📋 Shiur Overview
Holiness and Purity in Parashat Korach – The Secret of Non-Separation Between Aspects
The Way of the Zohar – Commentary Following the Order of the Torah
In order to make true progress in the way of the Zohar, one must always begin with the weekly Torah portion, for this is the way of the Zohar and one of the secrets of its approach. And there is a fundamental difference, not only in content but also in style, between books like the Zohar and books like the Rambam or even Chovot HaLevavot and those who follow in their footsteps, for the Zohar is a commentary following the order of the Torah.
This can be illustrated through a comparison between the Rambam and the Ramban. It is known to all that the Rambam and the Ramban disagree with each other on many topics in their commentaries, but there is between them a more fundamental disagreement, a disagreement in the very style of writing, and from it one can learn a great distinction which can also explain what we are now dealing with regarding holiness, for this is a completely different portrayal of the concept of holiness.
The Rambam, when he comes to explain the reasons for the commandments, or the foundations of the entire Torah, does not write a commentary following the order of the Torah but rather a book that follows the order of topics. Thus the Moreh Nevuchim – although its order is not clear in itself, it is certainly not according to the order of the Torah, it is not a midrash nor a commentary following the order of the portions, but rather a book that follows the order of subjects. First he seeks to explain the matter of God’s existence, then the matter of the reasons for the commandments, the matter of prophecy, the matter of divine providence, each topic by itself – and this is the order of Moreh Nevuchim.
The Ramban disagrees with the Rambam in many ways, regarding the reasons for the commandments, regarding providence, regarding holiness and many topics, but he does not write objections to Moreh Nevuchim nor another book in its style, but rather writes a book on the Torah, and most of his disagreements with the Rambam are written within his commentary on the Torah. It is true that the Ramban has compositions more organized by topics, his sermons and books like Sha’ar HaGemul, but even they are compiled, for first he wrote on the Torah and then copied and incorporated things in sermons according to the order of topics.
But the Zohar, even more than the Ramban, was written intentionally and specifically according to the order of the Torah. Indeed there are parts in it that follow the order of topics, like the Idrot and Sifra DeTzniuta – incidentally, Sifra DeTzniuta is a commentary on Parashat Bereishit, but the Idrot follow the order of emanation and the order of topics and are not in their source according to the order of the Torah – but it is clear, and thus the Ramak explains, that the Zohar is explicitly a book that follows the order of the Torah. And what is the intent of this? Its intent is to say that when a Jew is engaged these weeks in the topic of holiness and seeks to make progress, there is here a matter deeper than merely saying Torah according to the order of the portion. There is here a question of where the Jew draws his inspiration, and not only his inspiration but also his very learning – where does he learn better. Instead of simply searching where the matter of holiness is discussed, in which book and in which sections, as Chovot HaLevavot loved to ask how many parts there are in a topic, the Jew goes to the portion.
The Portion as the Way of God’s Revelation
I am alive, I am a Jew, and I have a portion of the week, and the portion of the week is the way, if you will, it is the revelation of God, it is the way in which the Holy One, blessed be He, wishes to speak with me this week. Who determined that this is the portion of the week? This is the custom, this is the established order, but in any case this is actually the portion of the week, and this is the holiness, the indwelling of the Shechinah, the drawing down of divine abundance and the siyata dishmaya (heavenly assistance) descending to the world this week.
And not only do I use it, but I learn from it. In the Torah many things were written, the story of Korach and the other portions and the commandments that stand this week in order were written, and in this story depth is hidden, it does something, it speaks about a certain problem.
Moreover, there is here an additional introduction: every portion in the Torah, even if it is a story, can be rewritten as a lesson, as an in-depth lesson, as a lesson of philosophy. Korach and Aharon – indeed there is the simple peshat (literal meaning) that Korach challenges the priesthood and Moshe and prophecy and the mission, but in truth, and thus the Zohar learns explicitly, there is between Korach and Aharon a disagreement, and in it a philosophical theological inquiry in the service of God, what is a person and what is a Jew and what is correct. And indeed the portion is written as a story, and a decision comes in it that Aharon is right in the end, but still there is here a sugya (talmudic topic).
And since this is a story, it is difficult to arrive from it at our questions and to know what is the reason for holiness and whether it means thus or thus, for this one must receive the tradition of the way of derash (homiletical interpretation) and the way of learning. And it is true that the essence of the tradition is to ask from it the question, as the Baal Shem Tov says that when a Jew has a question, he should ask his question from the Zohar, from the Torah. This is the meaning of the matter that in the Torah is hidden the concealed light, the light of the seven days, the light of the entire world – from there he receives. And of course the question is the beginning of the action and the work, and then come all kinds of ways, derash, remez (hint) and peshat, how to develop the topic from what the portion gives us.
And it is self-evident, as we said, that holiness according to the way of the Zohar is very much concerned with the life within the deed, in the stories of things in which the Holy One, blessed be He, came and chose Israel, and wants to hold us as His people, ‘you are children to Hashem your God’ (Deuteronomy 14:1), the Holy One, blessed be He, calls them children and calls them a treasured people and calls them a holy people, and said ‘you shall be holy for I am holy’ (Leviticus 19:2). And when I seek to understand any sugya, I contemplate and say: not only do I have a problem, but there is here a sugya separately, there is here a story in which the Holy One, blessed be He, chose Israel and gave us the Torah and sanctified us with the holiness of the Torah, and when I grasp the Torah, I grasp everything, the root of life and the root of beauty and the root of the perfection of everything, and in it certainly lies the answer to my question, and also there is in it a process of how to make progress and develop from it something. And therefore we have learned until now the introductions to the matters, as is the custom of the Zohar to always open with praise of the Torah and praise of Israel.
The Concept of Holiness in the Portion – The Words of Korach and Moshe
In our portion the concept of holiness is mentioned immediately at its beginning. Korach said, ‘it is too much for you, for the entire congregation, all of them are holy and Hashem is among them, and why do you raise yourselves above the congregation of Hashem’ (Numbers 16:3). And Moshe answers him, and he too mentions the concept of holiness, saying to Korach that he should bring the fire-pans: ‘in the morning Hashem will make known who is His and who is holy and will bring him near to Him, and whom He will choose He will bring near to Him’ (Numbers 16:5), and in the adjacent verse, ‘and it shall be that the man whom Hashem chooses, he is the holy one’ (Numbers 16:7). This is Moshe’s answer to Korach’s claim regarding holiness.
One who learns according to peshat sees that Moshe and Korach are arguing using the very same language. Against Korach’s language of ‘it is too much for you’, Moshe responds ‘it is too much for you, sons of Levi’ (Numbers 16:7). Against ‘all of them are holy and Hashem is among them’ and ‘why do you raise yourselves above the congregation of Hashem’, Moshe responds ‘bring incense before Hashem’, ‘and it shall be that the man whom Hashem chooses, he is the holy one’. You say ‘all of them are holy’, and I tell you that the matter is not so simple, but rather ‘the holy one He will bring near to Him’.
