Richard Tupper's Yom Kippur Dvar for 5765
Over my continuing objection, we will this afternoon read Lev. 19 instead of Lev. 18, the chapter traditionally read at mincha on Yom Kippur. My d'var addresses a question that lurks in both chapters and that is, why is the land of Canaan, later called Israel, never referred to as "holy"? In chapter 18, the people are told not to pollute the land of Canaan and in chapter 19 they are instructed to become holy, but nowhere in these chapters are we ever told that the land is holy or that it, like the people, should be sanctified. In fact, nowhere in the Torah is the land of Israel ever referred to as holy. To answer this question we must first look at the relationship between holiness and impurity in the Torah, particularly in Leviticus.
lehavdil ben haqodesh uven hahol uven hatame uven hatahor
"And to make a separation between the holy and the common and between the impure and the pure" (Leviticus 10:10). This is part of HaShem's instruction to Aaron on priestly duties and one could argue that the principles encapsulated in this verse are what Leviticus is all about. Many of us, however, are not accustomed to viewing the world through this paradigm of the holy and the common, the impure and the pure, and so a review of the basics of this paradigm can be helpful. To save time, I will describe this paradigm using a number of what I am labeling "rules," which set out the basic structure of the paradigm, but I will not make this d'var Torah even longer by a detailed review of proof texts.
The paradigm in Lev. 10:10 sets out four states: the holy, the common, the impure and the pure. Commonness and purity are similar in that commonness is simply the absence of holiness and purity is simply the absence of impurity. Preliminarily then, I will formulate the first rule of the paradigm as: The common and the pure are inert, whereas the holy and the impure are dynamic.
If something that is common touches something holy, the common object has no effect on the holy object. The common object does not profane (i.e. make common) the holy object; it remains holy. Similarly, if something that is pure touches something impure, the pure object does not purify the impure object; it remains impure. Thus we see that the common and the pure are inert, having no effect upon the holy and the impure.
In contrast, however, the holy and the impure are dynamic, and the more holy or the more impure something is, the greater its effect on the common and the pure. If something that is holy touches something that is common, there is generally no effect. But if something that is described as "most holy" touches something common, the most holy object by contact sanctifies or makes holy the common object. Thus, for example, a common object becomes holy whenever it touches the outer altar or the furnishings of the Mishkan that are described as "most holy" (e.g., Ex. 30:29). Impure objects impart impurity to pure things by contact and generally the greater the impurity of the impure object, the greater the impurity it imparts to the pure object. If Reuven touches a corpse, which is forever impure, he becomes impure. But, assuming he follows the prescribed purification rituals, his impurity lasts only seven days (Num. 19:11). If I, however, touch Reuven while he is impure, I become impure but my impurity lasts only until evening (Num. 19:22).
So, let me restate the first rule as follows: The common and the pure are inert, but the most holy sanctifies the common and the impure pollutes the pure.
This first rule, however, must be qualified by a second rule because, unlike objects, humans do not become holy by contact with the most holy. For humans, unless they possess a very high degree of holiness, contact with the most holy can be lethal. Thus whoever even looks at the ark without its covering dies (e.g. Num. 4:20). Humans however can become holy. For humans and also objects there is another way to become holy: humans and objects can become holy by choice, either Divine choice or human choice.
If, for example, a person consecrates a sheep to the Mishkan by means of a vow, the animal thereby becomes holy (Lev. 27:2, 9), but obviously the rest of one's flock does not. At the conclusion of the Creation story, HaShem distinguishes the seventh day from the preceding six days by blessing it and sanctifying it (Gen. 2:2-3). The seventh day thus becomes holy but the other days remain common.
There is an apparent exception that however proves the rule. Aaron and his sons are sanctified when Moses anoints them with the blood from the ram of consecration and the holy anointing oil (Ex. 29:20-21). Thus, just as the furnishings of the Mishkan are sanctified when Moses anoints them with the holy anointing oil (Ex. 30:25-29), so too Aaron and his sons become holy through anointing. However, we are explicitly told in Ex. 29:44 that in fact it is HaShem who sanctifies the Mishkan, its furnishings and Aaron and his sons as well. Aaron and his sons are holy because HaShem has chosen them from among all the people to serve as priests. Thus it is HaShem's choice that sanctifies Aaron and his sons; the anointing is simply the ritual that demonstrates this choice.
