​Rabbi David Etengoff
 
Dedicated to the sacred memories of my mother, Miriam Tovah bat Aharon Hakohen, father-in-law, Levi ben Yitzhak, sister, Shulamit bat Menachem, sister-in-law, Ruchama Rivka Sondra bat Yechiel, Chana bat Shmuel, Yehonatan Binyamin ben Mordechai Meir Halevi, Shoshana Elka bat Avraham, Tikvah bat Rivka Perel, Peretz ben Chaim, Chaya Sarah bat Reb Yechezkel Shraga, Shmuel Yosef ben Reuven, the Kedoshim of Har Nof, Pittsburgh, and Jersey City, and the refuah shlaimah of Mordechai HaLevi ben Miriam Tovah, Moshe ben Itta Golda, Yocheved Dafneh bat Dinah Zehavah, Reuven Shmuel ben Leah, and the health and safety of our brothers and sisters in Israel and around the world.
 
One of the well-known halachot found in our parasha is the law of retributive justice (lex talionis), known popularly as “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth (ayin tachat ayin):"

And a man who inflicts an injury upon his fellow man just as he did, so shall be done to him [namely], fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. Just as he inflicted an injury upon a person, so shall it be inflicted upon him." (Sefer Vayikra 24:19-20, this and all Tanach translations, The Judaica Press Complete Tanach)
 
This is the second time we have encountered this halacha, as it initially appears in Parashat Mishpatim: “But if there is a fatality, you shall give a life for a life, ayin tachat ayin, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot, a burn for a burn, a wound for a wound, a bruise for a bruise.” (Sefer Shemot 21:23-25)  It seems that our four verses suggest that if the mazik (one who physically injures another) is to receive his just consequences, his punishment must consist of receiving the exact same injury he inflicted on the nizak (harmed individual), a practice known as “mirror punishment.” In fact, such an approach was followed in the ancient Mesopotamian Code of Hammurabi (approximately 1750 BCE).
 
A very different interpretation, however, is found within the Rabbinic tradition. One of the earliest of these texts to analyze our pasukim is the second century work, Mechilta d’Rabbi Yishmael, the halachic midrash on Sefer Shemot:

“Ayin tachat ayin”: Monetary compensation (mammon). You say it is mammon, yet perhaps the phrase is to be taken in a literal fashion! Rabbi Yisrael always explained this phrase in the following manner… [Based upon the analysis of various Torah passages, we learn that] just like injuries against an animal are redressed by monetary compensation (tashlumin), so, too, are damages against a person remedied by monetary compensation.” (Mesechta d’Nezikin, Parasha VIII, translation and brackets my own)
 
In sum, Rabbi Yishmael categorically rejects the concept of mirror punishment and asserts that the Torah champions monetary payment in its stead. Moreover, both he and Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai are quoted as maintaining this position in Talmud Bavli, Baba Kama 84a. This is the accepted p’sak din (halachic conclusion), as we find in the Rambam’s (1135-1204) Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Chovel u’Mazik I:1-6:

What is meant by “damages?” If a person cuts off the hand or the foot of a colleague, we theoretically consider the injured colleague as a servant being sold in the marketplace and evaluate his value before the injury and his value afterwards. The person who caused the injury must pay the depreciation in value. This is alluded to in the Torah’s phrase, “ayin tachat ayin.” The oral tradition interprets “tachat,” translated as “for,” as an indication that the verse requires financial recompense (l’shalame mammon). (1, all Mishneh Torah translations, Rabbi Eliyahu Touger)
 
The Rambam expands upon his understanding of ayin tachat ayin in the following fashion:
How do we know that the intent of the Torah’s statement regarding the loss of a limb, “ayin tachat ayin,” is financial restitution? That same verse continues, “a wound tachat a wound.” And regarding the penalty for a giving a colleague a wound, it is explicitly stated: “When a man strikes his colleague with a stone or a fist… he should pay for his being idled and for his medical expenses.” (Sefer Shemot 21:18-19) Thus, we learn that the word tachat mentioned regarding a wound indicates the necessity for financial restitution, and so one can conclude that the meaning of the same word regarding an eye or another limb is also financial restitution. (5)
 
