Sanctifying Hashem's Name/2

From AlHaTorah.org
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Sanctification of Hashem's Name

Exegetical Approaches

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

Result of Observance

The words "וְנִקְדַּשְׁתִּי בְּתוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל" describe a result of the sanctification of Hashem's name, but do not constitute an obligation to perform a specific action.

Passive form of "וְנִקְדַּשְׁתִּי" – The passive form of the word "וְנִקְדַּשְׁתִּי" supports this position, suggesting that the sanctification is a consequence rather than a command.
Who will sanctify Hashem's name?
  • The priests – According to Ibn Ezra and Abarbanel, the verse is directed at the priests.  Ibn Ezra asserts that if they adhere to the sacrificial laws which immediately precede this passage (not slaughtering a mother and son together and properly offering thanksgiving sacrifices), then Hashem's name will be sanctified.  Abarbanel relates the sanctification more broadly to general observance by the priests.
  • The nation – According to R. Yochanan in the Bavli and the Netziv, the verse refers to the public sanctification of Hashem's name (through the recital of "דברים שבקדושה") by a quorum of ten Israelites ("בְּתוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל").
  • Hashem Himself – Seforno maintains that if the people do not profane Hashem's name through improper or debased conduct, then Hashem will perform miracles for them and sanctify Himself in their midst.
What does it mean to "sanctify Hashem"? According to most of these sources, it appears that Hashem is sanctified by the nation's recognition of His glory. Thus, Abarbanel says that proper priestly conduct leads the rest of the nation to honor and fear Hashem, and Seforno explains1 that Hashem will be glorified by the people's witnessing of His wondrous deeds.
Context of Vayikra 22:31-33 – These sources differ in their understandings of how the verse of "וְנִקְדַּשְׁתִּי" connects to its surrounding context:
  • Closes unit beginning in 22:26 – Ibn Ezra views the verses as ending the immediately preceding unit (Vayikra 22:26-30), which he believes is directed at the priests.2  It thus parallels several variations of "וְלֹא יְחַלֵּל.. כִּי אֲנִי י"י מְקַדְּשָׁם" which appear throughout the chapter3 which similarly serve to remind the priests to be careful not to profane Hashem and His sanctity.
  • Closes Chapters 21-22 – Abarbanel may instead view the verses as the summation of the larger unit of Chapters 21-22 which speak of priestly laws and the Mikdash.  As mentioned, these chapters contain the recurring motif "וְלֹא יְחַלֵּל.. כִּי אֲנִי י"י מְקַדְּשָׁם".  Vayikra 22:31-33 with its addition of "וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם מִצְוֺתַי" and "הַמּוֹצִיא אֶתְכֶם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם" would be an expanded version of this refrain, as befitting a conclusion.
  • Closes unit beginning in 22:17 – Seforno might take a middle position, suggesting that verses 22:31-33 conclude the unit beginning 22:17.  In contrast to the earlier units in Chapters 21-22 which were directed at the priests only, the second half of Chapter 22 is addressed to both the priest and the nation ("דַּבֵּר אֶל אַהֲרֹן וְאֶל בָּנָיו וְאֶל כׇּל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל"), allowing for the possibility that 22:31-33, too, is directed at everyone.
  • Introduces Chapter 23 – The Netziv uniquely suggests that the verses of Vayikra 22:26-33 are connected not to what precede them, but rather to what follow: the laws of the festivals. This enables him to suggest that 22:31 speaks of sanctification of Hashem during public prayers, such as those recited during the pilgrimage festivals.4
Relationship to the prohibition of "וְלֹא תְחַלְּלוּ אֶת שֵׁם קׇדְשִׁי"
  • According to Ibn Ezra, Abarbanel, and Seforno, this is an active command (aimed at either the priests5 or the nation6), the observance of results in Hashem's sanctification.
  • In contrast, according to the Netziv, there is no connection between "וְלֹא תְחַלְּלוּ" and "וְנִקְדַּשְׁתִּי" except that they are both connected to the festivals.  "וְלֹא תְחַלְּלוּ" represents a warning not to behave inappropriately when celebrating, as often happened in pagan rituals and celebrations.
Sources for martyrdom – According to this position, "וְנִקְדַּשְׁתִּי" does not constitute the source for an obligation of martyrdom.  Thus, following various Rabbinic sources,7 the Netziv derives the obligation to forfeit one's life rather than transgress the three cardinal sins of idolatry, illicit relations, and murder from the entirely separate verse of "וְאָהַבְתָּ אֵת י"י... בְּכׇל לְבָבְךָ וּבְכׇל נַפְשְׁךָ".‎8

Positive Behavior

The phrase "וְנִקְדַּשְׁתִּי בְּתוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל" is a general commandment which obligates people to behave in a manner which will sanctify God's name.

