In the previous shiur we discussed essential and transactional holiness. This week, we add another layer of considering holiness – holiness that comes automatically (such as the holiness of a firstborn animal) and holiness that is human-made (such as consecrating an animal or something else to the Mikdash). How does this additional layer shed light on the concept of holiness?
Bekhorot 19
sources:
- משנה בכורות ג:א
… זֶה הַכְּלָל, כֹּל שֶׁיָדוּעַ שֶׁבִּכְּרָה, אֵין כָּאן לַכֹּהֵן כְּלוּם. וְכֹל שֶׁלֹּא בִכְּרָה, הֲרֵי זֶה לַכֹּהֵן. אִם סָפֵק, יֵאָכֵל בְּמוּמוֹ לַבְּעָלִים…
…this is the principle: In any case where it is known that the animal had previously given birth, the priest has nothing here. And in any case where it is known that the animal had not previously given birth, that is given to the priest. And if it is uncertain, it may be eaten in its blemished state by the owner…
- משנה טהרות ד:יב
…סְפֵק נְזִירוּת, מֻתָּר. סְפֵק בְּכוֹרוֹת, אֶחָד בְּכוֹרֵי אָדָם וְאֶחָד בְּכוֹרֵי בְהֵמָה, בֵּין טְמֵאָה בֵּין טְהוֹרָה, שֶׁהַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵרוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה:
…”A condition of doubt concerning a nazirite vow” [in such a condition of doubt one] is permitted [all that is forbidden to a nazirite]. “A condition of doubt concerning first-borns” whether they are human firstborn or firstborn of cattle, whether the firstborn of an unclean beast or a clean one, for the one who wishes to extract from his fellow bears the burden of proof.
- נדרים יח:-יט.
מַתְנִי׳ סְתַם נְדָרִים לְהַחֲמִיר, וּפֵירוּשָׁם לְהָקֵל…
MISHNA: Unspecified vows are treated stringently, but their specification, if specification is necessary, is treated leniently…
גְּמָ׳ וְהָתְנַן: סְפֵק נְזִירוּת לְהָקֵל?
GEMARA: The Gemara raises a problem with the principle stated in the mishna that unspecified vows are treated stringently. But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Taharot 4:12): Uncertainty with regard to naziriteship is treated leniently? And naziriteship is a type of vow.
אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא, לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, הָא רַבָּנַן. דְּתַנְיָא: הַמַּקְדִּישׁ חַיָּיתוֹ וּבְהֶמְתּוֹ — הִקְדִּישׁ אֶת הַכּוֹי. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: לֹא הִקְדִּישׁ אֶת הַכּוֹי.
Rabbi Zeira said: This is not difficult. That mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, and this mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with him. As it is taught in a baraita: One who consecrates his undomesticated animal and his domesticated animal has consecrated the koy as well, although it is uncertain whether it is an undomesticated or a domesticated animal. Rabbi Eliezer says: He has not consecrated the koy.
מַאן דְּאָמַר מָמוֹנוֹ מְעַיֵּיל לִסְפֵיקָא, גּוּפֵיהּ נָמֵי מְעַיֵּיל. וּמַאן דְּאָמַר מָמוֹנוֹ לָא מְעַיֵּיל לִסְפֵיקָא, גּוּפֵיהּ (נָמֵי)
The Rabbis who said that one puts his possessions into a state of uncertainty, and therefore a koy is included in the aforementioned vow, hold that one enters himself into a state of uncertainty as well. Therefore, uncertainty with regard to naziriteship is treated stringently. And Rabbi Eliezer, who said that one does not put his possessions into a state of uncertainty, and therefore the phrase: Undomesticated and domesticated animals, refers only to definitely undomesticated and definitely domesticated animals,
כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן דְּלָא מְעַיֵּיל לִסְפֵיקָא.
holds that all the more so, one does not enter himself into uncertainty either. Therefore, uncertainty with regard to naziriteship is treated leniently.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: בְּמַאי אוֹקֵימְתָּא לִסְפֵק נְזִירוּת לְהָקֵל — כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: סְפֵק בְּכוֹרוֹת, אֶחָד בְּכוֹרֵי אָדָם וְאֶחָד בְּכוֹרֵי בְהֵמָה, בֵּין טְמֵאָה בֵּין טְהוֹרָה — הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵירוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה.
