INTRODUCTION:
What is ‘holiness’?
Does a person or an object or a moment in time have inherent
holiness; is it a status which can come and go; or is it just a term to
describe adherence to certain prescribed conditions and which has no direct bearing
on the person, space or time?
In this article, we shall not even try to answer any of
these questions but simply to put forward the popular and mainstream view on
holiness and then present Rambam’s very unusual view on this matter.
I) HOLINESS: – EMBODIED WITHIN THE OBJECT:
THE VIEW OF YEHUDAH HALEVI:
R. Yehudah haLevi (1075-1141) maintains that holiness was
either conferred upon an object from the very moment of creation, or is contingent upon fulfilment of
the commandments. Both conditions bring about a state of holiness which
results in real change in the physical makeup of the object.[1]
He refers to holiness as a ‘mighty order’.
R. Yehudah haLevi writes in his Kuzari:
“Actions [prescribed] by the
religious law...when...completed in the proper way, and you see the heavenly
fire, or discover another spirit within yourself, which you did not know
[beforehand]...are the result of all you did before and of the mighty order
with which you have come into contact and which you have [now actually]
attained.”[2]
This holiness is not a vague status but is, rather,
something which can actually be experienced and acquired.
THE VIEW OF ‘OR HACHAIM’:
Six hundred years later, R. Chaim ben Moshe ibn Arttar
(1696-1743), also known as the Or haChaim[3],
adopted another approach to holiness. In his Kabbalistic model, all entities in the universe
begin in a neutral state and at various stages, they get imbued with
holiness.
Thus, for example, all days start off being equal until G-d ‘blesses’ the seventh day, from which
point on, it retains its holiness.
According to the Or haChaim, the Jewish People started out
just like any other people, but on accepting the Torah, they were imbued with a
spirit of holiness.
The Or haChaim wrote:
“The distinction by virtue of
which the Jewish People were elevated above the other nations is the acceptance
of the Torah, for without it, the House of Israel would be like all the other
nations.”[4]
This distinction between starting out neutral and then becoming
holy is also not just theoretical but rather an ontological (i.e., a real and actual)
differentiation.
In both Yehudah haLevi’s and the Or haChaim’s views,
although the means to attaining the holiness might subtlety vary, once it is
affected, it remains real, embodied, and part and parcel of the very object,
place, people or time.
THESE VIEWS HAVE BECOME MAINSTREAM:
To illustrate just how mainstream this ontological approach to
holiness (where holiness being a real ‘entity’) has become - I have selected
some typical characterizations of holiness as scattered across classical and contemporary
Jewish literature:
“You
are a Holy Nation because of the Avot [Forefathers] and you don´t need to
accomplish anything to achieve it...”
“Our
(basic) holiness is not depended on what we do. We receive it from the
Forefathers...in addition God has also chosen you.”
“A mitzvah is not merely a test of obedience, but
a message about how to best draw out and release Holy Sparks...it is just
another way of expressing one's commitment to maximizing the holy consumption
of Holy Sparks.”
“[R. Levi Yitzhak of Berdichev] suggests that there is holiness
even in the degraded place into which we have fallen. In fact, the ‘holy sparks’
are there, lurking in the darkness, just waiting to be ‘raised,’ to be returned
to their own highest potential.[5]
“Isaac Luria, the 16th century master of
Kabbalah, said, ‘There is no sphere of existence including organic and
inorganic nature, that is not full of holy sparks which are mixed in with
the kelippot [husks] and need to be separated from them and lifted
up.’
Every particle in our physical
universe, every structure and every being is a shell that contains sparks of
holiness. Our task, according to Luria, is to release each spark from the shell
and raise it up, ultimately to return it to its original state. The way these
sparks are raised is through acts of loving kindness, of being in harmony with
the universe, and through higher awareness.”
“Rabbi Moses Hayim Luzzatto (1707-1746) says
that the attainment of holiness is not possible through one’s own efforts
alone, but is ultimately a gift from God. He quotes the talmudic rabbis who say
that a person who makes [even] a little effort to be holy is given much
holiness from on high. The effort means keeping aloof from whatever is grossly
material. After all, says Luzzatto, a person is a physical being, merely flesh
and blood, so that to become really holy, God must impart to him some of His
holiness.”
