What is holiness?
Hello Rabbi,
What is holiness? Is it subjective or objective? Is holiness the opposite of impurity? What makes something holy? There are holy objects and there are holy areas, angels are holy and there are such people(?). This issue has been bothering me for a long time and I have not found an answer through the conventional channels..
I would be happy for an answer here, but if the topic is long I would be happy to refer you.
Thank you very much.
First, holiness is the opposite of impurity. Profanity is also the opposite of holiness and impurity. The ratio between these three is like 1 (holiness) -1 (impurity) and 0 (=profanity).
The more clearly the spiritual-divine appears through the word, the more holy it is. Therefore, on the surface, it seems like a continuum and not something binary. Although from the perspective of Halacha, there is a sharp line between holiness-impurity and prohibition-permission (which belong to the profane world). See Megillah 26 for a distinction between holy objects and mitzvah objects. The Mishnah and Tosefta in the Book of Proverbs also define ten levels of holiness.
The question of whether this is something in the world itself or only in our relationship to it is a different question. In the accepted view, holiness and impurity are types of reality, and the laws are derived from the actual situation. Therefore, the distinction in the Gemara Reish Nedarim between the prohibitions of heftza and gebra, refers to vows and holiness as heftza.
Indeed, the Aban’Z and R’s Shekap in Chiddushei Nedarim write that there is no difference and everything is a matter of gabra. They explain that the difference between a prohibition of hafza and a gabra is in the purpose of the prohibition. The prohibition of using holy objects is for the sake of the objects (so that they do not become defiled), and therefore these are prohibitions of hafza. In contrast, other Torah prohibitions, such as eating pork, are not for the sake of the pig but for the sake of the person who eats, and therefore these are prohibitions of gabra.
There are articles by the Neshka that according to Maimonides, impurity and holiness are in the same category. I don’t remember his evidence, and this is also typical of Maimonides’ view, but I remember that I was not convinced.
Sometimes the concept of holiness is used in a borrowed sense or not in the halakhic sense, and then people are referred to as holy, and every mitzvah is referred to as holy, etc. In halakhic terminology, this is not correct. See also Rambam in the fourth root and the Ramban’s interpretations there and his well-known interpretation of “be holy” (it seems that they were divided on exactly this point). See my article on the fourth root here on the site.
See also my article here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%93%D7%A9-%D7%95%D7%97%D7%95%D7%9C-%D7%91%D7%97%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%9B%D7%94-%D7%95%D7%91%D7%9B%D7%9C%D7%9C/
Uncleanness is the opposite of purity, not holiness.
Holiness is the opposite of profaneness.
Something can be both holy and unclean at the same time (a gift that has become defiled), or pure and profane at the same time (a profane thing that has not become defiled).
You are right, but it seems to me that only partially. Purity is not the opposite of impurity, but rather a negation (0 versus 1), and holin is the negation of holiness.
The question is whether there is also a negation of holiness and impurity (1 versus 1), and I think this is impurity versus holiness. And they have already written that there is no impurity except in the place of holiness (and certainly the prohibition of impurity)
See my above articles on the appendix to the book and more.
In the Bible, purity is referred to as cleansing from impurity, which is perceived as dirt. In the Bible, something is called impure even if it is not impure according to the law. When the mitzvah commands Ezekiel to eat excrement, he says that nothing impure ever came into his mouth, even though excrement is not impure and is not forbidden to eat by virtue of the normal prohibitions on eating (it is forbidden by the word "detestable". On the other hand, perhaps it is because the word "detestable" originally refers to the prohibition of vermin. But I don't think that's what Ezekiel meant).
But he is indeed right, if these are simple opposites, then something cannot be both impure and holy. Which is true in a way, when something becomes impure, holiness departs. Like the Shekhinah that was removed from the Temple because of impurities in the New Testament. On the other hand, it is possible that the impurity departs, just as the Holy Land vomits out the impure from it and their impurity along with them. On the third hand, in this case too, there is a disappearance of holiness. (First holiness for tithes is holiness for its time, not for the future, and it will be null and void with the exile)
Leibowitz claims that the state is only a framework, and there is no holiness in it, and within this framework a value content must be poured!
If the state is attributed any value, then this is fascism in its name, and this applies to any state that defines the state as a supreme value!
State and government are only a mechanism, and the people in the state can be attributed value and fight for a common content…
Likewise, matter cannot be holy in itself, and man is also included in the category of matter, Herod's stones have no holiness in them and certainly all the “holy places”, only He is holy, holy we say in prayer…
At the same time, we are commanded to be holy, in that we fulfill the commandments “and you shall be holy I am the ’ your God” , meaning that holiness is not automatic but requires man to accept a burden, to overcome like a lion in the morning to serve God ’…
You are constantly trying to prove the existence of God, and Leibowitz says that man can know his buyer, and will not accept a burden, man decides to accept or not according to his will, that is, he decides something, because it was his will and nothing else, and there is no reason for it!
Regarding whether there is a God or not, Leibowitz claims ” Knowing God is in that I come to the conclusion that I cannot know Him”, since God is metaphysical and a transcendental figure….
All those who believe with the help of God and pour out their souls in prayers and requests, are actually worshipping themselves…
God has no role in relation to man…
Man is required to worship God…
Therefore, throughout history, God did not help the people of Israel, not in the Greek, Roman, ten-kingdom period, the Inquisition, the Crusaders, and a million and a half children who perished in the Holocaust and did not sin…
God finished creating the world and therefore is outside the material world…
Man has consciousness and mental strength that must fight in this material world against evil and the values he believes in…
Rabbi Avraham Michael, I would be happy if you would comment
Good and blessed week
Meir
If there is a concrete question, I will try to address it.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