Abaye said to Rabbi Zeira: In what manner did you establish the mishna that states that uncertainty with regard to naziriteship is treated leniently? You established it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. Say the latter clause of that mishna: If there is uncertainty with regard to firstborns, whether human firstborns, or animal firstborns, whether non-kosher firstborns, i.e., the firstborn of a donkey, or the firstborn of kosher animals, the burden of proof rests upon the claimant.
וְתָנֵי עֲלַהּ: וַאֲסוּרִים בְּגִיזָּה וַעֲבוֹדָה!
And it is taught in a baraita in that regard: But with regard to shearing and working these uncertain animal firstborns, they are forbidden, just like definite firstborns. This indicates a difference between the monetary issue, with regard to which it is ruled that the animal cannot be taken from the owner by the priest, and the prohibition, which applies despite the uncertainty. Evidently, even the tanna of this mishna does not hold that all uncertainties with regard to consecration are to be treated leniently.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַמַּאי קָא מְדַמֵּית קְדוּשָּׁה הַבָּאָה מֵאֵלֶיהָ, לִקְדוּשָּׁה הַבָּאָה בִּידֵי אָדָם?
Rabbi Zeira said to Abaye: This is not difficult. Why do you compare sanctity that emerges by itself, i.e., the sanctity of a firstborn, which results from objective reality and not human intent, to sanctity that emerges by the volition of a person and is dependent on his intention? Only with regard to the latter type of sanctity can it be established that a person does not intend to consecrate an item in an uncertain manner.
- ר”ן שם
אמאי קמדמית קדושה הבאה מאליה לקדושה הבאה בידי אדם – משום דבקדושה הבאה בידי אדם הוא דאיכא למימר דהאי גברא לא גמר לעיולי נפשיה וממוניה לספיקא אבל בקדושה הבאה בידי שמים ליכא למימר הכי דאטו בידיה הוא:
Why do you compare sanctity that emerges by itself to sanctity that emerges by the volition of a person? – Because sanctity that emerges by the volition, about that one may say that a person did not intend to bring themselves and their money into uncertainty, but about sanctity that emerge from Heaven this cannot be said, for is it in his hands?
- בבא מציעא ו.-ו:
אִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר תְּקָפָהּ אֶחָד בְּפָנֵינוּ מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתָהּ מִיָּדוֹ, הִקְדִּישָׁה – אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. אִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר תְּקָפָהּ אֶחָד בְּפָנֵינוּ אֵין מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתָהּ מִיָּדוֹ, הִקְדִּישָׁהּ בְּלֹא תְּקָפָהּ – מַהוּ?
Rabbi Zeira’s dilemma was not resolved, but the Gemara states a related halakha: If you say that if one seizes the garment in our presence the court removes it from his possession, then if either of the parties consecrated the entire garment to the Temple treasury, the consecration is not valid, as it is not his. But if you say that if one seizes the garment in our presence the court does not remove it from his possession, then if one of them consecrated the entire garment to the Temple treasury without seizing it, what is the halakha?
כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר מָר: אֲמִירָתוֹ לַגָּבוֹהַּ כִּמְסִירָתוֹ לַהֶדְיוֹט דָּמֵי. כְּמַאן דְּתַקְפַהּ דָּמֵי.
The two sides of this dilemma are as follows: Since the Master said a principle with regard to the halakhot of transactions that a declaration to the Most High is equivalent to a transfer to an ordinary person, i.e., verbal consecration of an item is equivalent to a formal act of acquisition in a non-sacred transaction, is the one who consecrated the garment therefore considered like one who seized it, and consequently the consecration takes effect?
אוֹ דִלְמָא: הַשְׁתָּא מִיהָא הָא לָא תַּקְפַהּ, וּכְתִיב: ״וְאִישׁ כִּי יַקְדִּישׁ אֶת בֵּיתוֹ קֹדֶשׁ וְגוֹ׳״, מָה בֵּיתוֹ בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ – אַף כֹּל בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ, לְאַפּוֹקֵי הַאי דְּלֹא בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ.
Or perhaps the consecration does not take effect, as now, in any event, he did not actually seize the garment and it is not his? And it is written: “And when a man shall sanctify his house to be sacred unto God” (Leviticus 27:14), from which the Sages derive: Just as his house is in his possession, so too, anything that one wishes to consecrate must be in his possession, to the exclusion of this garment, which is not in his possession, as he did not actually seize it, and therefore the consecration does not take effect.