II) HOLINESS: – DISEMBODIED FROM THE OBJECT:
As we have just seen, probably most sources - together with
the popular perception - take the notion of holiness for granted, believing it
to be inherently integrated into, and ‘hardwired’ within, the person,
object or time; and it can be manipulated in some way depending on our deeds
and thoughts.
Enter Maimonides with a view diametrically opposed to all of
these notions.
Again, the purpose of this article is not to debate which of
these ideas are ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, but rather to show that there are other
models of holiness, as well.
For this segment, I have drawn extensively from the writing
of Professor Menachem Kellner[6],
a graduate of Merkaz haRav Yeshiva and a specialist in Maimonidean thought.
MAIMONIDES’ UNUSUAL UNDERSTANDING OF ‘HOLINESS’:
Menachem Kellner contrasts the popular views and perceptions
of holiness with the surprising and unusual view of Rambam:
“...holy places, persons, times, and objects are in no
objective way distinct from profane places, persons, times and objects...
On this view, [they] are
indubitably holy, and must be treated with all due respect, but they are, in
and of themselves, like all other places, persons, times, and objects.
What is different about them
is the way in which the Torah commands that they be treated.”
Rambam’s view is consistent with his understanding of G-d’s
absolute transcendence of the physical realm. In other words, unlike the Kabbalistic
model, according to Rambam the G-dly quality of holiness cannot be
integrated or meshed within reality.
Kellner continues:
“Holiness, it follows, must be
institutional, a matter of halakhic definition, not ontological [physical,
actual or ‘real’][7],
as if actually existing in some manner in the universe...
‘holiness’...refers to nothing
which can actually and objectively inhere in entities, persons, places, or
times.”
According to Rambam, the Scriptural verse “You shall be
holy” (Kedoshim tiheyu)[8]
is not considered, nor counted, as one of the 613 commandments – the reason is
because it refers in general to observing the entire Torah and not to any one
thing in particular.[9]
Others disagree with Rambam and do count this injunction to
‘be holy’ as one of the positive commandments.
One might say that Rambam did not count ‘You shall be
holy’ as a positive commandment because of the way he viewed holiness.
Those who disagreed with him may indeed have counted the verse as a positive
mitzvah because of their view on the ‘reality’ of holiness.[10]
Rambam writes:
“With respect to this
principle other scholars have erred, counting You shall be holy (Lev 19:2) as
one of the positive commandments – not knowing that...[the command to be holy
refers to][11]
charges to fulfil the whole Torah [in general][12].”[13]
Kellner put it very succinctly:
“Maimonides explains here that
the Biblical statement, You shall be holy, is not to be counted as one of the
613 commandments of the Torah since it encompasses the whole Torah.
While doing so, Maimonides
lets slip, as it were, a point crucial to our purposes:
Jews are not made holy by
having been given the commandments, rather, they become holy when they fulfil
them.
That does not mean that as one
fulfils commandments one’s ontological status changes from profane to holy;
rather, it means that ‘holiness’ is the way in which the Torah characterises obedience
to the commandments.”
And then summarises:
“...holiness for Maimonides
means the outcome of a kind of behaviour. It is nothing which can be said to
exist in and of itself; it is not some sort of super-added essence; it is
nothing ontological.
It is simply a name given to
certain types of (extremely important, highly valued) behaviour, and, by
extension, to persons, places, times, and objects.
It is, and this is a point
which must be emphasized, something which is not given, but must be earned.[14]
Holiness is not an inheritable
status...
[Holiness] is a name, not
something really ‘out there’ in the universe.”
In a footnote, Kellner
writes[15]
that in Rambam’s view, nothing is ever handed over to man on a silver plate: everything
must be earned.
“[This] includes one’s
humanity, one’s status as a Jew, providence, prophecy, a share in the world to
come, and... holiness.”
[For Rambam’s views on Providence, see A
Leaf Falls from a Tree – Accident or Providence?]