In addition, the Rambam utilizes ayin tachat ayin as a platform for expounding upon the inextricable link that obtains between the Written Law (Torah She’Bichtav) and the Oral Law (Torah She’Ba’al Peh):

Although these interpretations are obvious from the study of the Written Law, and they are explicitly mentioned in the Oral Tradition transmitted by Moshe from Mount Sinai, they are all regarded as halachot from Moshe. This is what our ancestors saw in the court of Yehoshua and in the court of Shmuel of Ramah, and in every single Jewish court that has functioned from the days of Moshe our teacher until the present age. (6)
 
The Rambam’s first sentence is more or less what we would expect in reference to the connection between Torah She’Bichtav and Torah She’Ba’al Peh. What, however, does the phrase, “this is what our ancestors saw in the court of Yehoshua and in the court of Shmuel of Ramah…,” add to this analysis? My rebbe and mentor, Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik zatzal (1903-1993), known as “the Rav” by his students and followers, addresses this unusual formulation in his 1964 Yahrzeit drasha for his father, Rav Moshe Soloveitchik zatzal. The Rav calls this act of bearing witness, massoret ha’ra’iyah, a unique aspect of Torah She’Ba’al Peh that is acquired through having seen actual court cases and the decisions that were rendered. In our particular instance this refers to the countless piskei din (halachic decisions) that conclude that ayin tachat ayin must be understood as mammon.
 
How is this massoret ha’ra’iyah to be differentiated from other parts of Torah She’Ba’al Peh? The Rav notes that in almost all areas of Torah exegesis, it is acceptable to explain a verse according to its peshat, rather than according to the drashot found in Oral Law. In the case of massoret ha’ra’iyah, however, it is forbidden to follow such an approach:

But in reference to the interpretations of these verses that were accepted and bequeathed throughout the generations, when generation after generation saw the actions of the previous generation and the manner in which they comported themselves, for example regarding ayin tachat ayin, etrog and matters of a similar nature, in these cases they declared that the actual peshat of the text is in accord with the massoret [ha’ra’iyah]. As such, anyone who would interpret these verses in a different manner [regarding their halachic outcome] would be in the category of “megaleh panim b’Torah shelo k’halacha,” one who reveals a heretical interpretation of the Torah that violates the Law, since the accepted peshat within the massorah (Tradition) in this matter is, in itself, Torah She’Ba’al Peh. (Rabbi Herschel Schachter shlita, Divrei HaRav, page 101, translation, underlining and brackets my own)
 
The Rav’s examination of the Rambam’s words, “this is what our ancestors saw in the court of Yehoshua and in the court of Shmuel of Ramah…,” is a conceptual tour de force, for, in so doing, he reveals to us a new aspect of Torah She’Ba’al Peh that brings us to a deeper level of understanding. While the phrase might seem to be a simple narrative assertion by the Rambam, the Rav teaches us that massoret ha’ra’iyah is emblematic of an entire class of statements within Torah She’Ba’al Peh, and serves as a crucial conceptual and halachic link between Torah She’Bichtav and Torah She’Ba’al Peh.
 
May our deeper appreciation of the multiple aspects of Torah She’Ba’al Peh and its unbreakable connection to Torah She’Bichtav bring us ever closer to the Almighty. V’chane yihi ratzon.
 
Shabbat Shalom, and may Hashem in His infinite mercy remove the pandemic from klal Yisrael and all the nations of the world.
 
Past drashot may be found at my blog-website: http://reparashathashavuah.org
They may also be found on http://www.yutorah.org using the search criteria Etengoff and the parasha’s name.
 
The email list, b’chasdei Hashem, has expanded to hundreds of people. I am always happy to add more members to the list. If you have family or friends you would like to have added, please do not hesitate to contact me via email mailto:[email protected].
 
*** My audio shiurim on the topics of Tefilah and Tanach may be found at: http://tinyurl.com/8hsdpyd
 
*** I have posted 164 of Rabbi Soloveitchik’s English language audio shiurim (MP3 format) spanning the years 1958-1984. Please click on the highlighted link.

