual, shifting to the interpersonal, and then back again,
with textual parallels throughout. The message of holiness ranges from a host of
logical social laws to a list of forbidden relationships, to other mitzvot
whose reasons are less understandable, if in fact knowable at all. Yet God
states emphatically that it is these mitzvot through which you shall be
holy.
On the other hand,
perhaps it should not be surprising that the Torah lists both ritual and
interpersonal behaviors here. As we have noted, the Torahs conception of
holiness does not entail running away from the physical, but harnessing it to
the spiritual. As Alsheikh (to Vayikra 19:1) writes, it is clear from the
Torahs choice of words that holiness is not achieved merely by abstention or
inactivity. The command is, You shall be holy (verse 2) actively:
Man is composed of body
and soul, and is given freedom of choice to determine which part will rule over
the other. One whose soul is in the drivers seat allows his body to attain
holiness.
One might think that this
can be achieved only by extraordinary individuals, but the command to gather all
of the people for this message[1] indicates that
each and every individual can attain holiness. Everyone is capable.
The Torahs message, You
shall be holy, for I, the Lord, your God, am holy, indicates that to a certain
degree, only insofar as man strives to achieve this goal of holiness is God in
fact our God. Although one might think that the greatest level of holiness that
man can attain is that of the angels, the truth is very different. Angels have
no physical body; therefore defining them as holy is merely descriptive,
denoting their lack of body and inability to become impure. Man, however, can
achieve true holiness and become like God, far beyond the level of the angels.
We recognize that Gods holiness is complete, unlike ours, but we strive toward
it. This is expressed by the fact that the commandment to be holy is written
without the letter vav,[2] while the
description of God as holy contains the letter vav,[3] written in full
to express its completeness.
Man is constantly exposed
to temptation. Thus his resistance to temptation allows him to achieve the
highest form of spiritual life, as unlike the angels, he can carry out the will
of God even under adverse conditions.
When in the following
chapter, the Torah states, You shall sanctify yourselves and you shall be holy
(20:7), Alsheikh explains that when one works toward holiness, he can count on
divine assistance to achieve it. God will ensure that he is not sidetracked in
his efforts.
What, though, is the
central core of this holiness? Is it interpersonal perfection? Is it a healthy
ritual relationship with God? Are these separate but equal obligations, or is
there an underlying connection between them?
A Dual Core
The Gemara (Shabbat
31a) tells of a would-be convert who asked Hillel to teach him the entire Torah
while he balanced on one leg. While the mans words generally understood as
spoken in jest, according to Keli Yekar Hillels response indicates
otherwise. The convert was asking for one leg, one principle, on which the
entire Torah stands. He was asking whether all the mitzvot in the Torah
were disparate revelations of the will of God, or there were an underlying theme
uniting the mitzvot.
Hillel rose to the
challenge with the cryptic statement:
That which is hateful to
you, do not do to your friend. This is the entire Torah; all the rest is simply
elaboration. Go and study it.
Though he did not quote it, Hillel was referring to a mitzva
that appears in this chapter, You shall love your friend as yourself (19:18),
as the essential underpinning of the Torah.
Keli Yekar points out
however, that according to this understanding, Hillels response appears to
contradict a passage in Makkot (24a).
The Talmud there relates that although there are 613
mitzvot, a number of prophets, starting with King David, developed shorter
lists of categories of mitzvot,
focusing on the most important elements.
Rivan (to Makkot 24a,
s.v.
ve-heemidan) remarks that in earlier generations, people were adept at
performing all the mitzvot while conscious of their significance,
but as time went on, the level of fulfillment waned. King David stressed certain
categories of mitzvot in order to underscore the most
fundamental elements of the Torahs tradition, and to clarify what is required
to merit a place in the World to Come (see
Year 1, Lesson 1).