This is the disagreement between Moshe and Korach. And anyone can understand that there is between them an inquiry. And if one learns in the way we said, that the portion is not just a story that happened, then indeed Korach is not one hundred percent right and Moshe is one hundred percent right, but Korach has a certain claim, and it may be an error – and an error is different from a sin, these are two separate things – he has an error, and in it is the problem. And Korach has a certain claim or problem, and Moshe says otherwise. And one of the things they disagree about is the topic of holiness: what is the meaning that Israel is holy, and who is holy. According to the simple peshat, the question is who is actually holy, but according to the depth it cannot be that this would be merely a personal question of who is holy – whether all of Israel, whether Moshe is raising himself, whether the Holy One, blessed be He, examines who is holy. Rather the depth is that Korach has a certain understanding and conception in the topic of the holiness of Israel, and Moshe has another understanding, a superior one. And we must understand a bit of the matter, for hidden here is a process through which one can do something, understand better.
A Note According to Peshat – Holiness is ‘to Me’
I will preface a note according to peshat. We learned last week, ‘and you shall be holy to your God’ (Numbers 15:40), and this is also the connection between the two portions, for in the Chumash it is written ‘and you shall be holy to your God, I am Hashem your God’, and on this very thing revolves the disagreement of Moshe and Korach. What is the peshat of the verse ‘who brought you out from the land of Egypt to be for you as God’ (Numbers 15:41), and what is the peshat of ‘and you shall be holy to Me for I am holy, Hashem’? The connection is beautiful when one understands the topic of holiness.
And what did we say? That holiness is ‘to Me’, that it is something that comes with the prefix lamed, that the person belongs and is connected in a certain way to the Holy One, blessed be He, who chooses him. And as can be seen explicitly in the verses of the book of Deuteronomy, ‘you are a holy people to Hashem your God and Hashem chose you’ (Deuteronomy 7:6) – when the order of the verse explains itself in the doubling of its language: you are a holy people, and what is a holy people? ‘And Hashem chose you’. And likewise ‘and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation’ (Exodus 19:6) – I will choose you, ‘and you shall be to Me’, and you will be to Me a holy nation.
And thus one can see clearly here as well. If one learns the verse in the way we said, that holiness and being chosen ‘to Me’ are the same, then ‘the man whom Hashem chooses, he is the holy one’ – holy is a description that one who the Holy One, blessed be He, chose in him receives. And above this he said this more clearly, ‘and you shall know who is His’ – who belongs to Him, ‘and the holy one He will bring near to Him’ – whom the Holy One, blessed be He, brought near and chose, he is the holy one. And this is what Moshe says, contrary to Korach’s words: that who is holy is the one whom the Holy One, blessed be He, chose.
Korach’s Language – ‘Hashem is Among Them’
And indeed one could have seen this also from Korach’s claim, except that he spoke a bit differently. Korach did not speak about the holy one being ‘to Hashem’, but rather said ‘all of them are holy and Hashem is among them’. But the language ‘Hashem is among them’ comes from the language ‘and I will dwell among them’ (Exodus 25:8), which comes after ‘and they shall make for Me a sanctuary’ (Exodus 25:8), and this too is language of holiness – ‘sanctuary’, a holy place, a place sanctified for the Holy One, blessed be He, to dwell in it, ‘and I will dwell among them’. And if the Holy One, blessed be He, is among them, it follows that all of them are holy. This was Korach’s claim. And Rashi explains about Korach what is ‘all of them are holy and Hashem is among them’ – ‘all of them heard the words at Sinai from the mouth of the Almighty’ (Rashi Numbers 16:3). Thus to say ‘and you shall be holy to Me… to be for Me as God’ is the same as being holy.
It is found clearly in the peshat of the verses here that holiness and chosenness, to be chosen to Hashem and to be holy to Him, are the same, and this is the teaching. And on this Korach had a kind of clash with Moshe, whether to say ‘among them Hashem’ or ‘to Hashem’. An interesting inquiry, and I am not coming now to give in it a peshat or an approach built on the distinction between ‘among them’ and ‘to Him’; it is possible that there is here a distinction, and one should contemplate it. This is a note, an opening, an opening that can be opened.
The Zohar – ‘Who is His and the Holy One’: Two Aspects
But what I seek to explain more is something the Zohar says, which learns a bit differently from what I learned. The Zohar says that it is written ‘who is His and the holy one’, and does not explain as I explained – that this is the same, as a doubling of a matter in the peshat of the verses – but rather explains that we are speaking here of two different things. And one should contemplate this.
In general, according to peshat, the way of learning the verses as the Rishonim always learned according to the way of peshat is that the verse explains itself in two languages about the same thing, and it is a doubling of a matter in different words. But many times in the midrashim and in the Zohar, and certainly in later commentators, the Zohar sees clearly that the same doubling that according to peshat is nothing but repetition, hints according to sod (secret) to another aspect.
And one should contemplate how to connect the peshat and the sod, the two ways of reading the verse. I do not seek to say that this is just a disagreement, that the Zohar disagreed and held that the peshat of the verse is not to read it as one unit. On the contrary, it seems to me more that the Zohar understands that when one repeats something, hidden in this is that there are in the matter two sides, and for this they repeat it. This is not a simple doubling, but rather we take here two aspects, and the Zohar gives names to those aspects – this is the way of the Zohar, to give names to aspects.
Korach’s Sin – Cutting the Plantings
And in this itself is hidden a bit of Korach’s sin, and I say thus. And this is our matter in the Zohar, and it is possible that it is already hinted at in the Ramban on the Torah and one should examine it. That Korach – and thus the Zohar and the Kabbalists learn about almost all sins, and it is interesting that the Kabbalists give the same peshat itself to every sin: that he separates, that he makes kitzutz bintiyot (cutting the plantings).
There are different aspects. Here in the portion there are chesed (kindness) and gevurah (strength), Aharon is the aspect of chesed, a kohen (priest), and a Levi is the aspect of gevurah, and thus is explained in the Zohar throughout the entire portion. And likewise the Zohar says that Korach and his companions, his men, were people of the name, like the generation of the dispersion who ‘let us make for ourselves a name’, who sought to take the malchut (kingship) without the tiferet (beauty) hinted at in Moshe. And certainly the matters are connected, that chesed is more connected to tiferet and gevurah is more connected to malchut. But in any case, in the way of the Zohar almost anyone who sinned, even though he has a claim and he has reasoning but erred, his sin is that he separated excessively between certain aspects.
The Aspects in Truth Are the Same
What is the intent of this? Thus one should understand: all the aspects that we speak of in Kabbalah are separate, additional aspects, ‘right and left’, ‘the Holy One, blessed be He, and His Shechinah’. And as the Baal HaTanya explains in one place, that when we say ‘aspect’, the meaning is that this is not real in the object itself, in the thing itself, in the essence of the matter there is no distinction.
Where is the distinction? Like a circle that has inside and outside. Where is the distinction? In my head, in my thought – and it is not only in my head, as it were one can contemplate it also from outside, but in reality it is the same thing itself, except that you contemplate from this side or from that side, speak from this side or from that side. And it does not depend only on how you contemplate, for one can speak from both sides, from both aspects of the same thing itself, but all the aspects in truth are the same, and they are not truly other aspects. Rather since the human intellect, the power of binah (understanding) that we spoke of, understands things by dividing them into different aspects and different laws – into the aspect of divine influence, into the aspect of da’at (knowledge) that contracts and into the aspect of da’at that gives life.