תָּא שְׁמַע: דְּהָהִיא
Come and hear proof from an incident that transpired, as there was a certain
מַסּוּתָא דַּהֲווֹ מִנְּצוּ עֲלַהּ בֵּי תְרֵי, הַאי אָמַר דִּידִי הוּא וְהַאי אָמַר דִּידִי הוּא. קָם חַד מִינַּיְיהוּ אַקְדְּשַׁהּ. פָּרְשִׁי מִינַּהּ רַב חֲנַנְיָה וְרַב אוֹשַׁעְיָא וְכוּלְּהוּ רַבָּנַן. וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אוֹשַׁעְיָא לְרַבָּה: כִּי אָזְלַתְּ קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב חִסְדָּא לְכַפְרִי, בְּעִי מִינֵּיהּ.
bathhouse over which two people were arguing, and of which neither of them were in possession. This one said: It is mine, and that one said: It is mine. One of them arose and consecrated the bathhouse. Rav Ḥananya and Rav Oshaya and all the Rabbis kept away from the bathhouse and refrained from bathing there lest they transgress the prohibition against misusing consecrated property, as they were uncertain whether this act of consecration took effect. And Rav Oshaya said to Rabba: When you go to study before Rav Ḥisda in the town of Kafrei, ask him what we should do in this case.
כִּי אֲתָא לְסוּרָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב הַמְנוּנָא: מַתְנִיתִין הִיא. סְפֵק בְּכוֹרוֹת, אֶחָד בְּכוֹר אָדָם וְאֶחָד בְּכוֹר בְּהֵמָה, בֵּין טְהוֹרִים בֵּין טְמֵאִים: הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵירוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה. וְתָנֵי עֲלַהּ: אֲסוּרִים בְּגִיזָה וּבַעֲבוֹדָה.
When on his way to Kafrei, Rabba came to the city of Sura and related the incident to the Sages there. Rav Hamnuna said to him: The resolution to your dilemma is found in the following mishna (Teharot 4:12): If there is uncertainty with regard to firstborns, whether a human firstborn or an animal firstborn, whether with regard to kosher animals or non-kosher animals, i.e., the firstborn of a donkey, the burden of proof rests upon the claimant. The priest may not take the animal from its owner, or the redemption payment from the child’s father. And it is taught in that regard in a baraita: One is nevertheless prohibited from shearing and from working such animals, as their status as firstborns is uncertain.
וְהָא הָכָא דְּאָמַר תְּקָפוֹ כֹּהֵן – אֵין מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתוֹ מִיָּדוֹ, דְּקָתָנֵי הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵירוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה, וְכִי לֹא תְּקָפוֹ – אֲסוּרִין בְּגִיזָּה וּבַעֲבוֹדָה.
Rav Hamnuna continued: And here, where the mishna effectively says that if a priest forcefully seized an animal whose status as firstborn is uncertain the court does not remove it from his possession, as it teaches that the burden of proof rests upon the claimant, the baraita states that even when the priest did not seize it, one is prohibited from shearing and working it. Evidently, the fact that the priest would remain in possession of the animal were he to seize it suffices to accord consecrated status to the animal even in a case where the priest did not seize it. The same is true in the case of the bathhouse, that even though the one who consecrated it had not taken possession of it, his consecration takes effect.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבָּה: קְדוּשַּׁת בְּכוֹר קָאָמְרַתְּ – לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ תְּקָפוֹ כֹּהֵן מוֹצִיאִין אוֹתוֹ מִיָּדוֹ, וַאֲפִילּוּ הָכִי אֲסוּרִים בְּגִיזָּה וּבַעֲבוֹדָה, דִּקְדוּשָּׁה הַבָּאָה מֵאֵלֶיהָ שָׁאנֵי.
Rabba said to him: This is no proof, as the cases are not comparable. You say a ruling concerning the sanctity of a firstborn. Actually, I will say to you with regard to an animal whose status as firstborn is uncertain, if a priest seized it, the court removes it from his possession, as there is no validity to ownership acquired by force. (Accordingly, when the mishna states that the burden of proof rests upon the claimant, it means that the priest must bring proof that the animal is a firstborn.) And nevertheless, one is prohibited from shearing and from working such an animal, as sanctity that emerges by itself is different. The sanctity of a firstborn does not result from an act of consecration; rather, the firstborn is consecrated by itself at birth. Therefore, the uncertainty with regard to its sanctity is intrinsic, and one is prohibited from using the animal as long as the uncertainty exists.