We now come to the third rule: the more holy something is, the more susceptible it is to impurity. A woman who gives birth to a son is impure for seven days (Lev. 12:2). During this period, the woman can impart impurity to other persons and things. However, after undergoing purification rituals on the seventh day for a son, the woman no longer imparts impurity to common things or persons, but for the next thirty-three days until her final purification procedures she still may not go to the Mishkan or come into contact with holy things (Lev. 12:4). This is because, although the purification rituals have substantially reduced her impurity so that her impurity can no longer pollute the common, she cannot go near holy things since the holy is more susceptible to impurity than the common and would be polluted by contact with her.
A corollary of Rule 3, namely that the more holy a thing is, the more susceptible it is to impurity, is that the more common (in the technical sense) a thing is the less susceptible it is to impurity so that impliedly if something is entirely common, it is immune to impurity. If something is entirely common, the only way it can become impure is if it is first made holy. It is then susceptible to impurity. Thus the common and the holy are pure, unless of course they have been polluted. Consequently, we can deduce that the true antithesis of holiness is not commonness but impurity.
Finally, I would like to make one more distinction and that is between ritual impurity and moral impurity.
Ritual impurity arises from natural causes - death, the emission of semen, a woman's loss of menstrual or lochial blood, and a very limited number of physical diseases associated with death or fluids oozing from sexual organs. There is nothing sinful about becoming ritually impure; it is often unavoidable and also often a mitzvah - such as procreating, burying the dead, and purifying those who have become impure by contact with a corpse. However, it is a sin to come in contact with the holy while impure (e.g., Lev. 7:20-21) and to delay purification when one is permitted to purify oneself (e.g. Num. 10:20). Moreover, ritually impure persons can pollute others (e.g. Lev. 15:5). Such persons must similarly undergo purification rituals and, until purified, must not come into contact with the holy (cf. Lev. 22:5-6).
In contrast, certain sins2, some of which are the focus of Lev. 18, defile a person (vv. 25, 30), but while his sins defile him and the land of Israel (v. 25), he does not defile others. Furthermore, no physical purification rituals are prescribed for a person whose moral sins pollute him and the land. His impurity is purified perhaps by sincere repentance or punishment or both (Lev. 16, 26). The land's purity is restored by exile of the people and the passage of time (Lev. 18, 20, 26).
Thus we have Rule 4: Ritual impurity is not sinful but the person who is ritually impure defiles others by contact; in contrast, moral impurity by definition arises from sin, and it pollutes the land and the sinner but the sinner does not pollute others.
These then are the four rules that I will apply when looking at Lev. 18 and 19. Rule 1: The common and the pure are inert, but the most holy sanctifies the common and the impure pollutes the pure. Rule 2: Humans do not become holy by contact with the most holy, but humans and objects as well can become holy by choice, either Divine choice or human choice. Rule 3: The holier a thing or a person is, the more susceptible is that thing or person to impurity. Rule 4: Ritual impurity is not sinful but the person who is ritually impure defiles others by contact; in contrast, moral impurity by definition arises from sin, and it pollutes the land and the sinner but the sinner does not pollute others.
If we turn to Lev. 18, we see that the Israelites are instructed not to follow the practices of the land of Egypt nor those of the land of Canaan(v. 3). The Egyptians and the Canaanites share a common ancestor, Ham, (Gen. 10:6), and it was Ham who sinned by looking upon his father Noah's nakedness (Gen. 9:22), a sin that perhaps foreshadows sins listed in Lev. 18. Lev. 18 equates the customs of the Egyptians with those of the Canaanites, but there is a twist. We are told that the sins of the Canaanites polluted the Canaanites and the land and therefore the land would vomit them out (Lev. 18:24-28). But if the Egyptians committed the same sins as the Canaanites, why are the Egyptians not vomited out of the land of Egypt? The implied rationale is this: the land of Canaan is more susceptible to impurity than is the land of Egypt. From this we can deduce one of two things: either the land of Egypt is completely common and therefore immune to impurity or, at the very least, it is far less susceptible to impurity than is the land of Canaan. Otherwise, the land of Egypt at some time would have vomited out the Egyptians for polluting the land by their immorality just as the land of Canaan vomits out the Canaanites and will in the future vomit out the Israelites. Implicit in this explanation is the conclusion that the land of Israel is holier than the land of Egypt.
