Kiddushah or Holiness is by all means the most important principle of Judaism. The highest ideal to which any person can aspire is that of Holiness. All the commandments of the Torah were given so that Israel could become a goy kadosh, a Holy Nation. And if Holiness is really this important, if it is incumbent upon every person to try for Holiness – goy kadosh, “you shall be holy,” as the Bible puts it in today’s Portion – then it is important to us to understand the Meaning of Holiness. The first thing to be said about Holiness is that it means something higher and nobler. Our Rabbis explained k’doshim tihiyu as perushim tihiyu, “you shall be separated, above, higher”. Holiness means rising above the commonplace and the vulgar, being exalted above the everyday and the secular. It means taking the soul off to a side and purifying it from the dross which it gathers in the rough and tumble of daily existence. An idea is Holy when it is above other ideas. A human being is Holy when he is separated from and higher than other human beings.A corollary of this idea, is that we are not to tamper with that which is Holy if we are to keep it Holy. A Sefer Torah is not sacred in and of itself, but only because of what man gets from it and the attitude he takes towards it. No wonder, therefore, that Jewish law prevents us from touching the scroll with our hands. Take too free and liberal an attitude with what is sacred, and it becomes profane. The first of today’s portions records a commandment to the High Priest himself to keep that which is Holy above everyday use and common handling. va’yomer ha’shem el Moshe daber el aharon achicha ve’al yavo be’chol eis el ha’kodesh, G-d told Moses to speak to his brother Aaron and tell him not to enter the Holy Temple whenever he so wished at any time. That which is Holy is to be approached with reverence, it must be perushim, above, separated and isolated.The story is told of a young girl who had been studying at an American College and…

The theme of this morning’s Sidra, kedushah, is the keynote and goal of all of Torah. It is a hard doctrine to preach. Kedushah is so out of place in twentieth-century America. In the contemporary context of the Space Age, holiness seems an almost hopelessly outmoded ideal. We often wonder: is not holiness more indigenous to the life of the semi-hermit, confined to his little Paradise where, in tranquil isolation, he can meditate and achieve the saintliness of the high-minded recluse? Is not the ideal of kedushah irrelevant to an age of missiles and a life crowded with inventories and taxes, commuting and socializing?The answer is that the Torah’s command “ye shall be holy” was specifically directed to ordinary men and women engaged in trade and business, medicine and law, administration and caring for children. Our Rabbis pointed out that when Daniel speaks of the angels, he mentions kedushah only once, whereas the Torah, speaking of the here-and-now (tachtonim) mentions kedushah twice.ר' אבין אמר משל למלך שהיה לו מרתף של יין והושיב בו המלך שומרים מהן נזירים ומהן שכורים. לעת ערב בא ליתן להם שכרם נתן לשכורים שני חלקים ולנזירין חלק אחד. א"ל אדונינו המלך לא שמרנו כאחת מפני מה אתה נותן לאלו שני חלקים ולנו חלק אחד. אמר לו אלו שכורין הן ודרכן לשתות יין אבל אתם נזירין ואין דרככם לשתות יין לפיכך אני נותן לאלו שני חלקים ולאלו חלק אחד. כך העליונים שאין יצר הרע מצוי ביניהם קדושה אחת להם שנאמר ובמאמר קדישין שאלתא אבל התחתונים לפי שיצר הרע מצוי בהן הלואי יועל שתי קדושות הדא הוא דכתיב והתקדשתם והייתם קדושים.-ילקוט שמעוני על התורה תר"גOn earth and in the midst of life, where we are faced with the challenge of yetzer ha-ra, that of temptation and ambition, profit and greed, secularism and profanity, that is where true holiness can be forged – in double measure, for here is the fiery test of kedushah growing out of the encounter with real life. Not only is kedushah needed as a weapon to do battle with the yetzer ha-ra, but the evil in life is the very challenge which elicits the r…