- רמח”ל מסילת ישרים פרק כו, קדושה Rav Moshe Chaim Luzzatto, 18th c Italy
עִנְיַן הַקְּדוּשָּׁה כָּפוּל הוּא, דְּהַיְינוּ:
The issue of holiness is dual, i.e.,
תְּחִלָּתוֹ עֲבוֹדָה וְסוֹפוֹ גְמוּל.
תְּחִלָּתוֹ הִשְׁתַּדְּלוּת וְסוֹפוֹ מַתָּנָה.
Its beginning is work, and its end is grace. Its beginning is effort, and its end is a gift.
וְהַיְינוּ שֶׁתְּחִלָתוֹ הוּא מַה שֶׁאָדָם מְקַדֵּשׁ עַצְמוֹ, וְסוֹפוֹ מַה שֶּׁמְּקַדְּשִׁים אוֹתוֹ. וְהוּא מַה שֶּׁאָמְרוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה “אָדָם מְקַדֵּשׁ עַצְמוֹ מְעַט – מְקַדְּשִׁים אוֹתוֹ הַרְבֵּה, מִלְּמַטָּה – מְקַדְּשִׁים אוֹתוֹ מִלְמַעְלָה” (יומא ל”ט א’).
That is, that its beginning is that a person consecrates themself, and its end is that others consecrate the person. That is what they said, of blessed memory, “A person consecrates themself slights, and they consecrate the person much; from below – and they consecrate the person from above (Yoma 39a).”
הַהִשְׁתַּדְּלוּת הוּא שֶׁיִּהְיֶה הָאָדָם נִבְדָּל וְנֶעְתָּק מִן הַחוֹמְרִיּוּת לְגַמְרֵי, וּמִתְדַּבֵּק תָּמִיד בְּכָל עֵת וּבְכָל שָׁעָה בֵּא-לֹהוֹת…
The effort is that a person becomes separated fully from materialism and communes constantly with God…
וְאָמְנָם לְפִי שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לָאָדָם שֶׁיָּשִׂים הוּא אֶת עַצְמוֹ בַּמַּצָּב הַזֶּה, כִּי כָבֵד הוּא מִמֶּנּוּ, כִּי סוֹף סוֹף חוֹמְרִי הוּא וּבָשָׂר וָדָם, עַל כֵּן אָמַרְתִּי, שֶׁסּוֹף הַקְּדוּשָּׁה מַתָּנָה. כִּי מַה שֶּׁיּוּכַל הָאָדָם לַעֲשׂוֹת, הוּא הַהִשְׁתַּדְּלוּת הָרִאשׁוֹן בִּרְדִיפַת הַיְדִיעָה הָאֲמִיתִּית, וְהַתְמָדַת הַהַשְׂכָּלָה בִּקְדוּשַּׁת הַמַּעֲשֶׂה. אַךְ הַסּוֹף הוּא, שֶׁהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא יַדְרִיכֵהוּ בַּדֶּרֶךְ הַזֶּה שֶׁהוּא חָפֵץ לָלֶכֶת בָּהּ, וְיַשְׁרֶה עָלָיו קְדוּשָּׁתוֹ וִיקַדְּשֵׁהוּ. וְאָז יִצְלַח בְּיָדוֹ זֶה הַדָּבָר, שֶׁיּוּכַל לִהְיוֹת בַּדְּבֵיקוּת הַזֶּה עִמּוֹ יִתְבָּרַךְ בִּתְמִידוּת….
Yet because it is impossible for a person to put themself in this state, for it is too heavy, for a person in the end is made of flesh and blood, therefore I said that the end of holiness is a gift. Fro what a person can do is the first effort in pursuit of true knowledge, and constant intellection in the holiness of action. But the end is that God will guide a person on this path that the person wishes to go one, and will rest Divine Presence upon the person. And thus the person will succeed at this, being able to commune with blessed God constantly…
וְהִנֵּה, הָאִישׁ הַמִּתְקַדֵּשׁ בִּקְדוּשַּׁת בּוֹרְאוֹ, אֲפִילּוּ מַעֲשָׂיו הַגַּשְׁמִיִּם חוֹזְרִים לִהְיוֹת עִנְיְנֵי קְדוּשָּׁה מַמָּשׁ. וְסִימָנָיִךְ אֲכִילַת קָדָשִׁים, שֶׁהִיא עַצְמָהּ מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה, וְאָמְרוּ זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה “כֹּהֲנִים אוֹכְלִים וּבְעָלִים מִתְכַּפְּרִים” (פסחים נ”ט ב’).
