The Connection between Kedusha and Tzedaka
Bein Adam Le-chavero: Ethics of
Interpersonal Conduct
By Rav Binyamin Zimmerman
*********************************************************
In memory of
Yitzchak ben Nissan zl,
by Leah Koenig
*********************************************************
Shiur #01: The Connection between Kedusha and Tzedaka
A New Year
As we enter the third and what will
probably be the final year of this series on the ethics of interpersonal
conduct, let us consider the upcoming topics for study. In particular, I would
like to focus on a theme which we have seen over a number of lessons and add to
it based on some additional sources. This idea will be a guiding light in our
continued study of mitzvot bein adam le-chavero, the interpersonal
commandments.
As we have seen over the past two years,
the interpersonal mitzvot are central to one's search for a life of
holiness (kedusha), not mere secondary commandments that pale in
significance to one's ritual obligations to God. Ethical conduct is part and
parcel of a life of kedusha. However, reiterating the point does not
suffice, as it must be developed further.
In fact, as we have mentioned in the past,
one of the longest lists in the Torah of interpersonal
mitzvot is Chapter 19 of Vayikra,
the first half of Parashat Kedoshim, which opens with the directive (v.
2), Kedoshim tihyu, You shall be holy. The Jewish people must model
their behavior after that of God and sanctify themselves not through various
ritual laws which deal with the seemingly holiest aspects of Judaism, but by
fulfilling their interpersonal obligations to each other.
Evidently, the Torah is teaching us that
not only are certain interpersonal acts mandated by God; in fact, a life of
holiness requires one to adopt and embrace proper interpersonal behaviors. Thus,
the call of Kedoshim tihyu is a call to become holy through reaching
interpersonal perfection, among other things.
This command of Kedoshim tihyu,
which links interpersonal perfection to a life of holiness, is not the first
time that the relationship between sanctity and divinely-ordained ethical
behavior is mentioned, although it makes the point very clearly and undeniably.
This dual call, which permeates numerous passages in the Torah, in fact, dates
back to the patriarch Avraham.
Avraham's Unique Dual Mission
In a recently printed essay from the
writings of Rav Joseph B. Soloveitchik (Abraham's Journey, p. 93), a new
understanding of Avraham's exceptional mission comes to light. In Parashat
Noach, after two episodes of universal sin and punishment, that of the Flood
and that of the Tower of Babel, God "forsakes the idea of spontaneously and
instantly redeeming man. He supplants spontaneity with a deliberate,
well-planned, gradual educational gesture."
Rav Soloveitchik explains that this
educational endeavor is worthwhile because anyone can ultimately succeed in
ascending the mountain of God; "it is only a question of speed and tempo. Man
cannot be changed overnight; he must slowly learn to live in peace and justice
with his fellow man. For this he needs a guide."
God is man's first teacher, through His
six commandments to Adam and subsequently giving a seventh to Noach, but
humanity repeatedly sinks into degrading behavior. Therefore, God decides that
there must be a human being who will assume the duty of educating mankind, a
person who will perfect the world by acting as a covenantal teacher. This is the
meaning of God's call to Avraham, "Walk before Me and be perfect" (Bereishit
17:1), which is essentially a call to Avraham to take part in the most sublime
of tasks: to partner with God in perfecting and ennobling man.
What is the message which Avraham is meant
to teach mankind? The Torah notes two distinct objectives, but a deeper analysis
reveals the intrinsic connection between the two. In every place where Avraham
goes, he calls out in the name of God and builds an altar. This expresses his
covenantal undertaking, emphasizing the holiness of commitment to the ways of
God, educating mankind about the seven mitzvot binding upon all of
humanity.
There is, however, a second mission as
well. When God describes why it is that He will inform Avraham of the impending
destruction of Sodom, which many understand as the justification of Avrahams
being chosen altogether, He states
(Bereishit 18:17-19):
And God said, Shall I
hide from Avraham what I am doing, seeing that Avraham
shall surely become a great nation and all the nations of the earth shall be
blessed in him? For I
have known him
to the end that he may command his children and his household after
him to keep the way of God, to do righteousness and
justice (tzedaka u-mishpat), to the end that God may bring upon
Avraham that which He has spoken to him.