After enumerating the fundamentals given by a number of
prophets, almost always focusing on interpersonal ethics, the Gemara concludes
with the one requirement used by Chavakkuk to sum up the essence of the Torah:
Mikha
came and set them [i.e. the commandments] at three [ethical principles]
Then
Yeshayahu came and set them at two
Chavakkuk came and set them at one
[fundamental], as it says, A righteous person (tzaddik) will live by his
emuna (Chavakkuk 2:4).
Chavakkuks concise formulation indeed seems quite different from the
formulation espoused by Hillel to the would-be convert.
However, as Keli Yekar
explains, there is no contradiction between the two. The basic principles of
Chavakkuk and Hillel in fact demonstrate how Vayika 19 represents a
merging of two principles that together form the foundation of the Jewish
religious experience:
The words of Chavakkuk are not
contradictory to those of Hillel, for the mitzvot of the Torah are
essentially divided into two categories. Mans obligations to God are rooted in
the principle of emuna in God. The second category, mans obligations to
his fellow, is rooted in the mitzva of loving ones fellow as oneself.
Due to the interconnectedness of these
ideals, the cherubim had their wings spread out above their wings pointed
upward, in the direction of mans obligations to God, directed toward the
heavens while the faces of the cherubim were toward one another, underscoring
the importance of mans obligations to his fellow as well.[4] Therefore Hillel indicated in his answer
the underlying importance of both categories of mitzvot necessary for
serving God
By quoting the verse,
you shall love your friend as yourself; I
am the Lord,
Hillel underscored both elements. You shall love your friend as yourself is
indicative of the underlying principle of interpersonal mitzvot, and the
end of the verse I am the Lord is indicative of the foundation of ritual
mitzvot, as Chavakkuk noted: A righteous person will live by his
emuna.
Keli Yekar then shows
how both elements of religious observance also are spelled out in the Ten
Commandments. The ten are grouped into two groups: the ritual, rooted in I am
the Lord
, i.e. the mitzva of emuna, and the interpersonal, rooted in
You shall not covet, which is the negative side of the positive mitzva of
loving ones fellow.
The Power of Paraphrase
We might add to these powerful words a
twist that further connects the two principles. Hillels response to the
convert, after all, is not actually a direct quotation of You shall love your
friend as yourself,
and there is no proof that he mentioned the second half of the verse, I am the
Lord. All he stated is:
That which is hateful to
you, do not do to your friend. This is the entire Torah; all the rest is simply
elaboration. Go and study it.
Rashi offers two
explanations of Hillels intent. The second is similar to the view of Keli
Yekar: Hillel referred to perfecting ones interpersonal skills, which are
at the core of most mitzvot.
Rashis first explanation, though,
provides a very different understanding of Hillels statement. Ones friend,
says Rashi, is not ones fellow man, but God, as in Mishlei (27:10): Do
not forsake your friend and your fathers friend. The implication is: you do
not appreciate it when your fellow man does not do as you would like; view God
similarly, and do not violate His will.
In essence, Rashis two
explanations represent a debate as to whether Hillels remark focused
exclusively on the interpersonal realm or exclusively on the ritual realm. Yet
the fact that Hillel did not simply quote the verse, or else say directly that one
should not violate Gods will, may indicate that his true intention was
somewhere between the two extremes. The Torah does not have separate legs;
rather, its two foundational principles are fully intertwined. One has human
friends, and also should view God as a friend. Just as the Torah pays close
attention to the way one treats a fellow human being, the Torah calls for
developing a relationship with God and caring about His will as well. Hillels
cryptic response allowed him to underscore the importance of both foundations of
the Torah.
Chavakkuks principle
also is amenable to dual interpretation. Following our lesson on how essential
emuna is to a life of integrity, it is clear that emuna is not
only the basis of ritual obligations to God, but also the foundation of the
interpersonal mitzvot. One reason is that preserving ones morals through
trying times, when doing so seems to cause only hardship, requires the steadfast
commitment that is the hallmark of emuna. Second, the interpersonal
mitzvot go far beyond what the honest, ethical individual might be content
with if left to his own devices: the Torahs standard of interpersonal
perfection is so high that it must be rooted in the emuna that guides man
to a human existence of godly transcendence.