And this is not relevant to the Holy One, blessed be He, that to the truth, to the source, they are the same. Through His contracting He creates, for example chesed and gevurah, and what is contraction if not in influence. These are not in truth two different things, but we, according to our concepts, in order that we understand, need to divide into different words and into what we call aspects. And therefore it comes out well that the Zohar takes a verse like this in which is written ‘who is His’ and ‘the holy one’ – which according to peshat is the same, and indeed in truth is the same, for one who understands the spirituality, the intellect and the inner meaning that is their intent, understands that the intent is one thing. But in order to understand it properly one must speak from two aspects.
The Purity Required for Learning Kabbalah
And therefore a simple Jew who does not have abstract comprehension, who is not accustomed to thinking in an abstract aspect – and this is the true intent – it is forbidden for him to learn Zohar and Kabbalah. And indeed people think that this is precisely the matter of holiness and purity required for this. Thus is written in all the introductions to the books, for example in the introduction to Reishit Chochmah: why did Rabbi Eliyahu de Vidas write his book? Because the world began to learn Kabbalah, and Pardes Rimonim of his teacher the Ramak was printed with permission, and it is known to all that in order to learn Kabbalah one must be at a level, one must be holy and pure. Therefore he wrote a book of mussar (ethics) how a person should conduct himself in the deed of wisdom, as we learned last week, that part of deed through which a person will be fit and will be a proper recipient who can learn the Kabbalah.
People think that the meaning is that in order to learn Kabbalah one must be a tzaddik (righteous person), as if this is a prize – one who is not a glutton and drunkard and one who is abstinent, has a prize that he can merit to learn Kabbalah. And as if the Kabbalah hates him. And thus indeed comes out from the story that the Kabbalah tells, as we learned at the end of last week, that in order to enter the king’s palace one must be worthy. But this is only a story, it is only a tale, a physical king’s palace. The Holy One, blessed be He, does not dwell in a palace with walls that one does not enter – everything is a parable about truth.
The Nimshal – Dividing Things That Are One
And what is the nimshal (the lesson of the parable), or one of the nimshalim? The nimshal is that the Kabbalah divides into two things that in truth are one. And it is interesting. It is known to all that the Kabbalah is supposed to connect things, but the Kabbalah comes so that a person will understand it, it is chochmah (wisdom) and binah, from the gates of binah, and people understand things by dividing them, and say that there is the aspect of chesed and there is the aspect of gevurah. And not only do people divide them, and it is not only in their thought, but they are truly divided among people.
When we say that a kohen is the aspect of chesed and a Levi the aspect of gevurah, what is the intent? Because here in this world, since people need to understand the Holy One, blessed be He, and the conduct of divinity in a certain contracted understanding that is possible to grasp – and also in actual service, how people act and are aroused and are affected in a certain way, and conduct themselves in a certain way through a certain measure and a certain process and a certain deed in life. And the person, since he is in a body and his intellect is contracted, lives in the world of binah, and even binah is already good for him, and lives in this world, in the world of the six days of creation, cannot be everything at once, but can be one thing.
And as the Baal Shem Tov says, ‘these and these are the words of the living God but the halachah is like Beit Hillel’ (Eruvin 13b) – ‘living God’ is the world of binah. Thus above, in binah, everything is divine, but here in this world Shammai and Hillel say two different things, and this is a disagreement for the sake of heaven. And in any case, since people can live and understand only when dividing things, the division becomes among people a separation. And the Kabbalah comes, the Zohar comes, to bring down the unique aspects into the separation as it were, into the vessels, so that we can understand and fulfill and be connected to the levels and conduct ourselves in them, and we call them by different names, the ‘yehi ratzon’ (may it be Your will) of Moshe and the ‘yehi ratzon’ of Korach, different names.
The True Purity – To Understand with Refined Understanding
But this is the purity required before learning Zohar. One who understands, one who has a more refined understanding, one can say that he merited the seven who restore taste. The Ramak says that one who is not a scholar and does not understand scholarship, it is forbidden for him to learn Kabbalah. This is a true and deeper condition than the condition they say, that he should have shemirat habrit (guarding the covenant). And in truth shemirat habrit is nothing but a revelation that a person will be able to understand deeper and broader things, less coarse and more refined than what is spoken of in the simple intellect of a coarse person who cannot see things except in imaginations and in things visible to the eye and tangible.
It is found that the purity required for learning Zohar is itself lishmah (for its own sake), it is holiness and purity. To understand what we are speaking about. If a person understands that indeed we are speaking of two different things of the same thing itself, and that we can even say that different people reveal and embody in their conduct two different things of the same thing itself, and in any case the truth is always the same thing – this is ‘Hashem is one and His name is one’, that even His name is the Holy One, blessed be He. And even what we call Him a name is the aspect of malchut, for we must be able to speak of Him and grasp Him and connect to Him, and we connect through the name.
But if you separate the Shechinah from the Holy One, blessed be He, automatically you separate the right from the left, and automatically you separate everything, for to you the names are different. And thus there are unfortunately people who investigate Kabbalah, and such investigation goes and says that such-and-such kabbalist said this word and another kabbalist said another word, and a disagreement emerges. Fool, this is kitzutz bintiyot! The Kabbalah is not situated in the words that the kabbalists say, but you think that the words are actual reality as it were and there lies the true thing, and you are cutting the plantings, God forbid. The Kabbalah is situated in the light in it, in the essence of the thing. And therefore purity and holiness are required, all those preparations of turning from evil and doing good, primarily so that the person will be a vessel of reception, a person who can understand thus, and for this he must be one with bittul (self-nullification) and with all the good character traits that the kabbalists speak of as preparation. And this is in truth Korach’s struggle, this is his error.
Holiness and Purity – Two Levels
Let us return to what we sought to say from the Zohar. The Zohar says that ‘the man who is His’ is not the same as ‘the holy man’. ‘The man who is His’, says the Zohar, is the aspect of tahor (pure), and the Zohar is precise in this. It is true that in the Zohar Parashat Naso there is a kind of discussion on this matter and a disagreement among the companions of the Zohar, between Rabbi Yehudah and others, but this is the conclusion: that there are two levels called kedushah (holiness) and taharah (purity).
Kedushah is what the kohen has, ‘and you shall sanctify him’ (Leviticus 21:8), the kohen is kadosh (holy), ‘and a holy man’. The Levi is not kadosh – and indeed in general they sometimes call him also kadosh that he is proper, but in truth he has another name, he is called tahor. And the Zohar in Parashat Chukat says that therefore it is not the kohen who throws the parah (red heifer), but rather ‘its commandment is with the deputy’, that the kohen gives to another and does not do it himself, but the deputy does the burning of the parah. And ‘and a pure man shall gather’ (Numbers 19:9) is not a kohen at all. Why? Because taharah is a smaller level than kedushah. Kadosh is the level of the kohen, and tahor is the level of the Levi or the deputy of the priesthood, from the priestly watches.
