gth@erc3ba.UUCP (A.Y.Feldblum) (04/30/85)
-------------------------------------------
note: I am finally posting from my machine, so replying through the news
software should get back to me. Hopefully posting will stay on for me.
Avi Feldblum
{allegra, ihnp4}!pruxa!ayf or
!erc3ba!gth
--------------------------------------------
DVAR TORAH - PARSHAT KEDOSHIM
The second parsha of this weeks double parsha is Kedoshim
(Leviticus 19). The parsha begins with a pasuk (verse) that is difficult
to understand at first reading.
Speak unto all the congregation of the children of Israel, and
say unto them: Ye shall be holy (kedoshim teheyu); for I the
Lord your God am holy. [Trans. from Jewish Publication Society
translation]
What is the meaning of the term kedusha. It is usually translated, as
is done above, as 'holy'. I do not think that is an adequate
translation, and for the rest of this article I will not translate the
word. To understand the term, we need to understand what is being asked
of us in the command 'be kadosh'. A second point to notice is that the
command is prefaced by 'speak unto "all" the congregation..'. This is
one of only a very few times the word "all" is added to this phrase.
The Sifrah ( Tanaitic Medrash - a commentary on the Torah
written by the authors of the Mishnah - on Leviticus) takes note of the
above point, saying: Speak unto all the congregation... this teaches us
that this parsha was said in Hakhel - in the presence of all Israel
gathered together. Why was it said in Hakhal? Because the majority of
the body of the Torah is hanging from it.
What is about to be told to Bnei Yisrael is of such importance,
it must be told to the entire nation gathered together, and the nature
of it is that on it depends the very essence of the Torah. There are
some commentators ( led by the Targum Yonatan - Yonatan ben Uziel) who
explain that what is referred to is that all the ten commandments can be
found in the following chapter. There are other commentators, however,
who understand it to refer to the statement of 'kedoshim teheyu - be
kadosh'.
The Sifrah gives us our first definition of kedusha. It says: Be
kadosh - be parush - separated. For I the Lord your God am kadosh - If
you make yourselves kadosh, I will count it as though you have made me
kadosh. Do not think however that you actually make me holy, says the
Sifrah, for it says I "am" holy.
Rashi expands on the Sifrah - separate yourselves from illicit
relationships (arayot), because wherever one finds a fence removing one
from an illicit relationship, one finds kedusha. Rashi understands the
statement to refer back to the previous parsha where many of the
forbidden relationships are enumerated and explicitly forbidden.
According to this, we have to understand the Sifrah as saying something
along the lines that if we do not take care in the matter of Arayot, we
threaten the entire foundation of the Torah. This restricting of the
scope of the command be kadosh is not accepted by many of the
commentators. The Rambam, for example, understands this statement as
being equal to 'observe all the laws of the Torah'.
The Ramban also bases his interpretation on the Sifrah, but
gives it a more universal and profound meaning. He builds instead on the
statement of Chazal (Yevomot f20 side 1) - Make yourselves kadosh
through that which is permitted to you. The Ramban explains that one can
take the laws of the Torah and do nothing that explicitly violates any
of them, and still behave in a disgusting manner. He calls this a 'naval
ber'shut hatorah' - one who is disgusting within the confines of the
Torah. It is this behaviour that the Torah comes now to warn against.
Now that specific things have been forbidden, you should pattern
your life to 'separate' yourselves and limit yourselves from
overindulging in the permitted pleasures of this world to the extent
that you might sink into disgusting behaviour. What is being commanded
here is an attitude, and that is why all of the Torah depends on it. The
attitude: I can do anything I want that is not explicitly forbidden by
the Torah, is not a valid attitude. Rather the attitude must be, is this
behaviour consistent with 'be kadosh'. Thus this is clearly deserving of
the importance of being said to "all" of Israel, and indeed the body of
the Torah depends on it, for it is the definition of an attitude that
encompasses ones relationship to all activities.
This concept is taken one step further by the Malbim. The
command of 'be kadosh' means to separate oneself and elevate oneself
from the material world. There are various levels one can achieve. The
most basic level is simply to separate oneself from those things that
are expressly forbidden by the Torah. One can then rise to higher levels
of kedusha as one separates oneself from material pleasures and worldly
matters. This, the Malbim explains, is the meaning of the last part of
the Sifra. 'If you make yourself kadosh, I will count it as though you
have made me kadosh.' Hashem (God) governs the world through the agency
of the natural order, although Hashem himself is above any order. If
Bnei Yisrael are able to reach a level of kedusha where they rise above
the material, they will cause Hashem to deal with the world not through
the natural order, but in a 'direct' supernatural way that is closer to
Hashem's essence. Thus the way Hashem will act (but not the nature of
Hashem) is dependent on the behaviour of Bnei Yisrael - I will count it
as though 'you' made 'me' kadosh, but not, the Sifrah says, that you
actually made me kadosh as the pasuk says - for I 'am' kadosh.
This by no means exhaust the opinions on the interpretation of
the command 'be kadosh', but I hope it gives a clearer picture of the
magnitude and importance of the command than the simple translation - be
holy - may have suggested.
A good Shabbat to everyone.