Passive form of "וְנִקְדַּשְׁתִּי" – The passive form is difficult for this approach, as one would expect a command to be formulated in the imperative. These sources might suggest that the command is simply implied,12 similar to the statement "I am the Lord your God..." which is understood by many to constitute the source of the obligation to know or believe in Hashem.13
What type of behavior sanctifies Hashem's name?
  • Performing commandments purely out of love – Rambam asserts that a person sanctifies Hashem's name when he observes His commandments with no ulterior motive, but rather out of love.  This would suggest that sanctification can be internal as no one else is aware of the individual's thoughts.
  • Actions that cause others to praise – Rambam also claims that if a person behaves in a way that leads others to praise him, such as having a pleasant demeanor, good manners and speech,14 he will sanctify Hashem's name.  This points to an external understanding of sanctification, as an act that leads others to glorify Hashem.
  • General upright behavior – R. Saadia Gaon and R. D"Z Hoffmann speak more generally about being upright in every action, observing Hashem's commandments, and being subservient to Him.15 
Context of Vayikra 22:31-33 – As the immediate context of the verse relates specifically to priestly laws, it is difficult to understand why it suddenly speaks of commandments relating to the behavior of the nation at large.
  • This position might respond that the fact that the directive is preceded by the general warning, "וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם מִצְוֺתַי", severs the direct connection to cultic law and  supports the possibility that verse 32, as well, speaks of general behavior.
  • R. D"Z Hoffmann goes further to suggest that 22:31-33 serve as a summation16 to the much larger unit of laws relating to holiness which stretches from Chapter 19 through 22.17  After many specific commands warning against profaning Hashem, at the conclusion of the unit Hashem elaborates and gives a general command to sanctify Him.
Relationship to the prohibition of "וְלֹא תְחַלְּלוּ אֶת שֵׁם קׇדְשִׁי" – Rambam and R. Hoffmann view the two commandments as flip sides of a coin, the only difference being the positive or negative formulation.  As such, desecration of Hashem's name would include sinning only to spite or anger Hashem, acting rudely or out of anger, and general disrespect or negligence in observance.
Sources for martyrdom

Martyrdom

"וְנִקְדַּשְׁתִּי בְּתוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל" is the positive commandment to forfeit one's life rather than transgress commandments in certain situations.

Passive form of "וְנִקְדַּשְׁתִּי" – This position must explain why the word "וְנִקְדַּשְׁתִּי" is not in the imperative if it constitutes an active commandment.
Context – As there is nothing in the surrounding verses which speak of martyrdom, these sources struggle to explain why the commandment is placed here. R. David HaKokhavi suggests that the context of sacrifices teaches that though in general animal sacrifices serve to replace a person, there are certain circumstances in which Hashem demands that a human sacrifice his soul for Hashem as well.
What is included? These sources disagree under which circumstances and for which commandments the command "וְנִקְדַּשְׁתִּי" obligates one to forfeit a life:
  • All commandments, but only in public – Most of these sources maintain that the command only speaks of the need to forfeit one's life when asked to transgress a commandment in public, "בְּתוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל". This suggest that sanctification of Hashem relates to His glorification by others, and thus, by definition, requires witnesses.
  • Also the three cardinal sins, even in private – Rambam in his Iggeret HaShemad and Mishneh Torah goes further to also include the sins of idolatry, illicit relations and murder, even without witnesses.18  Rambam might suggest that the phrase "בְּתוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל" says nothing about who must be present but only who is obligated (Jews rather than non-Jews).19 According to this view, sanctification of Hashem might be internal, rather than external.
  • Only the sin of idolatry in public – R. Yishmael and Rambam in his Sefer Hamitzvot20 go in the opposite direction, limiting the obligation to the sin of idolatry in a public setting. This position might view sanctification as a declaration of faith,21 in which case the narrowing of the scope of martyrdom to idolatry is logical.
Other sources for martyrdom – The majority of sources which maintain that "וְנִקְדַּשְׁתִּי" does not include forfeiting one's life for the three cardinal sins in private differ regarding the source for this obligation:
  • Variety of sources – Bavli Sanhedrin22 suggests that idolatry can be learned from "וְאָהַבְתָּ אֵת י"י... בְכׇל נַפְשְׁךָ", while murder is learned from a logical dedcution23 and illicit relations via an inference (היקש) from the laws of murder.
  • Severity of sin – R. Acha in Tosefta Shabbat suggests that due to the severity of these sins, they never fell under the category of "וָחַי בָּהֶם"‎,24‎ and so the original prohibition stands even in private.25
  • No source or obligation – This position could also say that there is no obligation of martyrdom in private even for the three cardinal sins.
Relationship to the prohibition of "וְלֹא תְחַלְּלוּ אֶת שֵׁם קׇדְשִׁי"
Iggeret HaShemad