And the Zohar explains there and adds a word. It is written here simply ‘kadosh’ and ‘tahor’, two aspects. In truth this was one aspect, but in actuality and in people’s understanding they are two. Therefore it is written ‘who is His will make holy’, and Korach’s error was that he did not understand this and separated between the two things. He wanted the tahor Levi to also be a kohen, and this is not the same.
Purity Has an Opposite from Impurity, and Holiness from the Mundane
And the Zohar explains in Parashat Chukat that taharah is something whose matter is in tumah (impurity). Taharah has an opposite, ‘taharah has an opposite’, and the opposite of taharah is tumah. And to purify means to purify something impure, like the ashes of the parah that purify the impure, but from this there is also a foundation of making pure ones impure, for taharah is something that touches tumah and has a relationship with it.
Kadosh, its opposite is not tumah. And although there are verses from which it seems, and as Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch speaks about this, that there is an opposite to kedushah which is tumah, in any case the truth is that the opposite of kedushah generally is chol (mundane), not tumah. And chol is not a bad thing, but rather it is not kedushah, and it is only a negative name, something of chullin (mundane things). What is not of Shabbat is of chol. It is found that the opposite of kadosh is chol, and the opposite of tahor is tumah, and these are two different aspects. A kohen deals with kedushah as opposed to chullin, and a Levi deals with taharah as opposed to tumah.
Abstinence and Physical Pleasures
Now, regarding the topic of abstinence that we are dealing with, I wish to say the peshat that in my opinion is the simple peshat – and I have already said it in other contexts and in other shiurim regarding Parashat Chukat – and according to it one can explain a bit Korach’s error, which is itself a failure in taharah, and it is not the proper taharah.
What we want to say is thus: taharah is close perhaps, although not exactly – and still one can speak in the way of Kabbalah that it is cleansing and purification from the kelipot (husks) – but taharah is more the thing we call perishut (abstinence), and kedushah is more the positive thing. As we say Shabbat kadosh, and we do not say Shabbat tahor. And although Shabbat is not of chol, one must purify from chol; erev Shabbat one purifies, goes to the mikveh, and this is a matter of taharah, and the mikveh gives taharah and does not give kedushah, and then comes the kedushah. The kedushah is the mitzvot of Shabbat, the positive things, the positive commandments, and also keeping the negative commandments, but kedushah is another level.
And thus Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch speaks here regarding the distinction between the Rambam and the Ramban. And I could elaborate much more on this, but I have only begun with this introduction, and with God’s help we will continue with it in the coming and previous weeks. I only need to finish another five minutes of the section.
Purity Leads to Holiness
Let us say thus: taharah is the abstraction from being drawn after physical pleasures and from holding that they are good, that they are in truth good. This is the meaning of taharah in the way of service. And kedushah – this we spoke of in the Baal Shem Tov’s shiur on the two things – its meaning is the taste, the drawing down of the light as it can be called according to Kabbalah, from the good itself. This is the meaning of kedushah. And thus said Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair, ‘taharah leads to kedushah’ (Avodah Zarah 20b). What is the meaning? That when a person purifies himself and abstracts his thoughts and his speech and his deeds from bad things, he comes to the level of preparation to receive kedushah – but this is still not kedushah.
The Levi’s task is indeed thus, and as we see many times in the book of Numbers speaking of the Levites who purified themselves. The Levi’s task is to guard and ensure that a stranger who approaches does not approach the holy. He deals with taharah which is a stage before kedushah. This is the task of taharah, and this is the cleanliness, the purification, a person not being coarse. This is the meaning of taharah.
The Foundation – In Truth They Are the Same
But the foundation is that taharah in truth is the same as kedushah. On the contrary, the truth is that it is the very same thing as kedushah. Except that in our world, in our action, these are two things: there must be taharah, and after it kedushah. And kedushah means the drawing down of the light, ‘you shall be holy for I am holy’, to draw near to Hashem and to be similar to Hashem – this is ‘for I am holy’. This is the meaning of kedushah. Kedushah is the vitality and joy and light and abundance that a person has in a holy life. One can say he has love, one can say he has service of the character traits in the limbs, in sight, in all the levels of thought, speech and deed – he has kedushah. This is kedushah.
And there is a condition for kedushah, that there be taharah, meaning
perishut. For if the thing is mixed – and taharah means rein, clean, unmixed – if it is mixed with other things, mixed with desire for this world, he has no kedushah.
Two Errors – Holiness Without Purity and Purity Without Holiness
Or one can err in two ways. One can say there is kedushah without taharah. I will bring an example. Kedushah without taharah means that someone says there is a disagreement between the Rambam and – let us say not the Ramban, but rather Iggeret HaKodesh which it is possible that Rabbi Yosef Gikatilla wrote, which speaks about the matter of kedushah. For the Rambam says that a person must be completely abstinent, and the Ramban in Parashat Kedoshim says that he must abstain from physical pleasures as much as he can – and this is taharah. But the kabbalists, Iggeret HaKodesh, says that all the actions that a person does with his body are all kodesh (holy), as long as he does them in the proper manner, at the proper time and with the proper intention – this is its language, and these are four conditions, and the matter is not so simple.
But those conditions for it are conditions of kedushah, not the conditions that the Rambam would understand. For the Rambam also says that in truth a person must engage with the body in the correct measure. He says that the Holy One, blessed be He, does not hate the body; Iggeret HaKodesh says that one who says ‘the sense of touch is a disgrace’ etc., is like one who says that the Holy One, blessed be He, made something bad, and this is not correct. At the very least the Rambam, and it brings him there explicitly, and in my opinion this is an error and is not correct – that he makes something bad, the sense of touch. And when he speaks of the sense of touch, he speaks of enslavement to the pleasures of the sense of touch.
And the Rambam himself in Shemonah Perakim elaborates and says that one who says that one must do mortifications as if the Holy One, blessed be He, hates the body, follows the gentiles, and this is not a Jewish approach and is not the truth. And the Rambam is very angry about this. Thus that very same claim that Rabbi Yosef Gikatilla, author of Ginat Egoz, says about the style that says ‘the senses of touch are a disgrace to us’ – the Rambam himself says it against mortifications. The Rambam says that the Holy One, blessed be He, does not hate the body and does not want it to be degraded, but rather wants a person to do good with his body.
The Distinction – Holiness is the Intention, and Purity is the Negation
Rather what is it? Here is the distinction between kedushah and taharah. What the Rambam emphasizes is always the part of taharah. And the truth is that Rabbi Yosef Gikatilla also emphasizes this, that ‘and you shall not stray after your hearts’ (Numbers 15:39) is with bad intention, not for the sake of intentions but for the intention of pleasure. The intention of maintaining the body, the intention of the mitzvah, the intention of chesed, all the intentions that exist in eating and in marital relations and in physical matters in kedushah – they are what make them kedushah. But the taharah is the negation: that he not intend for his own pleasure and not for excess, that he not build on a coarse manner, that he not do forbidden things and the like – this is the meaning of taharah.