Both beg. 2nd portion (Kedoshim) & Haftarah emphasize same idea – differentness Jew, that concept one of most maligned, misunderstood, misinterpreted: A) Non-Jewish world: If enlightened, as founding fathers this country, knew that there are similarities, also differences; must respect... Also, that is what makes each human unique and supremely valuable, irreplaceable. If bigoted, if insensitive, used it as weapon to ridicule us and persecute – Haman, Cicero down to modern day tyrants and bigots... “Alien”, “foreigner”... no toleration differences. B) Reaction obsequious Jew: Because fear anti-semitism, also denied differences... thought would save him... so copied, mimicked, imitated, cut self off from own roots, imagined his act would be taken seriously... thus came to deny own faith, religion, history, very identity – all because denied differentness. Result? Discovered that instead of becoming acceptable, sustained double loss: lost his identity and contact with spiritual, historical and cultural roots – and gentile ridiculed him even more for his sycophantic, sniveling, self-degrading attitude. Beadle metaphor: tried to get under a goose on home-plate even thru sacrifice, discovered he had hit into a double-play. Letter to editor Nat’l J Post from a Christian who enlightened, intelligent, insightful: “I feel that one of the major causes of Jew-baiting and anti-s is the apologetic inferiority complex of many Jews & unfortunately their own elected leaders which manifests itself in the distasteful sacrilegious burlesque of their most sacred rites in an attempt to sheepishly assimilate with the many.”

It may come as a surprise to some of us that criticism is not only regarded as a virtue by Judaism, but is included as a full biblical commandment, one of the 613 mitzvot. "Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart, hokheiach tokhiach et amitekha – Thou shalt surely rebuke thy neighbor, and not bear sin because of him" (Lev. 19:17). As long as a man is rational he will form opinions about his fellow men; and as long as his fellow men are human they will be imperfect. It is natural, therefore, that our judgment of each other sometimes be adverse. If we cannot and do not express these criticisms, then our neighbors will never know their own faults and we shall grow to dislike them more and more – in our hearts. It is better for them and for us that we express these criticisms and articulate the rebuke – hokheiach tokhiach – and thus prevent all of society from falling into sin. Indeed, not only is criticism one of the important commandments, but it is one of the main functions of all religion. Torah was meant to serve as the spiritual leaven in the life of man and society. It was meant to raise us higher and higher. This it does by serving as our critic, by focusing the spotlight of attention on the distance between the ideal and the real, by revealing to us our imperfections and thus urging us to strive for the perfect. Moses and Balaam were both prophets. They lived at the same time and preached to the same people of Israel. Moses was incisive, merciless in his criticism of his people, and caused them great unhappiness by making them painfully aware of their inadequacy. Balaam, the gentile prophet, spoke only kind words to them. He hailed them, complimented them, blessed them, flattered them. While Moses berated them as stubborn and corrupt. Balaam greeted them with Mah Tovu – "how goodly are thy tents, O Jacob." Yet Moses is the archetype of the nevi ha-emet, the true prophet, while Balaam is the nevi ha-sheker, the prophet of falsehood. Moses, who criticized, …

The principle of neighborly love, ahavat re’im, has become a central theme of all Western civilization. The other religions of the West have taken over our mitzvah of ve’ahavta le’reiakha kamokha, “thou shalt love thy neighbor – or fellow-man – as thyself,” mentioned in today’s Sidra, elevated it above all other religious commandments and precepts, and declared it the Golden Rule.Indeed, our Sages too considered it a most important mitzvah. It was R. Akiva who taught that ve’ahavta le’reiakha kamokha – zeh klal gadol ba-Torah, that the love of fellow-man is a great principle in the Torah. It is the very heart of so many other laws which regulate man’s social behavior and ethical conduct.Yet remarkably, the Rabbis were not unanimous in their enthusiasm for “thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” as the cardinal principle of Judaism. Amar lo Ben Azzai, bi’demut Elokim asah oto zeh klal gadol mi-zeh – Ben Azzai said to R. Akiva, the verse “in the likeness of God made He him” is a yet greater principle, she’lo tomar ho’il ve’nitbazeti yitbazeh Haveri imi, ho’il ve’nitkalalti yitkalel haveraimi – for were we to rely only on “love thy neighbor as thyself,” then a man might say, since I have been disgraced let my fellow-man be disgraced with me, since I am accursed let my fellow-man be accursed with me (text as quoted from B.Rabbah in Rekanti, unlike that of J. T. Nedarim 9:4; see too Torah Shelemah, Ber. 5:1).What penetrating insight Ben Azzai had! “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” is a noble, sublime ideal. But in practice it cannot work as the most abiding principle of Judaism for most people – because too many people despise themselves, and if they related to their neighbors kamokha, as they think of themselves, hatred and contempt would reign in the world. Love your neighbor – yes; but not necessarily “as thyself.” Instead, love of man must be based on the fact that man is created in the Image of God – bi’demut Elokim asa oto. We must value man not because …