And behold, one who is sanctified in their Creator’s holiness, even their physical deeds become true holiness. And the symbol of this is eating consecrated meat, which is itself a positive commandment. And they, of blessed memory said, “Priests eat, and the owners gain atonement.” (Pesachim 59b)
- רב שניאור זלמן מליאדי (Alter Rebbe, founder of Chabad, 18th c. Eastern Europe), ליקוטי תורה, מאמר “ובחמשה עשר יום לחדש הזה…וספרתם לכם ממחרת השבת”
“וְלָכֵן נִקְרָא יוֹם טוֹב הָרִאשׁוֹן דְּפֶסַח בְּשֵׁם שַׁבָּת, עַל פִּי מַאֲמַר רַזַּ”ל: ‘מִמָּחֳרַת הַשַּׁבָּת – מִמָּחֳרַת יוֹם טוֹב’.
“And therefore, the first day of Passover is called by the name ‘Shabbat,’ in accordance with the statement of our Sages of blessed memory: ‘From the morrow of the Shabbat means from the morrow of the Holiday.’
כִּי הִנֵּה הַהֶפְרֵשׁ שֶׁבֵּין שַׁבָּת לְיוֹם טוֹב הוּא, דְּשַׁבָּת הִיא קְדֻשָּׁה הַבָּאָה מֵאֵלֶיהָ, כִּי קְבִיעָא וְקַיְּמָא מִשֵּׁשֶׁת יְמֵי בְּרֵאשִׁית וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לְקִדּוּשׁ בֵּית דִּין. אֲבָל יוֹם טוֹב הוּא קְדֻשָּׁה הַבָּאָה בִּידֵי אָדָם, שֶׁיִּשְׂרָאֵל מְקַדְּשִׁין לִזְמַנִּים, שֶׁהַבֵּית דִּין מְקַדְּשִׁין אֶת הַחֹדֶשׁ, וּכְפִי קִדּוּשׁ הַחֹדֶשׁ כָּךְ נִקְבָּע הַיּוֹם טוֹב.
For behold, the distinction between Shabbat and a Holiday is that Shabbat is a holiness that comes automatically, because it is fixed and stands from the six days of Creation and does not require the sanctification of a human court. But a Holiday is a holiness brought by human handד, for ‘Israel sanctifies the seasons,’ meaning that the human court sanctifies the new month, and according to the human sanctification of the month, so is the date of the Holiday established.
וְהִנֵּה הַטַּעַם לָזֶה הוּא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַקְּדֻשָּׁה הַבָּאָה בִּידֵי אָדָם הִיא בִּבְּחִינַת אִתְעָרוּתָא דִלְתַּתָּא, שֶׁעַל יְדֵי מַעֲשֵׂה הָאָדָם וַעֲבוֹדָתוֹ מַמְשִׁיךְ הַקְּדֻשָּׁה מִלְמַעְלָה. אֲבָל שַׁבָּת, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא קְדֻשָּׁה הַבָּאָה מֵאֵלֶיהָ, הִיא בִּבְּחִינַת אִתְעָרוּתָא דִלְעֵילָּא, שֶׁהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מַשְׁפִּיעַ וּמֵעִיר הַקְּדֻשָּׁה מִלְמַעְלָה מֵאֵלֶיהָ, בְּלֹא אִתְעָרוּתָא דִלְתַּתָּא כְּלָל.
Now, the deeper reason for this is because holiness brought by human hands corresponds to the level of ‘an awakening from below’, where through man’s actions and his spiritual labor, he draws down the holiness from Above. Shabbat, however, because it is a holiness that comes automatically, corresponds to an ‘awakening from above’ , wherein the Holy Blessed One flows and awakens the holiness from Above on its own, completely without any prior awakening from below.