Now, how is it possible that a person would mix this with that? Kedushah without taharah, for example, means that someone says: if the kabbalists say that this is kodesh, it follows that everything that is done in any manner is kodesh – as if you can be a kohen without passing through the guarding of the Levi.
Korach’s Secret – ‘And the Levi Shall Serve, He’
And this was certainly Korach’s claim. Korach says that it is impossible to be a kohen without passing through the Levi, and it comes out that the Levi is more important, ‘and the Levi shall serve, he’ (Numbers 18:23), the Levi is very important. The Zohar at the end of the portion says that ‘and the Levi shall serve, he’ – ‘he’ hints at the highest level, ‘he’ hints at Atika. The Zohar says that Levi means the small level, ‘it is lowly’, taharah, not going after physical pleasures, what the mashgiach says. The Zohar says ‘and the Levi shall serve, he’, that were it not for the attribute of malchut, were it not for fear, no one would know the highest level. This is essentially Korach’s claim, and the Zohar itself at the end of the portion raises Korach’s claim.
But on the other hand this too is not correct. And this again is Korach’s secret, and Korach was burned in Gehinnom, ‘and they descended alive to Sheol’ (Numbers 16:30) – and Sheol is itself the attribute of gevurah, the severity, the power that says ‘it is forbidden for a person to be coarse’. But if one remains there and does not bring in the vitality of kedushah, there is in this an even greater disgust in a certain sense. For the first one lowers kedushah to chol, and the second remains only with the negation, and to him indeed Gehinnom God forbid, he has neither this world nor the World to Come.
Moshe’s Understanding – Everything is the Same
But in truth, and in Moshe’s understanding – and therefore he is Moshe and not Korach, and Moshe does not hold with disagreement – Moshe is the aspect of the attribute of tiferet, the Tree of Life. Moshe understands that everything is the same, that the matter is not so different. It may be that necessarily the one brings the other, taharah leads to kedushah, and in truth this is the same. There is no distinction from where one begins. ‘The end of the matter, all has been heard’ (Ecclesiastes 12:13), ‘remember and observe were said in one utterance’ (Shevuot 20b). Whether you begin from the understanding of ‘no’, and whether you begin from the understanding of ‘yes’, in the end you arrive at the same thing itself. This is not in truth a distinction in understanding, in how much Moshe understands.
And in the deeds of people, a person can be so focused on the Gehinnom of this world that he actually falls into Gehinnom. And a person can be so focused on kedushah, that when he acts in kedushah he falls further, because he does not separate the kedushah but rather mixes kodesh with chol. He does not have the guarding of the Levi before the kohen, like the other defects that we learn, like Nadav and Avihu. Nadav and Avihu are the opposite of Korach: they are the kohanim who entered the holy too far, without Levites. And Korach is the Levi who thinks it is enough for him to be without being good, without the vitality of kedushah; that erev Shabbat is enough without Shabbat, or Shabbat night without Shabbat during the day, however you want to call it in the language of Kabbalah. But in truth, in Moshe’s understanding everything is the same.
And this is my shiur on Parashat Korach. It is a beautiful derasha. I hope it has become somewhat clear to the world what is the meaning of taharah and what is the meaning of kedushah, and may you have a joyous Shabbat.
📝 Full Transcript
Holiness and Purity in Parshas Korach: The Secret of Not Separating the Aspects
Introduction: The Topic of Holiness According to the Zohar
My teachers and rabbis, today is Erev Shabbos Kodesh Parshas Korach 5786, and we are going to learn the third shiur on the topic of holiness — this is the subject of proper conduct regarding physical pleasures, which in the Zohar is called the topic of holiness. This is based on the verse “kedoshim tihiyu” (Leviticus 19:2). According to the Ramban, “kedoshim tihiyu” means “perushim tihiyu” — one should be separated, in a way of minimization regarding physical pleasures. But I want to learn here the opposite: according to the Zohar, “perushim tihiyu” means “kedoshim tihiyu.”
This means that the topic of separation is included under the concept of holiness. And this has to do with the meaning of holiness — in English it means dedication, the specialness, the chosenness, the choice of the Jews toward the Almighty. As we explained last week, that holiness — at least when we speak of holiness of created beings — is not something that lies within the creation itself, but it is something that lies between the creation and the holy thing to which it is sanctified, to which it is close, kodesh laHashem.
The Way of the Zohar: A Commentary Following the Order of the Torah
As is the order, we must begin with the weekly portion; this is always the way to make progress in the way of the Zohar. There is a difference in style — not just in content — between books like the Zohar, and books like the Rambam or Chovos HaLevavos that go more in that other way. One of the great differences is that the Zohar is a commentary on the Torah, just like the Ramban on the Torah. Everyone knows that the Rambam and the Ramban have very many disputes on many topics, but there is a more fundamental dispute between the two — in the style itself — which can also explain what we are now discussing about holiness, because it is a different kind of picture of the concept of holiness.
The Rambam: According to the Order of Topics
The Rambam does not write a commentary following the order of the Torah. He writes Moreh Nevuchim — according to the order of topics. The order of Moreh Nevuchim is not clear in itself, but it is certainly not according to the order of the Torah. He wants to explain first the concept of God’s existence, the concept of reasons for the commandments, the concept of prophecy, the concept of Divine providence — each topic by itself.
The Ramban: A Book on the Torah
The Ramban disagrees with the Rambam in many ways — on reasons for commandments, on providence, on holiness — but he does not write objections to Moreh Nevuchim. What does he do? He writes a book on the Torah, and most of the disputes with the Rambam are written in the Ramban’s commentary on the Torah. It is true that the Ramban did have certain compositions that are more organized according to the order of topics — his sermons, or Sha’ar HaGemul — but those books are compiled; the Ramban first learned in his commentary on the Torah, and afterward transcribed certain principles in the style of sermons according to the order of topics.
The Zohar: Deliberately According to the Order of the Torah
Certainly the Zohar, even more than the Ramban, is explicitly deliberately written according to the order of the Torah. True, the Zohar has sections that are according to the order of topics, such as the Idra which is according to the order of emanation (Sifra D’Tzniusa is indeed a commentary on Parshas Bereishis). But it is clear, as the Ramak explains, that the Zohar is explicitly a book according to the order of the Torah. And what does this mean? That a Jew who is engaged this week in the topic of holiness and wants to make progress — he takes his inspiration, and even his learning, from the weekly portion.
There is a great difference. Not just that one says a Torah thought on the weekly portion because it is the custom; there is something deeper — from where does a Jew learn better. Instead of just searching and doing a search for how holiness is discussed, he takes his inspiration from the portion itself. And this is the way of almost all Chassidic books — except for exceptions like Tanya — which are commentaries or sermons on the order of the Torah. This is a way of service in itself.
The Portion as the Way of God’s Revelation
In this itself lies a great part of the way of Judaism. We have a Torah, and to live as a Jew means to be the kind of person for whom it is now Erev Shabbos Parshas Korach. To be a person includes very many questions, and if my life is now connected to understanding the topic of holiness — I don’t just take a search, how many parts and how many sections the topic has, as Chovos HaLevavos loved to ask. Rather, I am a Jew, I have a weekly portion, and the portion is the way of God’s revelation — how the Almighty wants to speak with you this week.