The Torah's moral code is the accepted cornerstone of Western civilization. Unfortunately, however, despite its widespread acceptance in theory, statistics in recent years indicate that it is honored more in the breach than in the observance. Moral laxity and marital infidelity have become part of a matter-of-fact way of life not only amongst the idols of the amusement world, but for an ever larger number of ordinary people. The most corrosive aspect of this situation is not what it does to those who do not care, but what it has done to the morale of those who are truly moral. Since they are in the minority, or a gradually diminishing majority, they tend to think that perhaps they are wrong. They are afflicted with self-doubt: perhaps unchastity is normal, and those who abstain are not normal. Maybe, as some statisticians have suggested, our whole moral code needs revamping. Since much of what has been previously condemned as immoral and degenerate is now widely practiced, perhaps they should no longer be regarded as wrong and reprehensible.It is against this devious kind of reasoning that the Torah, centuries ago, proclaimed in clear words, in its introduction to its moral code, the doctrine: "Like the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein you dwelt, shall you not do; like the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I am bringing you, shall you not do; neither shall you walk in their statutes" (Lev. 18:3). What the Torah is saying is that what is being done – whether in Egypt or Canaan – is no guide for what should be done – whether in those places or London or New York or Tel Aviv or anywhere else. The “is” should not limit and determine the "ought."A distinguished American man of letters, Joseph Wood Krutch, has brilliantly analyzed our contemporary dilemma as a semantic obfuscation of two concepts which are most pertinent to our discussion. They are, "average'' and "normal."A new phenomenon in our modern age – with its democratization, its penchant for measuring a…

It goes without saying that the current drive to restore ecological balance to our environment is a good thing that has come none too soon. Surely there are few more worthy and urgent causes of the many that clamor for our limited attention in these tumultuous times. Human nature being what it is, unless some nasty, well-defined, and easily recognizable opposition materializes to hold attention and focus its activity, this energetic campaign may yet go the way of all fads. The ecology movement deserves all the support it can get.Hence this effort to show that the values and norms of a great religious tradition support and encourage a movement which affects the very survival of life on this planet.Unfortunately, we shall be somewhat deflected by a new pollution problem—a fall-out of silliness in the theological environment. The New York Times (May 1, 1970) reports an altogether theological conference on the subject. Most of the (Protestant) divines at the Claremont symposium were "with it." From the crisp title ("Theology of Survival"—in an age when *Portnoy's Complaint* is elevated into a best-seller, what is so terrible about theologians asserting that religion is responsible for our dirty planet?), to the conventional self-flagellation, having written the obituary for the Deity and debunked His Book, what is so terrible about another one of those "major modifications" of current religious values?Yet, some of the confessions were so extravagant that they deserve at least passing comment, particularly when they affect aspects of the moral tradition presumably shared by both Judaism and Christianity.The case for the ecological movement is obvious and beyond dispute. One point, of the many cogent ones made in the growing literature on the subject, is worth repeating here. René Dubos has reminded us that we still know precious little about pollution. Seventy percent of all the precipitate contaminants in urban air are still unidentified, and twenty to thirty years hen…

It is common to hear demands, in all segments of the population, that religion be made relevant to the great public issues of our time. Jews have been no less insistent than others in pressing this demand upon the teachers of Judaism. Orthodox Jews, too, especially the young, ask the Halakhah be examined so that it yields decisive opinions on the critical problems of our day, from Vietnam to Black Panthers, from the World Court to Soviet Jewry. Rabbis are often berated for failing to pronounce on such issues in the name of Halakhah. The Chief Rabbinate of Israel is most often criticized, especially by Western Jews, for its failure to declare the halakhic position on issues on which other leaders of world religions have taken a stand. It is worth studying this criticism and examining the issue as a theoretical or ideological one. Such a discussion will introduce us to a lively debate that has been going on for the past several years, mostly in Israeli journals, and the roots of which go back to differing conceptions in the early Middle Ages and even into the classical period of Judaism.The underlying assumption of those who press these demands might be called the “moralistic” conception of Judaism. The theory of those who advocate this approach is that Judaism is primarily a moral code, an ethic. All its laws, even those apparently remote from moral problems, can be shown to support, in the final analysis, certain ethical notions. Thus, such laws as kashrut, the ban on idolatry, family purity, etc., either can be made to yield ethical values, such as reverence for life, prevention of pain to animals, consideration for a wife, etc. – or they can be accepted as a form of discipline which, in its total effect upon the personality, refines us, makes us kindly, loving, charitable, righteous. Therefore, since all of Judaism is ultimately geared to a moral value system, Judaism must have an opinion on all the great moral issues which disturb the minds of men. At the opposi…