Avraham is called upon because of his commitment to executing righteousness and
justice as well as his commitment to guarding the way of God, what we might
describe as kedusha, following the divine example of holiness. Now, one
might read this description of Avraham as explicitly referring to two
independent objectives. The verse doesn't identify keeping the ways of God with
doing righteousness and justice; instead, it specifies both elements:
To keep the way of God, to do
righteousness and justice
It is this calling which embodies Avraham's mission and the message that Avraham
must impart to his progeny and to mankind: firstly, living a life of kedusha
by following the ways of God; and secondly, teaching mankind the ethics of
interpersonal conduct by practicing righteousness and justice.
However, Rav Soloveitchik (op. cit.
pp. 106-7) adds that though it is commonly understood that these two ideals are
separate and distinct, they are actually more connected than one might think:
It is commonplace to say that the ideal of
tzedaka u-mishpat is related to relations between man and his fellow man,
bein adam le-chavero, while the term kedusha refers to the
specific relationship between God and man, bein adam la-Makom. This is
erroneous. The norm of kedusha is all-inclusive. It embraces the total
structure of human activity. In fact, when the Torah speaks of being holy and
enumerates the areas where one is called upon to exercise kedusha, most
of them are bein adam le-chavero. Indeed, the altar upon which one has to
sacrifice his own selfish interests in order to realize the demand for
kedusha is much larger than the altar built by the person concerned only
with tzedaka u-mishpat.
After citing examples of such conduct, Rav Soloveitchik describes the need to
sacrifice one's own dignity and pride in order to help someone in distress. This
reflects the kedusha aspect of interpersonal conduct, and fulfilling it
is an experience which brings one closer to God. These modes of behavior must go
beyond the mere application of tzedaka u-mishpat. "Serving one's fellow
man is eo ipso the most sublime service to God."
By the same token, one is not only able to
practice tzedaka u-mishpat towards one's fellow man; this pertains to
ones relationship with God as well. God created a world in which man may, by
his behavior, chart the course of the future. Therefore, man's righteous
actions, as it were, are the exercise of tzedaka with regard to God,
allowing Him to bestow greater kindness upon the world.
It is this dual message of kedusha
and tzedaka u-mishpat which God calls upon Avraham to teach the world.
The Jewish people, his progeny mentioned in the verse, are to continue Avraham's
mission by realizing that a commitment to living these virtues and educating
humanity about their necessity is a partnership with God to reform mankind. It
may take time until this message is heard and heeded, but its inner truth is so
palpable that "no matter how slow the process, Abraham will finally emerge
victorious and everyone will bow to God" (p. 112).
The Jewish system of values, carrying this
message of Avraham, must continue to include both elements, underscoring that
holiness and interpersonal greatness are one and the same.
The Implications
The implications of this outlook, which
merges the search for holiness with a life of tzedaka u-mishpat, affect
one's overall attitude toward the study of Jewish ethics while simultaneously
leaving an imprint on every individual mitzva as well.
The interpersonal
mitzvot serve not only to ensure
proper conduct between different people but to elevate one's entire personality
in the process. Therefore, the mitzvot
themselves, some of which we have studied and others which we hope to study this
year, are not limited to dictating do's and don'ts; they have a spirit of their
own. This is the element of kedusha, which permeates their essence and
determines their unique characteristics.
For this reason, a commitment to Torah is
synonymous with being committed to the needs of one's fellow Jew.
Rav Yehuda Amital (Sicha for
Parashat Toledot, 5769) points to Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai as the epitome
of such a commitment. As the Jewish leader at the time of the fall of the Second
Temple, he has the opportunity to ask the Roman leader Vespasian for three
things, as recorded in the Talmud, Gittin 56b. His first requests focus
on the need to continue the Jewish tradition of Torah learning and leadership,
so that even after the destruction of the Temple, their legacy might continue:
"Give me Yavneh and its wise men, as well as the dynasty of Rabban Gamliel."
However, he next asks for a doctor who will heal Rabbi Tzadok," who had fasted
for the welfare of the Jewish people over the course of decades, leading to a
serious deterioration in his health. Rav Amital notes how Rabban Yochanan ben
Zakkai's care for the bigger picture, a safe haven for continued Torah study and
leadership, does not cause him to forget the pains of the individual. Rabban
Yochanan ben Zakkai understands that the pursuit of sustained kedusha and
Jewish religious life must come alongside the care for every individual as well.
This proves his greatness.