Thus when Chavakkuk
states, A righteous person lives by his emuna, he refers to emuna
not only as the cornerstone of ritual existence, but also as the essential
element of interpersonal righteousness. The word for a righteous person
tzaddik denotes an individual who does all that is incumbent upon him, and
is related to tzedek (righteousness), one of the two trademarks of
Avrahams educational commitment to Gods message. It is impossible to be a
ritual tzaddik but not an interpersonal tzaddik, and just as it is
impossible to be a ritual tzaddik without emuna, it is impossible
to be an interpersonal tzaddik without it.
Parashat Kedoshim carefully defines the path to holiness through both
ritual and interpersonal mitzvot. As we pointed out in Lesson 2 of this
year, the order of these elements is not rooted in separating different types of
mitzvot, but in merging them, indicating that all are essential to a
wholesome spiritual existence.
The Betrothal of Holiness and Emuna
One of the most powerful
verses describing the bond with God that we long to achieve depicts our
relationship in the End of Days:
I will betroth you to Me
forever. I will betroth you to Me with righteousness and with justice and with
loving-kindness and with mercy. I will betroth you to Me with emuna, and
you shall know that I am the Lord. (Hoshea 2:2122)
In their treatment of
these verses, the commentators primarily address two questions. First, why is
this closeness described as engagement rather than as a full-fledged union
between God and the Jewish people? Second, what is the reason for depicting the
betrothal with these three particular images?
Rashi explains that
betrothal with righteousness and justice refers to righteousness and justice
practiced by the Jewish people, which will be met in kind by loving-kindness and
mercy on Gods part.
He further observes that
the righteousness and justice practiced by Jews are rooted in Avrahams being
chosen for his commitment to educating his progeny to these principles (Bereishit
18:19). Only when the Jewish people express their commitment to these ideals
will God respond with loving-kindness and mercy. This, Rashi explains, is the
significance of the verse, Zion shall be redeemed by justice, and her returnees
by righteousness (Yeshayahu 1:27). The Jewish people may not be
completely deserving of salvation, but their commitment to the ideals of Avraham
will allow God to take them under His wing once more.
This initial step toward
redemption will be followed by the culmination of the deep relationship between
God and man, as described in the next verse: betrothal through emuna, and
ensuing true knowledge of God.
Still, why is Gods
relationship with Israel defined as betrothal, rather than as the pinnacle of
full-fledged marriage?
The period of engagement,
which precedes the consummation of marriage, is the period when there is the
greatest longing on the part of the couple. While marriage does indeed represent
a complete relationship, betrothal symbolizes that there is more and better to
come. Coming just one stage prior to a profound deepening of the relationship,
it expresses the state of wanted to advance a relationship further which is
not always the case in marriage and being overcome with a desire to enhance
the connection.
The betrothal of the
verse is denoted with the word ve-eirastikh, which indicates the stage in
the marriage process known as eirusin. This is followed by the stage of
kiddushin, whose root is that of the word kadosh holy.
Properly pursued, marriage, though characterized in part by a physical
relationship, is not antithetical to holiness, but an expression of it.
Kiddushin and kedusha are best expressed by the period of betrothal,
longing, and desire to reach new heights in the quest for holiness.
With this in mind,
Malbims explanation of the verses in Hoshea comes to life:
The initial betrothal was
only temporary, because it was performed with the understanding that the Jewish
people would sin at some point. However, the future betrothal will be permanent,
because it will be performed through righteousness and justice.
The wholesome
completeness of man is dependent on two things: mans obligations to his fellow,
and mans obligations to God. In order to perfect ones character with
regard to obligations to ones fellow, one must engage in righteousness and
justice, for justice is doing that which is required by the letter of the law,
and righteousness is going beyond the letter of the law.