Avi Feldblum
uucp: {allegra,ihnp4}!pruxa!ayf or
!erc3ba!gthmeth@csd2.UUCP (Asher Meth) (05/10/85)
hello, avi.
i wanted to send you a copy of an article posted by dave sherman a while back,
concerning the writing and erasing of shemos on a computer terminal/disk/etc.
this is being sent in light of your recent dvar torah (acharei-mos/kedoshim;
yeyasher kochacho on this article, and on the idea in gerenal), in which you
included full spellings of shemos and kinuyim.
i, for one, have been printing the divrei torah, to keep as a personal copy. in
fact, i often will not even spend the time to read them on the terminal, but
wait until later, on paper. there may be many others who also save and print
these divrei torah. it was not until i was reading my printed copy that i
noticed the above-mentioned full spellings. this may create a problem of shemos
and mechikas shemos, especially for those not aware of the problem. they may
read it and throw it away after a short time.
sooooooooooooooooo, i'm adding on (after the -----------------) the article
written by dave sherman, posted to net.religion (before net.religion.jewish
existed). happy reading.
p.s. i'm looking for a job this summer, and don't know yet where i'll be
working. i don't even know if i'll be on a machine connected to the net. in any
case, i don't see myself being able to commit myself to contributing divrei
torah over the summer. about next year, we'll see then. you can still send me
the list of who's writing when, anyway, if you wish.
kol tuv. a gutten shabbos.
-----------------------------------------
From
hogpc!houxm!hocda!spanky!burl!duke!decvax!linus!utzoo!utcsrgv!dave
Thu Aug 4 12:59:13 1983
Subject: destroying holy names written on disk - a Rabbi's answer
Newsgroups: net.religion
A few weeks ago I posted an article about the origin of "Amen" in
which I mused over the problem of destroying sacred names which are
"written" in digital form. I got a number of replies by mail which
expressed interest in hearing the answer, so here it is for the net:
I spoke with Rabbi David Schochet, who is the senior Rabbi (the "Rav")
of the Lubavitch community in Toronto. (Lubavitchers are Orthodox
Jews who follow particular teachings and a particular way of life;
they are fully observant of halachah, Jewish religious law.)
Rabbi Schochet's answer can be summarized as follows:
1. The translation or transliteration of a holy name into English
is not the same as the original, but it is still holy, and, if
written on paper, should not be destroyed. One should write "G-d"
instead.
2. "Writing" on disk is not the same as making a writing
("k'sivah").
Therefore, it is permissible to destroy a holy name (in Hebrew or
English) which is written on disk. However, one should not erase
simply the name itself; one should do so only when destroying/erasing
the entire document or paragraph.
3. Records (the record-player type), audio tapes and magnetic tape
fall into the same category as disks. They are not k'sivah. (Thus,
a tape of someone reciting prayers with sacred names can be
destroyed.)
Microfilm, however, is k'sivah, even though you may need a special
reader or microscope to read the writing.
4. If you are creating a file on disk and put a holy name into it,
it is not your reponsibility if someone chooses to run it off
onto hardcopy and then destroy the hardcopy. The same goes for
sending someone private mail, if you know they will be reading
the mail on a screen rather than hardcopy terminal.
5. When posting news, you can be pretty sure someone out there will
be reading the news either with a hardcopy terminal (does anyone
actually do this? I'd like to hear) or via "readnews -p" to the
line printer. Accordingly, you should not put holy names into
news because they will certainly be printed on paper and then
destroyed as a result of your actions.
6. Even when sending private mail, it is better to use hyphens
so that you are not spelling out the name in full, to be
safer and out of respect for the holiness of what you are
writing. However, as outlined in #4 above, it is not prohibited
to spell out the full name.
Hope this was useful to some of you.
(It's a change from unc!tim vs. Christianity, anyway.)
Dave Sherman
Toronto
--
{linus,cornell,watmath,ihnp4,floyd,allegra,utzoo,uw-beaver}!utcsrgv!dave
-----------------------------------------------------
Asher Meth ....... meth@nyu-csd2.arpa ....... allegra!cmcl2!csd2!methmeth@csd2.UUCP (Asher Meth) (05/10/85)
sorry to everyone out there. i hit the wrong key and posted an article instead of sending private mail. but, there is something good in the article. it includes a reprint of an article written by dave sherman in late '83 concerning the writing of the name of HaShem on a computer, and whether this is considered actual 'writing'. the practical ramifications of this are - can it be erased (as it is forbidden to erase the name of HaShem) ? how should one write it so that it *can* be erased (or thrown out, etc.) ? a gutten shabbos to all. Asher Meth ....... meth@nyu-csd2.arpa ....... allegra!cmcl2!csd2!meth
fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (06/02/85)
In article <csd2.3780047> meth@csd2.UUCP (Asher Meth) re-posted and article by Dave Sherman: > >From >hogpc!houxm!hocda!spanky!burl!duke!decvax!linus!utzoo!utcsrgv!dave >Thu Aug 4 12:59:13 1983 >Subject: destroying holy names written on disk - a Rabbi's answer >Newsgroups: net.religion > >A few weeks ago I posted an article about the origin of "Amen" in >which I mused over the problem of destroying sacred names which are >"written" in digital form. > >I spoke with Rabbi David Schochet, who is the senior Rabbi (the "Rav") >of the Lubavitch community in Toronto. >Rabbi Schochet's answer can be summarized as follows: > >1. The translation or transliteration of a holy name into English > is not the same as the original, but it is still holy, and, if > written on paper, should not be destroyed. One should write "G-d" > instead. >[etc.] How do you define "translation or transliteration"? If I always refer to you-know-who as G-d, then doesn't "G-d" become the new de-facto translation? Frank Silbermann