That the land of Israel is holy as compared to the land of Egypt and all other lands for that matter is evident not only from the different way that the land of Israel reacts to impurity. As described above, holiness can be established by Divine choice. Several verses in Leviticus tell us that the Israelites belong to God and therefore God intends for them to be holy. Lev. 25:55 states: "For it is to me the Israelites are slaves. They are My slaves whom I freed from the land of Egypt. I am HaShem your God." Similarly, Lev. 20:24 states, "I am HaShem your God who has set you apart from other peoples." Consequently, we read in Lev. 20:26, "You shall be holy to me, for I HaShem am holy; therefore I have set you apart from other peoples to be Mine." Just as the people of Israel belong to God and therefore must be holy, so too the land of Israel belongs to God. Lev. 25:23 states in relevant part: "Furthermore, the land must not be sold beyond reclaim, for the land is Mine." If the land belongs to God, then in the priestly system it therefore must be kept pure because implicitly it is holy.
Based upon the foregoing, we see the dynamic relationship between God, the Israelites, the land of Israel and the mitzvot. Because the Israelites and the land of Israel belong to God, God intends for both to be holy and undefiled by sin. We are told explicitly that the Israelites through their sins pollute themselves and the land (Lev. 18:24-30). In contrast, by keeping God's mitzvot, the Israelites sanctify themselves (Lev. 20:7-8) and the land remains unpolluted, i.e. pure. Thus the land serves as a barometer of Israel's obedience. If Israel disobeys God's mitzvot, they defile themselves and the land until ultimately the land vomits them out. If they obey God's commands they sanctify themselves. Moreover by observing the mitzvot, the Israelites explicitly (Lev. 18:27-28) maintain the purity of the land. We know from the above that the land is holy because it is more sensitive to impurity than other lands and because it is peculiarly God's land. However, the Torah never states that the land is holy.
I conclude that the Torah never makes explicit the land's implicit holiness because the Torah is focused on the holiness of the people. Therefore the Torah stresses how the people's sins pollute the land because the land's pollution serves as a measure of the people's holiness, i.e. their obedience to HaShem's mitzvot. God's explicit plan is that the people of Israel should through obedience become holy, living on a land that is not polluted by their sins (Lev. 18-20). Of course, implicitly the land HaShem has chosen for us to live on is holy or it would not be so susceptible to the polluting effects of sin. (Parenthetically, I would add that it is a terrible irony that so many of different religions have shed so much innocent blood over their claims to this holy land because the shedding of innocent blood is one of the chief polluters of the land. (Num 35:33-34))
If God's focus is on our holiness and not the land's, then the fact that we in the Galut do not live in Israel should not distract us from God's primary objective - that we should become holy by observing the mitzvot. I would like, however, to draw a further lesson. God intends to be holy all that belongs to Him. The Psalmist tells us (24:1): "The earth is HaShem's and the fullness thereof, the world and they that dwell therein." Since God intends His land to be pure and His people holy, then God intends ultimately the whole world be pure and its inhabitants holy. But the purity of the earth and the holiness of its inhabitants depend upon the conduct of people who live on it.
If this morning we focus on purification through sincere repentance by reading Lev. 16, then this afternoon our focus shifts to holiness; and holiness is achieved by keeping the mitzvot. Thankfully the Sages have prescribed that we begin our focus on holiness this afternoon by reading some of the more easily observed mitzvot recorded in Lev. 18 and not the mitzvot set out in Lev. 19, which contains some of the most difficult mitzvot in the Torah, such as loving our neighbor and the stranger as we love ourselves. But whether we read Lev. 18 or 19, God's plan for us remains the same, that we become "a kingdom of priests and a holy nation" (Ex. 19:6), "a light to the nations" (Isa. 49:6), a light that God intends ultimately will transform the entire world (ibid.).
1)This d'var Torah is based on the work of Jacob Milgrom. See his extensive commentary, Leviticus (Anchor Bible vol. 3, 1991, vol. 3A, 2000, and vol. 3B, 2001) and his more recent, shorter commentary, Leviticus: A Book of Ritual and Ethics, (Fortress Press 2004). Insights herein are his; mistakes are my own.
2)Milgrom argues that in H only certain sins pollute the land: specified sexual sins, Molech worship and consulting the dead, and homicide. However, Lev. 20:22 states: "You shall heed all My statutes and all my regulations and do them, so that the land to which I bring you to settle in will not vomit you out." (Emphasis supplied.) I believe the author of this strand of H intended the reference to "all My statutes and all my regulations" to refer at the very least to those included not only in Lev. 20 but also in Lev. 18 and 19. The laws set out in Lev. 19 extend far beyond the three types of sins identified by Milgrom. Hence, I believe that this strand of H in Lev. 20:22 has expanded the more limited polluting sins identified by an earlier strand of H and asserts that the land will be polluted and induced to vomit the people out whenever they consistently violate God's commands. This is picked up in Lev. 26 where the people's continual violation of the covenant's mitzvot results in their expulsion from the land.