One of the most morally significant verses in a Sidra full of ethical and religious majesty, is the commandment לפני עור לא תתן מכשול, “thou shalt not place a stumbling block before a blind man.” That literalist and fundamentalist sect of the Second Commonwealth, the Sadducees, accepted this verse in an exclusively literal fashion (Nid. 57). The Torah, they maintained, means only what it says and nothing more: one must not trip the blind man.However, the Pharisees – the Fathers of the Talmud – expanded the verse to include moral ensnarement as well as physical entrapment. One who is a מחטיא, one who causes others to sin, stands in violation of the commandment of לפני עור, of putting a stumbling block before the blind. Thus, to use the classical Talmud example, one violates this commandment if he is a מושיט לו כוס של יין לנזיר, if he hands or makes available a cup of wine to the Nazirite, one who had taken an oath not to drink any intoxicating liquors.What the Rabbis mean to tell us is that no one is perfect. Everyone has “blind spots.” Fortunate is the man who is sophisticated enough to realize that he has such blind spots, even if he does not know what they are. Woe to the man who lives by the myth of perfection, and assumes that he is all-seeing and all-knowing. Such blind spots should not be abused and exploited.The Sifra expanded the concept to include not only moral blind spots, but personal and psychological ones as well – to use the language of the Sifra, לפני סומא בדבר, one must not place a stumbling block before one who is blind in a particular respect. Thus the Sifra illustrates this point, if one approaches you and says בת פלוני מהי לכהונה, is such and such young woman an appropriate match for this man, either halakhically or personally, אל תאמר לו כשרה והיא אינה אלא פסולה, do not say she is qualified, when in fact she is not. For then you will be taking advantage of the blindness of a man in a particular respect. Or, another example: היה נוטל ממך עצה אל…

We read in Chapter III of the Ethics of the Fathers: אם אין תורה אין דרך ארץ ואם אין דרך ארץ ,אין תורה “Where there is no Torah, there is no Derekh Eretz, and where there is no Derekh Eretz there is no Torah.” Elsewhere in Avot, we read a similar statement about the relation of these two items: יפה תורה עם דרך ארץ, the combination of Torah and Derekh Eretz is beautiful. R. Samson Raphael Hirsch gave a classical interpretation to this Mishnah when he said that for us, Derekh Eretz refers to secular learning, to the culture and science of the Western World. Both the sacred studies and the profane studies, the study of Torah and the study of Western culture, must be combined in the Jew, and when they are, that is beautiful. Of course, that is not what the Tanna originally intended by the words Derekh Eretz. The term itself admits of a variety of interpretations, the most recent of which is manners or courtesy. But the original intention undoubtedly was: occupation, sustenance, earning a livelihood. Yet, Hirsch’s interpretation does accord with the spirit of the Mishnah. It tells us that we must somehow combine sacredness and worldliness, our growth in the spiritual world of Judaism together with our engagement in the mundane – whether financial and economic, or academic and intellectual.It is, indeed, this ideal which characterizes all of us, and the community that is known as “Modern Orthodox.” It is expressed in our communal educational institutions from Day Schools through Yeshiva high schools through Yeshiva University.But the question we ought to ask is: is this merely an accommodation forced upon us by social and cultural and economic pressures, or is it something deeper than that? Is there an inherent ideal involved?My response is that Torah and Derekh Eretz is a more fundamental value, and not one dictated solely by vocational interests. I would like to locate the conceptual rationale for this value in an insight of a great Hasidic teacher – R. Zvi Elimelech S…