Who said that this is the portion this week? This is the order. But this is not just represented — this is the holiness, the indwelling of the Divine Presence, the drawing down of Divine abundance and heavenly assistance that comes down to the world this week. And I don’t just use this — I learn from it. In the Torah there is a story of Korach and the other portions, and in this story lies some depth; it speaks of a certain problem.
Every Portion is an In-Depth Lesson
Every portion in the Torah, even if it is a story, is essentially what you can rewrite as an in-depth lesson, a philosophy lesson. Korach with Aharon — certainly there is the simple meaning that Korach was jealous of the priesthood, of Moshe, of the prophecy. But as the Zohar explicitly learns, Korach and Aharon have a dispute: there is a philosophical, theological inquiry in the service of God — what is a person, what is a Jew, and what is right. Certainly it is written as a story, and a decision comes that Aharon in the end is right, but there is still a topic.
It is difficult to come from our questions and know what holiness means as it appears in Parshas Korach. For this one must accept the tradition of the way of interpretation and the way of learning. And the main tradition is to ask the question from it — as the Baal Shem Tov would say, that a Jew who has a question must ask the question from the Zohar, from the Torah. This is the meaning that in the Torah lies the hidden light, the light of the seven days. And afterward there is derash, remez, peshat — all kinds of ways to develop the topic through what the portion gives us.
As we have said, that holiness according to the way of the Zohar has much to do with living in the story, in the narratives where the Almighty came and chose the Jews, “banim atem laHashem Elokeichem” (Deuteronomy 14:1), and calls them His children, and a treasured nation, and a holy people, and said “kedoshim tihiyu ki kadosh ani” (Leviticus 19:2). That is, if I want to understand my topic, I say: there is something of a topic in separation. The Almighty chose the Jews, He sanctified us with the holiness of the Torah, and when I grasp the Torah, I grasp the root of life, the root of beauty, the root of perfection of everything. In this lies the answer to my question, and also a path of how to make progress.
Thus far the introductions, as is the custom of the Zohar to begin with praise of the Torah and praise of Israel.
The Concept of Holiness in the Portion: The Words of Korach and Moshe
In the portion, the concept of holiness is mentioned right at the beginning. Korach said, “rav lachem ki chol ha’edah kulam kedoshim uvesocha Hashem umadua tisnasu al kehal Hashem” (Numbers 16:3). And Moshe answers him, and also mentions the concept of holiness. Moshe tells Korach to bring the fire pans: “boker veyoda Hashem es asher lo ve’es hakadosh vehikriv eilav ve’es asher yivchar bo yakriv eilav” (Numbers 16:5), and “vehayah ha’ish asher yivchar Hashem hu hakadosh” (Numbers 16:7).
Whoever learns according to the simple meaning sees that Moshe and Korach are arguing with the same language. With the language that Korach asked “rav lachem,” Moshe responds “rav lachem bnei Levi” (Numbers 16:7). Korach says “kulam kedoshim uvesocha Hashem,” “umadua tisnasu al kehal Hashem,” Moshe says “bring incense before Hashem,” “vehayah ha’ish asher yivchar Hashem hu hakadosh.” You say “kulam kedoshim,” I tell you it’s not so simple — there is “es hakadosh vehikriv eilav.”
One can understand that Moshe and Korach have some inquiry. Korach is not one hundred percent wrong with a sin; he has an error. (Sin and error are two different things.) Korach has a certain understanding of the concept of the holiness of Israel, and Moshe has a better understanding. What does it mean that the Jews are holy? Who is the holy one? According to the depth, it cannot be that it is simply personal who is the holy one.
A Note According to the Simple Meaning: Holiness is “To Me”
Let me first say a note according to the simple meaning that I grasped on Shabbos. Last week, “viheyisem kedoshim lElokeichem” (Numbers 15:40) — this is also the juxtaposition of the two portions. What is the simple meaning of “asher hotzeisi eschem me’eretz Mitzrayim liheyos lachem lElohim” (Numbers 15:41)? What is the simple meaning of “viheyisem li kedoshim ki kadosh ani Hashem”?
Holiness is “to Me.” Holiness is something that comes with a lamed: a person belongs, he is connected, he is bound to the Almighty who chose him. As it says “am kadosh atah laHashem Elokecha uvecha bachar Hashem” (Deuteronomy 7:6) — the order of the verses explains itself with the repetition: what does “am kadosh” mean? “Uvecha bachar Hashem.” As it says “viheyisem li mamleches kohanim vegoy kadosh” (Exodus 19:6).
And one can see this very clearly here: if holiness and being chosen “to Me” are the same thing, then “ha’ish asher yivchar Hashem hu hakadosh” — holy is a title that the one whom the Almighty has chosen receives. Or even clearer: “veyoda Hashem es asher lo ve’es hakadosh vehikriv eilav” — whoever belongs “to Him,” the one whom the Almighty has brought close to Him, he is the holy one. This is what Moshe says opposite to Korach.
Korach’s Language: “Besocha Hashem”
Korach spoke a bit differently. He did not speak of the holy one being “laHashem,” but “kulam kedoshim uvesocha Hashem.” The “besocha Hashem” comes from the language of “veshachanti besocham” (Exodus 25:8), “ve’asu li mikdash” (Exodus 25:8) — a place that is sanctified for the Almighty to dwell there. If the Almighty is among them, it comes out that all are holy. And Rashi explains about Korach, “all of them heard the words at Sinai from the mouth of the Almighty” (Rashi Numbers 16:3). This means that “liheyos li lElohim” is the same thing as being holy.
One sees very clearly in the simple meaning of the verses that holiness and chosenness are the same thing. And about this Korach had an argument with Moshe: whether one should speak of “besocha Hashem” or “lo Hashem.” An interesting inquiry. I don’t now have a path built on the difference between “besocham” or “eilav”; it is an opening, one can open up the matter.
The Zohar: “Es Asher Lo Ve’es Hakadosh” — Two Aspects
But what I do want to speak more about is what the Zohar says. The Zohar learns differently than I learned: it does not interpret that “es asher lo” and “es hakadosh” are the same thing, but that here we are speaking of two different things.
According to the simple meaning, the way the Rishonim learned according to the way of the simple meaning, is that the verse explains itself — two expressions for the same thing, repetition of a concept in different words. But many times the Zohar sees that what the verse simply repeats, in this according to the secret is hinted another aspect.
One must think how to connect the simple meaning and the secret. The Zohar did not hold that the verse’s simple meaning is not that one reads it as one piece. I would have thought that the Zohar understands that when one repeats something, it implies that in the thing there are two sides — two aspects — and therefore one repeats it. And the Zohar gives names to the aspects.
The Sin of Korach: Cutting the Plantings
And this itself was somewhat the sin of Korach. This is how the Zohar and the Kabbalists learn about almost all sins — and it is very interesting, that they have the same explanation for every sin: he separates, he makes a cutting in the plantings.