 















​Rabbi David Etengoff
 
 
Dedicated to the sacred memories of my mother, Miriam Tovah bat Aharon Hakohen, father-in-law, Levi ben Yitzhak, sister, Shulamit bat Menachem, sister-in-law, Ruchama Rivka Sondra bat Yechiel, Chana bat Shmuel, Yehonatan Binyamin ben Mordechai Meir Halevi, Shoshana Elka bat Avraham, Tikvah bat Rivka Perel, Peretz ben Chaim, Chaya Sarah bat Reb Yechezkel Shraga, Shmuel Yosef ben Reuven, the Kedoshim of Har Nof, Pittsburgh, and Jersey City, and the refuah shlaimah of Mordechai HaLevi ben Miriam Tovah, Moshe ben Itta Golda, Yocheved Dafneh bat Dinah Zehavah, Reuven Shmuel ben Leah, and the health and safety of our brothers and sisters in Israel and around the world.
 
The first of our two parshiot begins with the well-known verse that references the death of Aharon’s sons, Nadav and Avihu: “And the L-rd spoke to Moshe after the death of Aharon’s two sons, when they drew near before the L-rd, and they died.” (Sefer Vayikra 16:1, this and all Tanach translations, The Judaica Press Complete Tanach)  The Torah teaches us that Nadav and Avihu followed in their father’s footsteps in their complete dedication to Hashem. As a result, they were vouchsafed a vision of His Divine Presence:

And to Moshe He [G-d] said, “Come up to the L-rd, you and Aharon, Nadav and Avihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, and prostrate yourselves from afar.” … And Moshe and Aharon, Nadav and Avihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel ascended, and they perceived the G-d of Israel, and beneath His feet was like the forming of a sapphire brick and like the appearance of the heavens for clarity. And upon the nobles of the children of Israel He did not lay His hand, and they perceived G-d, and they ate and drank. (Sefer Shemot 24:1)
 
In light of the incredible spiritual heights that Nadav and Avihu achieved, the following two verses in Parashat Shemini are particularly difficult to comprehend:

And Aharon’s sons, Nadav and Avihu, each took his pan, put fire in them, and placed incense upon it, and they brought before the L-rd foreign fire (aish zarah) which He had not commanded them. And fire went forth from before the L-rd and consumed them, and they died before the L-rd. (Sefer Vayikra 10:1-2)
 
There are several essential elements in this brief, but overwhelmingly powerful, narrative:
​

1. Nadav and Avihu each took their own incense pans, put fire (coals) in them, and then placed incense on top of the coals.
2. This incense offering lacked G-d’s command and received the appellation of aish zarah.
3. The punishment for bringing aish zarah was swift and irrevocable: “And fire went forth from before the L-rd and consumed them, and they died before the L-rd.”

 
Rabbi Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin zatzal (known as “the Netziv,” 1817-1893) notes in his Torah commentary, Ha’amek Davar, that Nadav and Avihu acted with a deep and abiding sense of ahavat Hashem (love of G-d) when they entered the Ohel Moed (Tent of Meeting) to offer their incense: “They entered [the Ohel Moed] with the fire of the love of Hashem burning deeply and profoundly within them.” (Sefer Vayikra 10:1)  If this is the case, why, asks the Netziv, did they have to pay for this manifestation of their love of G-d with their very deaths?
 
The Netziv’s clear and direct answer to this question enables us to understand some of the more salient aspects of ahavat Hashem:

The Torah teaches us [through the deaths of Nadav and Avihu] that, although ahavat Hashem is precious in the eyes of G-d, it was not viewed as such when pursued in this manner, that is, without G-d having commanded [the offering of this incense].
 