ONTOLOGICAL VS TELEOLOGICAL:
Rabbi Professor Isadore Twersky also describes Rambam’s view
regarding holiness as teleological (i.e., related to a purpose), as
opposed to ontological (i.e., actual):
“[T]he holiness ascribed by [by Maimonides] to
various objects (such as Torah scrolls, mezuzot, phylacteries, the holy
language) is teleological.”[16]
This is very different from the popular perception of kedusha
or holiness, which is very definitely ontological and is worlds apart from
Rambam’s teleological view. The mainstream has adopted a Kabbalistic or
mystical approach to the nature of holiness where holiness assumes an ‘actual’ ontological
existence.
And clearly, the Kabbalists rejected out of hand Rambam’s radical
insistence on G-d’s absolute transcendence – and instead they developed
the notion of the Ten Sefirot which created an interdependence and connectivity
between G-d and physical reality.
For the Kabbalists it was possible to cleave to G-d through the
various religious prescriptions, while for Rambam it was more a pragmatic
matter of refining behaviour because holiness was not something one could
possess but rather something to strive towards.
The Kabbalists created sophisticated systems (some theurgical, others
theosophical) through which holiness can be brought down from heaven - while
Rambam clung to his idea of G-d’s transcendence and tried to rid the world of
mystical channels which supernaturally connected G-d to man, leaving man more
autonomous and more responsible.
“Ultimately, and
this is perhaps why Maimonides’ vision of Judaism has attracted so few
adherents over the generations, his is a religion addressed to emotionally and
spiritually mature human beings...it is a religion of challenges, not endowments...”
“Holiness is not out there, waiting to be
found, rather, it is made.”
And even when it is
made, it remains - according to Rambam - a mere designation or name and does
not imbue holiness within the person, space, or time.
ANALYSIS:
The Kabbalistic ontological model of holiness is far more
empowering and appealing than the rather austere and stark teleological model
of Maimonides.
If we could choose one over the other, most of us would probably choose the
ontological model.
Yet, we must remember that in the quest for getting closer (so to speak)
to the truth of either definition of holiness, our choices of
theological systems are of little avail, as we have to confront the
spiritual reality - not of what we wish for - but of whatever system ultimately
turns out to be dominant.
On the other hand, one can adopt the position of the Baal Shem Tov and
others who teach that G-d becomes what we perceive Him to be.
Or one could argue that although Rambam speaks of a radically
transcendent G-d, the relationship with that G-d is correspondingly radically
pure. Not only does one not need to journey through Sefirotic
constructs, but even assistance from the angels to ‘carry one’s prayers’ is not
required as Rambam had some interesting interpretations of angels [See Angels
in Rabbinic Literature] and he also omitted some of the common prayers that
reference the role angels play in man’s relationship with G-d [See Praying
to Angels?].
[For another distinction between Rambam and the mystics, see Two
Mutually Exclusive Notions of Prayer.]
[1]
Kellner clarifies that Yehudah haLevi certainly holds this view with regard to
the holiness of the Land of Israel, the holiness of the Jewish People, and the
holiness of the commandments.
[2]
Kuzari III:53. Kellner cites and acknowledges this translation by Professor
Barry Kogan.
[3] So
named after his commentary on the Torah.
[4]
See commentary to Bemidbar 19:2.
[5] R.
Nachman of Breslov holds a similar view.
[6]
Maimonides on Holiness, by Menachem Kellner. Oxford University Press 2018.
[7]
Parenthesis mine.
[8]
Vayikra 19:2.
[9] Rambam, Sefer
haMitzvot, Shoresh 4.
[10]
This is my own interpretation.
[11]
Parenthesis mine.
[12]
Parenthesis mine.
[13]
Fourth introductory principle to Sefer haMitzvot. Translation is from Charles
B. Chavel, Book of Commandments, Vol. 2, 380-1.
[14]
This is in contradistinction to the view of Luzatto, mentioned above, where
holiness is considered to be a gift.
[15]
Kellner cites Yeshayahu Leibowitz whose analysis of Rambam he otherwise usually
disagrees with.
[16]
Maimonides on Eretz Israel, Halachic, Philosophic, and Historical Perspectives,
by Isadore Twersky.
No comments:
Post a Comment