Here in the portion there is chesed and gevurah: Aharon is the aspect of chesed, a kohen; Levi is the aspect of gevurah. Or as the Zohar says that Korach and his followers were people of the Name, like the generation of the dispersion, “vena’aseh lanu shem” — they wanted to take the kingdom without the beauty, which is hinted at Moshe (the chesed is more connected with beauty, and the gevurah with the kingdom). In any case, in the Zohar’s way, almost everyone who sinned has a reasoning but with an error — he separates too much certain aspects.
Aspects Are Truly the Same Thing
All these aspects that we speak of in Kabbalah are external aspects — “right and left,” “the Holy One Blessed Be He and His Presence.” As the author of the Tanya explains, that the word “aspect” means that there is not truly in the object itself a difference.
Where is the difference? Just as a circle has an inside and an outside — the difference is in my mind. As it were, one can think of it from the outside, but in reality it is the same; it is only from which side you look or speak. One can speak of both aspects of the same thing, but they are truly the same. Only because man’s power of understanding understands things by dividing them into different aspects, into the aspect of Divine influence, into the aspect of knowledge that contracts, into the aspect of knowledge that gives life.
This is not relevant to the Almighty. At the source they are identical: through this that He contracts — for example chesed and gevurah — are not truly two different things, but according to our concepts we must divide into different words that we call aspects.
So it fits very well that the Zohar takes such a verse that says “es asher lo” and “es hakadosh.” The simple meaning is it’s the same thing, and truly it is the same thing, because the inner meaning that it intends is the same. But in order to understand it properly one must speak of two aspects.
The Purity to Learn Kabbalah
And for this a simple Jew, one who is not accustomed to thinking in abstract terms (this is truly what “he means”), may not learn Zohar, not Kabbalah. People think that this is precisely the topic of holiness and purity. It is written in all the introductions to books — for example the book Reishis Chochmah writes in his introduction that he writes it because people are learning Kabbalah, and it has been printed (he says “permission was given to print”) the Pardes Rimonim of his teacher the Ramak. And everyone knows that in order to learn Kabbalah one must be holy and pure, so he writes a mussar book that one should conduct oneself with the deed of wisdom — through this the person will be the proper recipient.
People think that this means that in order to learn Kabbalah one must be a tzaddik as if it is a prize — whoever is not a big eater and is separated, has a prize, he can merit to learn Kabbalah. This is the story that Kabbalah tells, that in order to enter the king’s palace you must be worthy. But this is only a parable; the Almighty does not lie in a palace with walls where people come in. It is all a parable for some truth.
The Application: Dividing Things That Are One
And what is the application? That Kabbalah divides things that are truly one into two. Everyone knows that Kabbalah must connect things, but Kabbalah comes so that a person should understand it — it is a wisdom, an understanding, from the gates of understanding — and people understand things by dividing them, and saying there is the aspect of chesed and the aspect of gevurah. And not only in our mind; it is truly divided among people.
If one says a kohen is the aspect of chesed and a Levi the aspect of gevurah, what does this mean? Because here in this world people must understand the Divine conduct with an understanding that can be contracted. And even in practice — how people are awakened, are they affected, do they conduct themselves — through a certain attribute, a certain path, a certain deed. A person, because he is in a body with a contracted intellect, he lives in this world, in the world of the six days of creation, he cannot be everything at once, but one thing.
As the Baal Shem Tov said, “eilu ve’eilu divrei Elokim chayim, vehalakha keBeis Hillel” (Eruvin 13b). “Elokim chayim” is the world of binah: above, in binah, everything is Divine. But here in this world Shammai and Hillel say two different things — these are disputes for the sake of Heaven. Because people can only live and understand when one divides things, among people there becomes a separation. The Zohar, the Kabbalah came to bring down the unique images into the as-it-were separation, into the vessels, so that one should be able to understand, fulfill, and be connected to the levels, and one calls them by different names — the will of Moshe and the will of Korach, different names.
The True Purity: To Understand with Refined Understanding
But this is the purity (tahara) that one must have before learning Zohar. If someone has a more refined understanding, he merits the seven restorers of taste. The Ramak says that one who doesn’t understand scholarship may not learn Kabbalah — this is a deeper condition than guarding the covenant (shemiras habris). The truth is that shemiras habris is only a revelation so that a person should be able to understand deeper, broader things that are more refined, less coarse, than the simple intellect of a common person who can only see things with imagination and with the eyes.
So the purity to learn Zohar, this itself is the lishmah, holiness and purity: to understand what one is talking about. If someone can understand that we are speaking of two different things from the same thing, and that different people embody in their conduct two different things from the same thing, but the truth is it’s all the same thing — this is “Hashem is one and His name is one.” Even what we call a name, this is the aspect of Malchus, because we need to be able to speak, grasp, and connect with a name.
But if you separate the Shechina from the Holy One Blessed Be He, you separate the right from the left, you separate everything, because for you the names are different. Just as there are certain researchers of Kabbalah, where an investigation goes that this kabbalist says this word and that kabbalist says another word, a dispute emerges. You fool! This is “cutting among the plantings” (kotzetz bintiyos). The Kabbalah doesn’t lie in the words that the kabbalists say; you think that the words are the true reality, and you go cutting among the plantings. The Kabbalah lies in the light within it, in the essence of the thing. And for this one needs purity and holiness, all the preparations, turn from evil and do good — primarily so that a person should be such a vessel of reception that can understand this way, and therefore he must have self-nullification and all the good character traits that the kabbalists speak of as preparation. And this is truly the error of Korach.
Holiness and Purity: Two Levels
Let us return to what the Zohar says. “Ish asher lo” is not the same thing as “ish hakadosh.” “Ish asher lo,” says the Zohar, means the aspect of pure (tahor). (In Zohar Parshas Naso there is a bit of dispute among the friends, between Rabbi Yehuda and others, but this is the conclusion, that there are two levels called holiness (kedusha) and purity (tahara).)
Holiness is what a Kohen has, “vekidashto” (Vayikra 21:8) — a Kohen is holy, “ve’ish kadosh.” A Levi is not holy; he has a different name, he is called pure (tahor). And the Zohar next week in Chukas says that therefore the Kohen is not the one who throws the red heifer, rather “her commandment is with the deputy” — the deputy performs the burning of the heifer. “Ve’asaf ish tahor” (Bamidbar 19:9) is not a Kohen at all. Why? Because purity is a lesser level than holiness: holy is the level of the Kohen, pure is the level of the Levi or the deputy.
Here it says “es hakadosh” — two aspects. Truly it is one aspect, but in the understanding of our people there are two. Therefore it says “asher lo… hakadosh,” and Korach’s error was that he separated the two things — he wanted that the Levi who is pure should also be a Kohen, not understanding that it’s not the same thing.
Purity Has an Opposite of Impurity; Holiness of the Mundane
And the Zohar explains in Parshas Chukas, that purity has to do with impurity: “Tahara has an opposite” — the opposite of purity is impurity. To purify means you are purifying an impure thing, just as the ashes of the red heifer purify the impure. But from this it also has a foundation of making the pure impure, because purity has a relationship with impurity.