To further underscore his approach, the Netziv contrasts the forbidden aish zarah of Nadav and Avihu with the preceding words of Moshe and actions of Aharon:

And Moshe said, “This is the thing the L-rd has commanded; do [it], and the glory of the L-rd will appear to you.” And Moshe said to Aharon, “Approach the altar and perform your sin offering and your burnt offering, atoning for yourself and for the people, and perform the people's sacrifice, atoning for them, as the L-rd has commanded.” So, Aharon approached the altar and slaughtered his sin offering calf. (Sefer Vayikra 9:6-8)
 
The Netziv explains this passage according to the interpretation of the Sifra, the halachic Midrash to Sefer Vayikra. He notes that Moshe was well-aware of the tendency among certain G-d-intoxicated groups and individuals to demonstrate their love of Hashem in a prohibited manner. Such breaches of the law, while performed with the ostensible intent to serve Hashem, are, in reality, self-serving. Since these behaviors entail unauthorized actions, their origin must be found in the illicit urgings of the yetzer hara. Therefore, Moshe declared: “This is the thing the L-rd has commanded; do [it], and the glory of the L-rd will appear to you.”
 
My rebbe and mentor, Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik zatzal (1903-1993), known as “the Rav” by his students and followers, implicitly agrees with the Netziv, suggesting that the key phrase in understanding the story of the tragic death of Nadav and Avihu is, indeed, “they brought before the L-rd foreign fire, which He had not commanded them.” He interprets these words in the following manner:

On the day of their installation, wearing their priestly vestments, they were overcome by ecstasy and by the need to express their emotions. The incense that they burned was identical to that which their father, Aharon, had offered. But there is one significant difference. Aharon was obeying G-d’s will, while Nadav and Avihu performed an action that G-d had not commanded. (This, and the following quotations are from Darosh Darash Yosef: Discourses of Rav Yosef Dov Halevi Soloveitchik on the Weekly Parashah, Rabbi Avishai C. David editor, pages 223-226)
 
The Rav utilizes this explanation as the foundation of his analysis of the proper means to serve Hashem. In his view, the authentic Jewish way “requires us to fashion our lives according to God’s discipline, as illustrated by the word ve-tzivanu (and He has commanded us)… [Hence,] “the reason we perform the mitzvah is our absolute surrender to God’s will.” Unfortunately, rather than acting in this manner and demonstrating their obeisance to the Almighty, Nadav and Avihu chose their own misguided path to serve Him:
​
Therefore, the transgression of Nadav and Avihu, whom the Torah describes as sanctified, was that “they offered a strange fire concerning which they had not been commanded.” The divine command and our discipline in obeying that command are the only healthy routes to religious inspiration. Any deviation, especially by tzaddikim is unacceptable and ultimately doomed to failure. (Underlining my own)
 
In sum, the Netziv and the Rav teach us that, while ahavat Hashem is a legitimate and powerful impetus for authentic spiritual expression, it must ever be governed by the mitzvot, as commanded by the Almighty. With Hashem’s benevolent guidance and our fervent desire, may we demonstrate our ahavat Hashem through the fulfillment of His holy commandments, and may these bring us ever closer to Him. May this time come soon, and in our days. V’chane yihi ratzon.
 
Shabbat Shalom, and may Hashem in His infinite mercy remove the pandemic from klal Yisrael and all the nations of the world.
 
Past drashot may be found at my blog-website: http://reparashathashavuah.org
They may also be found on http://www.yutorah.org using the search criteria Etengoff and the parasha’s name.
 
The email list, b’chasdei Hashem, has expanded to hundreds of people. I am always happy to add more members to the list. If you have family or friends you would like to have added, please do not hesitate to contact me via email mailto:[email protected].
 
*** My audio shiurim on the topics of Tefilah and Tanach may be found at: http://tinyurl.com/8hsdpyd
 
*** I have posted 164 of Rabbi Soloveitchik’s English language audio shiurim (MP3 format) spanning the years 1958-1984. Please click on the highlighted link.

 
Rabbi David Etengoff
  
Dedicated to the sacred memories of my mother, Miriam Tovah bat Aharon Hakohen, father-in-law, Levi ben Yitzhak, sister, Shulamit bat Menachem, sister-in-law, Ruchama Rivka Sondra bat Yechiel, Chana bat Shmuel, Yehonatan Binyamin ben Mordechai Meir Halevi, Shoshana Elka bat Avraham, Tikvah bat Rivka Perel, Peretz ben Chaim, Chaya Sarah bat Reb Yechezkel Shraga, Shmuel Yosef ben Reuven, the Kedoshim of Har Nof, Pittsburgh, and Jersey City, and the refuah shlaimah of Mordechai HaLevi ben Miriam Tovah, Moshe ben Itta Golda, Yocheved Dafneh bat Dinah Zehavah, Reuven Shmuel ben Leah, and the health and safety of our brothers and sisters in Israel and around the world.
 