Asham Gezeilot:
Sin against Man, Trespass against God
This message is repeated a number of times
in the Torah, but a particularly striking passage is that of the asham
gezeilot, Vayikra 5:20-26.
The asham, or guilt-offering, is
brought by one who has committed very specific offenses, as part of the process
of repentance and restitution, the first of which is meila, trespass or
misappropriation, taking consecrated property. The Torah introduces this (ibid.
v. 15) by stating: A person may commit a trespass, sinning inadvertently with
Gods holy things. The final case, however, relates to various instances where
one unlawfully has his fellow Jew's property and swears falsely as part of
denying his obligation to return it.
Nevertheless, the Torah characterizes this
act of withholding another's property unjustly as another form of me'ila
against God:
A person may sin and commit a trespass
against God, by lying to his comrade regarding a pledge, a loan, a robbery (gezel),
or through the defrauding of his colleague; or he may find something lost and
lie about it; or swear falsely about any of the sinful things a person may do.
Essentially, the Torah lists six instances
of trespassing against a neighbor's trust and property, yet it characterizes
such an offense not by the harm it may cause others, but as an act of me'ila
against God.
Thus, the first time meila appears
in the chapter, it refers to one who misappropriates consecrated items belonging
to the Temple. This clearly constitutes an act of trespass against the holy, but
where is the divine trespass in lying and taking an oath to deny the legitimate
monetary claims that one's colleague has against him?
Evidently, the Torah is informing us that
such an act of treachery against a fellow Jew is considered an act of divine
betrayal. In fact, it is specifically here, regarding these crimes, that the
Torah terms it not only as an act of me'ila but me'ila against
God.
A possible approach is to associate the
diverse elements of the atonement process with the different facets of the
crime. One who transgresses by denying money owed to another is only obligated
to bring this offering if he backs up his claims with a false oath. In addition
to the offering, he also must restore the property, plus an additional twenty
percent.
One might reason that an individual who
has done so has perpetrated two separate transgressions. The first, against
one's comrade, is forgiven after returning the money with the added fine, but,
the second, a sin against God via one's false oath, is only atoned for through
the bringing of the asham.
This understanding may suit us well in
disconnecting our transgressions against our fellow man from treachery against
God, but the language of the Torah itself, as well as explicit remarks by the
Sages and the commentaries, indicates otherwise. In fact, the language of the
verse itself states this explicitly: the treachery against God is the
crime against one's fellow man, as the false oath is only mentioned three verses
later, in verse 24. This is probably what leads the commentaries to understand
that the severity of the crime lies not only in the false oath, but in the
initial act of betrayal towards ones fellow Jew.
Rav David Tzvi Hoffman adds that the
terminology of me'ila, used to describe the severity of the crime, is
used in the contexts of moral sins against man, but not in similar cases of
false oaths. Evidently, the me'ila against God here is the very act of
depriving ones comrade of his rightful property.
The Meshekh Chokhma explains that the oath
here is not the focus of the crime, but a compulsory action that someone trying
to deny his debt must perform "in order to confirm his words and to release
himself from his fellow litigant." He has no intention to desecrate God's name,
and therefore he may bring an offering even if he takes the oath with the
willful intention to lie, as he merely does so to get away with his monetary
crime against his colleague, and therefore he is taken to task primarily for his
interpersonal offense and not for his false oath.
Consider the language of the Midrash (Sifra
12:22):
Rabbi Akiva says: What is the meaning of
a trespass against God? Loans are customarily made
when backed up with
documents and witnesses. Consequently, when one of the parties retracts, he
disavows the witnesses and the legal contract. But he who deposits an object in
his fellow's safekeeping and wishes to do so in secret only allows the third
party (God) to be aware of his dealings. Therefore, when the keeper denies any
knowledge of the matter, he is simultaneously disavowing the Third Party.
Rav Levi (Bava Batra 88b) cites
this verse to prove that stealing from one's colleague is treated more severely
than stealing from God and misappropriating Temple property. Could it be that crimes against one's
fellow man are treated more harshly than crimes against God?
The Torah may take such a hardline
approach specifically because this offender fails to recognize that he has
simultaneously committed a heinous crime against God while wronging his brother.
One who feels that there is no need for human morality, what we might term
tzedaka u-mishpat, in his search for kedusha fails to realize that
the two go hand in hand. One who thinks that a commitment to ritual and a
tendency to harm others are not mutually exclusive will actually come to use a
false oath to back up his statement, defying God's knowledge of the situation in
the process. Therefore, the Torah classifies this behavior as a trespass against
God which will lead to total religious confusion.