וּבִיצִיאַת מִצְרַיִם הָיְתָה הַקְּדֻשָּׁה בָּאָה מֵאֵלֶיהָ מִלְמַעְלָה בִּבְּחִינַת אִתְעָרוּתָא דִלְעֵילָּא לְבַד, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיִּשְׂרָאֵל הָיוּ אָז מְשֻׁקָּעִים בְּמֵ”ט שַׁעֲרֵי טֻמְאָה וְלֹא הָיָה בָּהֶם שׁוּם זְכוּת וְאִתְעָרוּתָא דִלְתַּתָּא שֶׁיִּהְיוּ רְאוּיִם לִגְאֻלָּה. וְלָכֵן נִגְלָה עֲלֵיהֶם מֶלֶךְ מַלְכֵי הַמְּלָכִים הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא וּגְאָלָם מֵאֵלָיו בִּבְּחִינַת חֶסֶד חִנָּם. וּמִפְּנֵי זֶה נִקְרָא יוֹם טוֹב הָרִאשׁוֹן דְּפֶסַח בְּשֵׁם שַׁבָּת, לְפִי שֶׁהָיְתָה קְדֻשָּׁתוֹ מֵאֵלֶיהָ כִּקְדֻשַּׁת הַשַּׁבָּת.”
And during the Exodus from Egypt, the holiness arrived automatically from Above purely as an ‘awakening from above.’ This was because Israel at that time was completely submerged within the 49 Gates of Impurity, and they possessed no merits or awakening from below that would make them worthy of redemption. Therefore, the Sovereign of sovereigns, the Holy Blessed One was revealed to them and redeemed them automatically as an act of unconditional grace. It is for this reason that the first day of Passover is called ‘Shabbat’—because its holiness came automatically, just like the holiness of Shabbat.”
…
“וְזֶהוּ עִנְיַן ‘וּסְפַרְתֶּם לָכֶם מִמָּחֳרַת הַשַּׁבָּת’, כִּי הִנֵּה הַקְּדֻשָּׁה הַבָּאָה מֵאֵלֶיהָ מִלְמַעְלָה בְּפֶסַח הָיְתָה בִּבְּחִינַת מַתָּנָה וּמַקִּיף בִּלְבַד, וְאֵינָהּ נִקְלֶטֶת בִּפְנִימִיּוּת הַנֶּפֶשׁ מֵאַחַר שֶׁלֹּא הָיְתָה עַל יְדֵי עֲבוֹדָתָם.
“And this is the inner meaning of ‘And you shall count for yourselves from the morrow of the Shabbat.’ For behold, the automatic holiness that descended from Above on Passover was given merely as a gift and an ‘encompassing light.’ It could not be integrated into the internal fabric of the soul, since it was not generated through their own spiritual labor.
וְלָכֵן מִיָּד מִמָּחֳרַת הַשַּׁבָּת הִתְחִילָה עֲבוֹדַת יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּעֵסֶק סְפִירַת הָעֹמֶר. שֶׁעִנְיַן הַסְּפִירָה הוּא מִלְּשׁוֹן סַפִּירוּת וּבְהִירוּת, לְבָרֵר וּלְזַכֵּךְ הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַבַּהֲמִית וּמֵ”ט מִדּוֹתֶיהָ, שֶׁזֶּהוּ עִנְיַן קְדֻשָּׁה הַבָּאָה בִּידֵי אָדָם דַּוְקָא.
Therefore, immediately on ‘the morrow of the Shabbat’ [the day after Passover], the labor of Israel began through the mitzvah of Counting the Omer. The concept of counting (Sefirah) shares a root with ‘sapphire’ and brilliance—meaning to clarify, refine, and illuminate the animalistic soul and its 49 emotional traits. This is explicitly the definition of holiness built by human hands.
כִּי עִנְיַן הָעֹמֶר הָיָה מִן הַשְּׂעוֹרִים, שֶׁהוּא מַאֲכַל בְּהֵמָה, לְהוֹרוֹת שֶׁעִקַּר הָעֲבוֹדָה בִּימֵי הַסְּפִירָה הִיא לְזַכֵּךְ אֶת הַבְּהֵמִיּוּת שֶׁבָּאָדָם… וְעַל יְדֵי הַזִּכּוּךְ שֶׁבִּידֵי אָדָם בְּמֵ”ט יְמֵי הַסְּפִירָה, נַעֲשִׂים כֵּלִים רְאוּיִם לְקַבֵּל הַקְּדֻשָּׁה הָעֶלְיוֹנָה שֶׁל מַתַּן תּוֹרָה בְּחַג הַשָּׁבֻעוֹת, שֶׁהִיא תַּכְלִית הַשְּׁלֵמוּת דִּקְדֻשָּׁה הַבָּאָה מֵאֵלֶיהָ.”