The primary focus of our parshiot is the illness known as tzara’at. The unique nature of this class of disease is emphasized by the Rashbam (Rabbi Shmuel ben Meir, 1080-1158) in his introduction to our topic:
 
All of the sections dealing with the negayim (afflictions) affecting people, garments, houses and the manner in which they appear, as well as the number of days requiring sequestering, and the white, black, and golden identifying hairs, may not in any way be understood by following the simple and direct meaning of the text. Neither may we rely upon standard human knowledge and expertise [that is, current medical information]. Instead, we must follow the analysis (midrash) of the Sages, their decrees, and the inherited body of knowledge that they received from the earliest Sages. This is the essence [of this matter]. (Commentary on the Torah, Sefer Vayikra 13:2, translation and brackets my own)
 
In sum, according to the Rashbam, tzara’at can only be understood from the Torah’s standpoint, rather than from a physiological or medical perspective. This is because its etiology does not follow the normative laws of biology. Instead, it is a spiritually based ailment that manifests in a physical fashion.
 
As the Rashbam notes, one of the forms of tzara’at directly affects a house:

When you come to the land of Canaan, which I am giving you as a possession, and I will place a lesion of tzara’at upon a house in the land of your possession, and the one to whom the house belongs comes and tells the kohen, saying, “Something like a lesion (k’nega) has appeared to me in the house.” (Sefer Vayikra 14:34-35, this and all Tanach translations, The Judaica Press Complete Tanach)

The pasuk, “When you come to the land of Canaan, which I am giving you as a possession, and I will place a lesion of tzara’at upon a house in the land of your possession,” appears to be quite negative, especially in light of the Torah’s command to “demolish the house, its stones, its wood, and all the [mortar] dust of the house” (14:45) if the tzara’at cannot be removed in any other way. Rashi (1040-1105), basing himself upon the Talmud and two midrashim, however, notes that the destruction of the house actually results in a very fortunate outcome:

“I will place (v’na’tati) a lesion of tzara’at upon a house” — This was an announcement to them that these plagues would come upon them (Midrash Sifra, Metzora, 14:75, Talmud Bavli, Horayot 10a), because the Amorites concealed treasures of gold in the walls of their houses during the whole 40 years the Israelites were in the wilderness in order that these might not possess them when they conquered Palestine, and in consequence of the plague [tzara’at] they would pull down the house and discover them. (Midrash Vayikra Rabbah 17:6, translation, Pentateuch with Rashi’s Translation, M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silberman)
 
At first glance, it is difficult to understand why Chazal and Rashi interpret, “V’na’tati a lesion of tzara’at upon a house,” in this manner.  Rabbi Baruch Halevi Epstein (1860-1941) addresses this problem and suggests a cogent textually based solution:

The reason for this analysis stems from the word, “v’na’tati,” since, in our instance the Torah does not state: “when a lesion of tzara’at will be found in a house in the Land,” as is the case regarding lesions that affect people and clothing. Moreover, in general, [any form of] the expression, “netina,” [giving, such as the word v’na’tati] that is from the Holy One blessed be He, leads to something good. [Thus, we find,] “v’na’tati your rains in their time” (Sefer Vayikra 26:4), “v’na’tati peace in the Land” (Sefer Vayikra 26:6) and “v’na’tati salvation in Zion, to Israel, My glory” (Sefer Yeshayahu 46:13). Therefore, they interpreted this use of our term, v’na’tati, as having a positive valence. (Torah Temimah, Parashat Metzora, note 111, translation my own)
 
In sum, according to Rav Epstein, our Sages’ understanding of v’na’tati” is congruent with Rabbi Akiva’s famous aphorism: “Everything that the Holy One blessed be He does is for the best.” (Talmud Bavli, Berachot 60b)  
 
The next pasuk contains a fascinating nuance: “Something like a lesion (k’nega) has appeared to me in the house.” Why do homeowners need to speak in such an indeterminate fashion, especially if they are well-versed in the laws of negayim and know that their home is afflicted with tzara’at? Why can they not straightforwardly declare to the kohen who comes to inspect their premises: “A lesion (nega) has appeared to me in the house?”
 