The opposite of holy is not impurity. Although Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch speaks about there being verses where it seems that the opposite of holiness is impurity, but the truth is that the opposite of holiness is mundane (chol). Mundane is not a bad thing; mundane is a negative term — what is not Shabbos-like is weekday-like. So the opposite of holy is mundane, and the opposite of pure is impurity. A Kohen is engaged in holiness to exclude the mundane, and a Levi is engaged in purity to exclude impurity.
Abstinence and Physical Pleasures
Now, regarding the topic of abstinence (prishus), I want to say an interpretation that I think is the simpler interpretation — according to how one can explain the error of Korach, which is itself a failure in purity.
Purity is closer (though not exactly) to what we call abstinence; one can still speak in the way of Kabbalah that it is cleansing and purifying from the kelippos. And holiness is more the positive thing. Just as we say Shabbos is holy, not Shabbos is pure. Erev Shabbos one purifies oneself, one goes to the mikveh — the mikveh gives purity, not holiness. Afterwards there is holiness: the mitzvah of Shabbos, the positive commandments, or even the observance of negative commandments — but the holiness is a different level. And so Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch speaks about this regarding the distinction of the Ramban.
Purity Leads to Holiness
Purity means the abstraction from not pursuing, from not holding that physical pleasures are truly good. This is the meaning of purity in the way of service. Holiness means the taste, the drawing down of light (as one can call it according to Kabbalah) from the goodness itself. So it says, Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair said, “Purity leads to holiness” (Avodah Zarah 20b). When someone purifies himself, he strips his thoughts, speech and actions from evil things, he comes to be ready to receive holiness — it’s not yet holiness.
The Levi’s job, as we see many times in the Book of Numbers that the Levites purified themselves, is to guard, to make sure that a stranger who approaches should not come to the holy. He is engaged in the purity which is a step before the holiness — the cleanliness, not being a coarse fellow.
The Foundation: Truly the Same Thing
But the foundation is that this is truly the same thing as holiness. In our world, in our action, they are two different things: there must be purity, and afterwards holiness. Holiness means the drawing down of light, “You shall be holy for I am holy” — to become close to Hashem, similar to Hashem. This is called holiness: the vitality, the joy, the light, the abundance that a person has a holy life. One can say he has love, he has service of character traits in the limbs, in sight, in all levels of thought, speech, and action he has holiness.
There is a condition for holiness — to have purity, that is abstinence — because purity means clean, not mixed. If he is mixed with desire for this world, he has no holiness.
The Two Errors: Holiness Without Purity and Purity Without Holiness
One can make the error from both directions. Holiness without purity — let’s say a parable. There is a dispute between the Rambam and the Iggeres HaKodesh (which perhaps R’ Yosef Gikatilla wrote). The Rambam says that a person must be completely abstinent; the Ramban in Parshas Kedoshim says that he must abstain from physical pleasures as much as possible — this is purity. But the Iggeres HaKodesh says that all the actions that a person does with his body are all holy, as long as he does it in the proper manner, at the proper time, with the proper intention — four conditions.
But those conditions, for him they are conditions of holiness, not the conditions that the Rambam would understand. Because the Rambam also says that a person must attend to the body in the proper measure; the Almighty is not an enemy of the body. The Iggeres HaKodesh says that whoever says “the sense of touch is a disgrace” — and he brings there explicitly the Rambam — is not correct, he makes the sense of touch an evil thing. When he speaks of the sense of touch, he speaks of enslaving oneself to the pleasures.
And the Rambam himself in the Eight Chapters elaborates and says that one who makes mortifications as if the Holy One Blessed Be He hates the body, acts like the gentiles, it’s not a Jewish approach. That is, the same claim that R’ Yosef Gikatilla (the author of Ginnas Egoz) says against the style that says “the sense of touch is a disgrace to us,” the Rambam himself says against mortifications: the Almighty wants one to be good with the body.
The Distinction: Holiness is the Intention, Purity is the Negation
But what? Here is the distinction between holiness and purity. What the Rambam emphasizes is always the part of purity. And what R’ Yosef Gikatilla emphasizes: that “and you shall not stray after your hearts” (Bamidbar 15:39) is with evil intention, not for the sake of intentions, but for the intention of pleasure. The intention of maintaining the body, the intention of the mitzvah, the intention of kindness — all the intentions that exist in eating, in marital relations and in physical matters in holiness — this is what makes it holiness. But purity is the negation: not intending for oneself, not intending too much, not building in a coarse manner, not forbidden things.
So how can one mix one with the other? Holiness without purity means: someone says, if the kabbalists say that it’s holy, then the simple meaning is that in any manner one does it, it’s holy — as if you can be a Kohen without going through the guarding of the Levi.
Korach’s Secret: “And the Levi Shall Serve, He”
And this is certainly what Korach’s claim was. Korach says, one cannot become a Kohen without going through the Levi. It comes out that the Levi is more important — “ve’avad haLevi hu” (Bamidbar 18:23). The Zohar says at the end of the parsha that “hu” alludes to the highest level, to Atika. The Levi means the lowest level — “descended is he” — purity, not pursuing physical pleasures, which the mashgiach says. Says the Zohar “ve’avad haLevi hu”: if not for the attribute of Malchus, the fear, no one would know the highest level. This is essentially the claim of Korach, which the Zohar itself at the end of the parsha brings out.
But on the other hand it’s also not correct. This is further the secret of Korach, who was burned in Gehinnom, “and they descended alive to the grave” (Bamidbar 16:30). The grave (she’ol) is itself the attribute of Gevurah, the severity, a force that says “one may not be a coarse fellow.” But if one remains there and doesn’t bring in the vitality of holiness, this is an even greater abomination in a certain sense. The first (Nadav and Avihu) brings down the holiness to the mundane; the second remains only with the negative, and he indeed has Gehinnom — not this world and not the World to Come.
The Knowledge of Moshe: Everything is the Same Thing
But truly, and in the knowledge of Moshe — because a Moshe is not one who holds onto dispute, a Moshe is the attribute of Tiferes, the Tree of Life. Moshe understands that it’s the same thing, it’s not so different. It may be that necessarily one brings the other — purity leads to holiness — and it’s truly the same thing. There is no difference from where one begins: “The end of the matter, all has been heard” (Koheles 12:13), “Remember and observe were said in one utterance” (Shevuos 20b). Whether you begin from understanding that this is not, or that this is yes — ultimately you arrive at the same thing.
In practice a person can be so focused on the Gehinnom of this world that he actually falls into Gehinnom. Or he can be so focused on the holiness that even when he does it in holiness he still falls in, because he doesn’t separate the holiness, he mixes holy with mundane — he has no guarding of the Levi before the Kohen, just like Nadav and Avihu, the opposite of Korach. They are the Kohanim who went into the holy too far, without any Levites. And Korach is the Levi who thinks it’s enough to be without being good, without the vitality of holiness — enough to have Erev Shabbos without Shabbos. But truly, in the knowledge of Moshe everything is the same thing.
And this is my shiur on Parshas Korach. I hope that the audience has become somewhat clearer about what purity means and what holiness means, and may we have a joyous Shabbos.