By virtue of the Jewish
peoples bringing the two precious attributes of righteousness and justice into
union, God will respond in kind with two gifts: loving-kindness and mercy
Obligations to God are primarily dependent on emuna, viz. having
faith in God, in his Torah, and in ones purpose
On account of the Jews
bringing emuna to the union, God will give the gift of allowing the Jews
to know God, as He will reveal to them His signs and miracles, and rest His
presence among them until they know God with complete knowledge, as though it
were ingrained in their inner consciousness, to the point that there will be
total clarity.
A Future of Faith, Righteousness, and Justice
Our future is dependent
on the merging of Avrahams tradition of interpersonal righteousness and justice
with emuna. As we saw above, these principles are not at odds, but are
jointly rooted in the foundation of a God-centered life. In fact, unrelenting
and unwavering emuna also goes back to Avraham, who aside from his
commitment to righteousness and justice is described (Shabbat 97a) as the
first believer (see Bereishit 15:6).[5] To achieve our
place as a kingdom of priests and holy nation and to merit Hosheas vision of
messianic days, we must implement both sides of the coin.
After the long-awaited
betrothal, the earth and particularly the Land of Israel, previously defiled by
mans sins (see prior lesson), will spring back to life with unprecedented
vitality:
It shall be on that day
that I will answer, says the Lord, I will answer the heavens, and they shall
answer the earth, and the earth shall answer the grain and the wine and the oil,
and they shall answer Yizreel. I will sow her for Myself in the Land, and I
will have pity on Lo Ruchama,[6] and I will say to
Lo Ami,[7]
You are My people, and he shall address [Me] with, My God. (Hoshea
2:2325)
Radak explains that the image is of the land
desiring rain, and God declares that He will no longer withhold it. At the time
of the redemption, the heavens will give their dew and the earth will give its
produce, never again withholding the power of growth.
Concluding Remarks
Over the past three years
we have studied together various aspects of the Torahs treatment of
interpersonal ethics. This year we have focused primarily on the interpersonal
mitzvot of Parashat Kedoshim, which guide man to a life of
holiness. In the process, we have learned about the importance of the realm of
interpersonal mitzvot, and with Gods help we have succeeded in
uncovering a small part of the beauty of these mitzvot.
I offer my apologies for
the many interpersonal mitzvot particularly the few left in Kedoshim
that we have not had an opportunity to discuss. Perhaps at some point in the
future we will have the opportunity to fill in what we have missed. I enjoyed
learning with you, and I thank you for providing me with the strength to
continue writing.
We should keep in mind
that holiness is not always apparent to the onlooker. At the end of Chapter 20
of Vayikra (verse 26), the Torah states that the Jewish people must not
only be holy, but be holy to me. Alsheikh explains:
Should you ask why one
cannot tell by looking at a person whether that person is Jewish, the reason is
that holiness is a state similar to My state, i.e. one that is invisible. It is
something that is not physical, and therefore not observable. Only God can
observe it, i.e. your holiness is to Me, visible only to Me.
Only God knows who is
truly holy. Hopefully we at least can take to heart that someone who is ritually
adept but interpersonally deficient is not yet fulfilling his mission.
[1] See verse 2.
[2]
קדשים, rather than
קדושים.
[3]
קדוש.
[4] I.e. the cherubim, which stood in the Holy of Holies atop the Ark, the holiest
vessel in the Beit Ha-mikdash, indicated that both ideals are required for a
complete religious existence.
[5] The Gemara there describes the Jewish people as believers descended from
believers, with Avraham being the original bearer of this belief.
[6] Unpitied, one of the prophets symbolically named children.
[7] Not My people, another of the prophets children.
This website is constantly being improved. We would appreciate hearing from you. Questions and comments on the classes are welcome, as is help in tagging, categorizing, and creating brief summaries of the classes. Thank you for being part of the Torat Har Etzion community!