Rashi (14:35) draws our attention to this issue when he cites the statement from Mishnah Negayim 12:5 which rules, like our pasuk, that k’nega, rather than nega, is the halachically mandated statement — even for talmidei chachamim. As we would expect, there are many different approaches as to why this is the case. One of the most fascinating is offered by Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi (1455-1525), one of Rashi’s best-known supercommentators:
​
But I have heard from my teachers, that this verse is not being precise in its nomenclature in regard to stating something is absolutely [nega] or doubtfully [k’nega] a ritually pure (tahor) or impure lesion (tamei), rather it is addressing a matter of derech eretz (ethical behavior). That is, a person [should never declare a lesion to be tamei,] even if the matter is crystal clear in their eyes (vadai), instead, they must always state that the lesion is only perhaps (safek) tamei [and leave the determination to the kohen]. This is in congruence with Chazal’s dictum: “One should always teach his tongue to say: ‘I don’t know.’” (Talmid Bavli, Berachot 4a, Sefer Ha-Mizrachi, Sefer Vayikra 14:35, translations my own)
 
The Mizrachi’s explanation is particularly beautiful. In a few short words, he has universalized the Mishnah’s ruling and placed it squarely in the category of derech eretz, an area of our spiritual lives whose import cannot be overestimated. As Rav Yishmael bar Rav Nachman famously said: “Derech eretz preceded the [giving of] the Torah by 26 generations.” (Midrash Vayikra Rabbah 9:3) The underlying meaning of this concept was given voice in Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah’s far earlier aphorism: “If there is no Torah, there is no derech eretz; if there is no derech eretz, there is no Torah.” (Pirkei Avot 3:17)  In other words, even though we are blessed with the Torah, it is in addition to, and does not supplant, the fundamental obligation to live lives based upon ethically-suffused actions, for the Torah, itself, depends upon derech eretz.
 
May the Almighty ever guide us on the path of righteousness and justice, and may the derech eretz reflected by our actions enable us to become His authentic servants. V’chane yihi ratzon.
 
Shabbat Shalom, and may Hashem in His infinite mercy remove the pandemic from klal Yisrael and all the nations of the world.
 
Past drashot may be found at my blog-website: http://reparashathashavuah.org
They may also be found on http://www.yutorah.org using the search criteria Etengoff and the parasha’s name.
 
The email list, b’chasdei Hashem, has expanded to hundreds of people. I am always happy to add more members to the list. If you have family or friends you would like to have added, please do not hesitate to contact me via email mailto:[email protected].
 
*** My audio shiurim on the topics of Tefilah and Tanach may be found at: http://tinyurl.com/8hsdpyd
 
*** I have posted 164 of Rabbi Soloveitchik’s English language audio shiurim (MP3 format) spanning the years 1958-1984. Please click on the highlighted link.

Rabbi David Etengoff
 
Dedicated to the sacred memories of my mother, Miriam Tovah bat Aharon Hakohen, father-in-law, Levi ben Yitzhak, sister, Shulamit bat Menachem, sister-in-law, Ruchama Rivka Sondra bat Yechiel, Chana bat Shmuel, Yehonatan Binyamin ben Mordechai Meir Halevi, Shoshana Elka bat Avraham, Tikvah bat Rivka Perel, Peretz ben Chaim, Chaya Sarah bat Reb Yechezkel Shraga, Shmuel Yosef ben Reuven, the Kedoshim of Har Nof, Pittsburgh, and Jersey City, and the refuah shlaimah of Mordechai HaLevi ben Miriam Tovah, Moshe ben Itta Golda, Yocheved Dafneh bat Dinah Zehavah, Reuven Shmuel ben Leah, and the health and safety of our brothers and sisters in Israel and around the world.
 