Rav S.R. Hirsch states this in no
uncertain terms:
Any dishonesty in the relations between
man and his fellow is considered a breach of trust against God. God is the Third
Party mentioned in the Midrash. He always acts as an unseen third party that is
present wherever a man has business dealings with another, even if no other
witnesses are present. For God is the guarantor of honesty between men. Here in our case, this Guarantor is
invoked as a witness when one man makes a false denial to his neighbor. Hence,
this is not just trespass; for the offender here pledges his priestly character,
his relationship to God, as surety for his honesty; and when this priestly
character is exposed as a hollow mask, this is full-fledged me'ila.
How can this crime be rectified? Mere offerings are not sufficient; one must
placate the victim as well. This seems to be why the Torah requires that one
first return the principal which he stole; only afterwards can he attempt to
atone for his sin through the offering.
This idea is explicit in the Mishna (Bava
Kamma 9:12):
He who brought his guilt-offering before
making restitution has not complied with the law.
The Seforno makes note of this in his
commentary: the offering atones only if the injured party has first been
compensated and appeased. This is very understandable, as one who would try to
bring an offering without restitution would be committing a terrible act of
twisted morality, displaying a total misunderstanding of his crime. His crime
against his fellow man is deemed by God as an act of me'ila against Him,
so failing to right the wrong to one's fellow man leaves no room for fixing his
relationship with God.
In the first chapter of his book,
Yeshayahu criticizes the disconnection between interpersonal conduct and ritual
service, naming some of the causes for the impending destruction of the First
Temple. God scorns offerings which are brought by the oppressive and the
corrupt, as no one can hope to develop a close relationship with God while
disregarding the dignity of his fellow human beings.
Trespass against Oneself
Beyond the treachery against one's fellow
man and God, one who acts in this manner also transgresses against one's own
self and character. The Tiferet Yisrael reasons that this notion is part of the
basis for the extensive obligation of a repentant thief to go to the ends of the
earth to return even the smallest sum of money. The Mishna (ibid. 5)
states:
If a man robbed his fellow of the value of
a peruta and swore falsely to him, he must take it to him even as far as
Media.
The Tiferet Yisrael explains that the Mishna specifically refers to Media in
order to emphasize that even though the injured party is in an affluent country,
where gold and silver are plentiful as stones, and he is not in need of the
almost worthless peruta, still it must be returned.
This might be partly based on the
recognition that the robber's acts, besides harming another, have an extremely
detrimental effect on his own personality as well, as it is written:
If iniquity be in your hand, remove it far
away, and let not wickedness dwell in your tents. (Iyov 11:4)
This passage is particularly relevant at
the end of Parashat Vayikra, which primarily deals with sacrifices. The
entire book of Vayikra is classically known as torat kohanim, the
law of the priests, yet only a small portion of it seems to deal directly with
the rites of the sacrifices and other domains which are related to priesthood. In fact, a large number of the
interpersonal mitzvot are taught in Vayikra.
How do those relate to priesthood?
An alternative explanation is that the
kohanim of torat kohanim are not the biological ones, the descendants
of Aharon the High Priest, but the entire Jewish people, who are called at Sinai
"a kingdom of priests and a holy nation (goi kadosh)" (Shemot
19:6). Jewish priesthood is not expressed merely by the offerings, which are the
domain of the Aaronic family, but a whole life of holiness. Being a goi
kadosh, a holy nation, involves one's interpersonal conduct as well. This is
Jewish priesthood, carrying the message of Avraham: kedusha and
tzedaka must go together, as this dual commitment is the one road to
holiness in the eyes of God.
The Kedoshim Connection
The six forms of dishonesty incurring the
asham gezeilot are primarily rooted in
mitzvot recorded in Parashat
Kedoshim, the portion which teaches us how to be holy, in a large part
through inculcating the behavior and the message of interpersonal sanctity.
In this year's lessons, we will begin with
the interpersonal mitzvot we have not
yet discussed in Parashat Kedoshim, as
we seek to uncover the aspects of divine morality manifest in one's interactions
with one's fellow man. It is our sincere hope that doing so will allow us to
walk in the footsteps of Avraham, on the path to priesthood and holiness.
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!