For the Omer offering consisted of barley, which is traditionally animal food, teaching us that the primary labor during the days of counting is to refine the animalistic nature within man… And through this human-driven refinement during the 49 days of Sefirah, they become proper vessels capable of receiving the supreme, transcendent holiness of the giving of the Torah on Shavuot—which represents the ultimate, absolute perfection of holiness that comes automatically.”
- רב משה חיים אפרים מסודליקוב,18th c. Poland, דגל מחנה אפרים, פרשת כי תשא
“כִּי מֹשֶׁה רַבֵּנוּ נולַד צַדִּיק גָּמוּר, כְּמַאֲמַר חֲזַ”ל ‘וַתֵּרֶא אֹתוֹ כִּי טוֹב הוּא’ – שֶׁנולַד מָהוּל וְכֻלּוֹ טוֹב, וְלֹא הָיָה לוֹ שׁוּם רַע וּמְנִיעָה כְּלָל מִצַּד תּוֹלַדְתּוֹ וְטֶבַע מִזְגּוֹ מִלַּעֲבֹד אֶת הַשֵּׁם יִתְבָּרַךְ.
“For Moses our teacher was born completely righteous, as our Sages of blessed memory said on the verse, ‘And she saw that he was good’—that he was born circumcised and entirely good. He had no evil or spiritual barrier at all from the perspective of his birth or his natural temperament that would hold him back from serving the blessed God.
וְהִנֵּה יֵשׁ עוֹד בְּחִינַת צַדִּיק שֶׁאֵינוֹ נולַד כָּךְ, רַק שֶׁבְּטֶבַע תּוֹלַדְתּוֹ וּמִזְגּוֹ הָיוּ לוֹ מְנִיעוֹת רַבּוֹת וְטֶבַע רַע, וְהוּא בְּצִדְקָתוֹ וּבְמַעֲשָׂיו הַטּוֹבִים כָּבַשׁ אֶת יִצְרוֹ וְשִׁבֵּר כָּל הַמְּנִיעוֹת וְהַקְּלִפּוֹת עַד שֶׁבָּא לְמַדְרֵגַת צַדִּיק…
However, behold, there is another category of righteous person who was not born this way. Rather, by natural birth and temperament, this person had many barriers and a difficult nature. Yet, through righteousness and good deeds, this person conquered their inclination and broke all of the barriers and husks until they achieved the status of a righteous person…
וְזֶהוּ שֶׁאָמְרוּ (בְּכֹרוֹת ה, א): ‘מֹשֶׁה רַבְּכֶם קוּבְיוּסְטוֹס הוּא’ – כְּלוֹמַר שֶׁהָיוּ תְּמֵהִים עָלָיו, מֵאַחַר שֶׁנולַד כָּךְ בְּלֹא שׁוּם יֵצֶר הָרַע וּמְנִיעוֹת, אִם כֵּן אֵין לוֹ שׁוּם שְׁבִירַת כְּלִי וִיגִיעָה וּמִלְחָמָה כָּל כָּךְ, וְעִקַּר נַחַת רוּחַ לְמַעְלָה הוּא מִמִּי שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ מְנִיעוֹת וְיֵצֶר הָרַע וּכְבָשׁוֹ… אֲבָל בֶּאֱמֶת, אַף שֶׁמֹּשֶׁה רַבֵּנוּ עָהָ”שׁ נולַד בִּקְדֻשָּׁה, הִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בְּכָל כֹּחוֹתָיו לַשָּׁמַיִם מֵאֵלָיו.”
And this explains the meaning behind the Talmudic passage where people [cynically] challenged, ‘Your teacher Moses is a gambler’ Meaning, they wondered about him: since he was born completely pure without any evil inclination or barrier (to goodness), he didn’t have to experience the fracturing a vessel, heavy exhaustion, or (spiritual) warfare. And the primary pleasure in Heaven comes precisely from one who possesses a strong evil inclination and barriers, but conquers them! … But in truth, even though Moses our teacher was born in a state of automatic holiness, he employed every single one of his natural capacities to serve Heaven on his own.”