The essence of Hashem’s purpose in gifting the Torah to the Jewish people is imparted immediately prior to the Revelation at Mount Sinai: “And now, if you obey Me and keep My covenant, you shall be to Me a treasure out of all peoples, for Mine is the entire earth. And you shall be to Me a kingdom of princes and a holy nation (goy kadosh) …” (Sefer Shemot 19:5-6, this and all Tanach translations, The Judaica Press Complete Tanach)  The obligation to attain this sanctified status is writ large in two pasukim in our parasha:

For I am the L-rd your G-d, and you shall sanctify yourselves and be holy, because I am holy, and you shall not defile yourselves through any creeping creature that crawls on the ground. For I am the L-rd Who has brought you up from the land of Egypt to be your G-d. Thus, you shall be holy, because I am holy. (Sefer Vayikra 11:44-45)
 
In these verses, ki kadosh Ani (because I am holy) emerges as the basis of Hashem’s command to us to pursue kedushah (holiness). The expression, “Thus, you shall be holy, ki kadosh Ani,” however, does not seem to fit a standard “if x then y” kind of model. This is especially the case, since the Master of the Universe is omnipotent, infinite and eternal, and we are finite and “like a passing shadow.” (Rosh Hashanah liturgy)  What, then, does Hashem’s kedushah have to do with our kedushah?
 
Rabbeinu Shimshon Raphael Hirsch zatzal (1808-1888) helps us formulate an answer to our question:

Ki kadosh Ani Hashem Elokeichem: the source of the possibility that you can be holy and the reason why you should be holy, lies in the fact that kadosh Ani Hashem Elokeichem, that I, Who am Hashem Elokeichem, am kadosh. The kedushah, the holiness to which you are to strive with all the force of your moral free will is, in its true absolute purity, an attribute of Me Myself, and as Hashem have I given you with My Breath, participation in this freedom, and continue giving you constantly strength and assistance for everything which is good. In kadosh Ani Hashem lies the source of your ability for kedushah. (Commentary on the Torah, Sefer Vayikra 19:2, translation, Rabbi Isaac Levy, second edition, page 499)
 
Rav Hirsch’s interpretation of how and why we can and should be kadosh is an exegetical tour de force. In his view, the potential to attain kedushah is an attribute of the Almighty that He bestows upon us at the moment of our creation. As such, ki kadosh Ani, and all that it entails, is the source of our ability to pursue kedushah and actualize it in our lives.
 
Rav Hirsch’s analysis is congruent with a statement of the Midrash Sifra on the above-cited pasukim in our parasha: “Just like I am holy, so, too, should you be holy. Just like I am separate [from all that is antithetical to kedushah], so, too, should you be separate.” (Translation and brackets my own)  The pursuit of kedushah, therefore, is inextricably linked to the mitzvah of v’halachta b’drachov (walking in Hashem’s ways). This idea is also given powerful voice by Rabbi Ovadia Seforno (1475-1550) in his Commentary on the Torah on our verses:
​
I [Hashem] desire that you will sanctify and prepare yourselves for kedushah. It is fitting that you will be holy and ever successful in your recognition of your Creator and emulate His actions, for this is what I desire — that you should model yourselves after Me. (Translation my own)
 
With Hashem’s help and our heartfelt desire, may we ever endeavor to emulate Him in our pursuit of kedushah. May this enable us to live lives that bring honor to the Jewish people, and glory to His holy name. V’chane yihi ratzon.
 
Shabbat Shalom, and may Hashem in His infinite mercy remove the pandemic from klal Yisrael and all the nations of the world.
 
Past drashot may be found at my blog-website: http://reparashathashavuah.org
They may also be found on http://www.yutorah.org using the search criteria Etengoff and the parasha’s name.
 
The email list, b’chasdei Hashem, has expanded to hundreds of people. I am always happy to add more members to the list. If you have family or friends you would like to have added, please do not hesitate to contact me via email mailto:[email protected].
 
*** My audio shiurim on the topics of Tefilah and Tanach may be found at: http://tinyurl.com/8hsdpyd
 
*** I have posted 164 of Rabbi Soloveitchik’s English language audio shiurim (MP3 format) spanning the years 1958-1984. Please click on the highlighted link.