KedushatAviv:
RavAharonLichtensteinzt”lontheSanctityofTimeandPlace
RavElyakimKrumbein
(TranslatedbyDavidStrauss)
RavElyakimKrumbeinstudiedwithRavSoloveitchikat YUandmadealiyain1973. HehasbeenaramatYeshivatHarEtzionsince 1981 andheadsitsTochnitBekiut. HealsoservedasaPedagogicAdvisoratHerzogCollege. RavKrumbein'sguidesforself-studyontheBavot, KetubotandothertractatesarewidelyusedbyYeshivastudents, andhehasalsowrittentwovolumesofstudyguidesonGittinandKiddushinentitledSho'elK'inyan. HeistheauthorofMusarforModernsandseveralcoursesontheYeshivatHarEtzion’sVirtualBeitMidrash, aswellasmanyarticlesonTalmud, Halakha, andJewishthought, includingseminalstudiesonthemethodologyofBrisk.
ReviewofRavAharonLichtenstein, KedushatAviv: IyyunimBeKedushatHaZemanVehaMakom, editedandadaptedbyR. ShaiLichtenstein, asst. ed. R. ChaimNavon(MaggidandYeshivatHarEtzion, 2017; Hebrew); 512 pp., availablehere.
KedushatAviv: IyyunimBeKedushatHaZemanVehaMakomconsistsofpreviouslyunpublishedwritingsandlecturesofRavAharonLichtensteinzt”l. RavAharonwouldperiodicallycarveouttimefromhisenormousdutiesasateacherofTorahinordertocultivatethisscholarlyendeavor, thestudyoftheconceptof“sanctity.” Hehadhopedandplannedthattheworkwoulddevelopintoabookofthreeparts, discussingthesanctityoftime, place, andpersonalities. Unfortunately, thisdreamwasnotfulfilledduringhislifetime. Now, however, RavAharon’sson, R. ShaiLichtenstein, haseditedandpublishedthepresentvolume, withthehelpoffamilymembers, disciples, andgenerousdonors. (Thebook’sintroductiondetailswhichchapterswerewrittenbyRavAharonhimselfandwhicharebasedonrecordingsandnotes.) Thevolumecoverstwotopics– thesanctityoftimeandthesanctityofplace.
A Book of Thematic Studies
Thisvolumebelongstothegenreofthematicstudies. ItisnotacollectionofnovellaeontheTalmudortheRambamorthelike, butratheranexaminationofthevariousaspectsofaparticulartopic. Suchworkstakeuponthemselvesaformidabletask– collectingpassagesfromallacrosstheTalmudinwhichaparticularissueisdiscussedbyChazal, arrangingtheprinciplesarisingfromthesources, andclarifyingtheinnerrelationshipsbetweenthevariousparts.
Theseworkscanbeclassifiedaccordingtotheirvariousapproaches. Someauthorsattempttoturnanobscuretopicintoa"ShulchanArukh" (e.g., theMinchatKohenonthelawsofforbiddenfoodmixtures). Othersstriveprimarilytodealwiththedifficultiesofthetopicandtoruleaboutmattersthataresubjecttodoubt (e.g. ShevShemateta), and, inrecentgenerations, thegoalmaybetodefinetheconceptsindepth (e.g. Sha'areiYosher). RavAharon, asaprominentscholaroftheBriskerapproach, belongstothelattergroup. TheauthorimmerseshimselfinthedepthsofHalakhaandtakesadvantageofhismasteryoftheTalmudicpassages, theRishonim, andtheAcharonim(attestedtobyindicesattheendofthevolume).
WewerealreadyabletobenefitfromtheessayspublishedinRavAharon'spreviousbook, MinchatAviv (here), whichwaspreviouslyreviewedattheSeforimblogbyProfessorAviadHacohen (here) someofwhichconstitutecomprehensivethematicstudiesinthemselves (see, forexample, hisexaminationoftheissueof"lishmah"). Thecurrentvolume, however, isanentirelynewdevelopment. Thescopeisastounding, andtheimaginationandambitionareinspiring. Leafingthroughthemainheadings, mostofwhicharedealtwithatlength, revealsthatthebookcoversthemajorissuesrelatingtothesanctityoftimeandplace. ThefirstpartdealswiththesanctityofShabbatandYomTov, Kiddush, thesanctityofYomKippur, theSabbaticalandJubileeyears, thesanctificationofthemonths, andtheintercalationsofthecalendar. ThesecondpartopenswiththesanctityofEretzYisrael, andthenmovesontothesanctityofwalledcities, Jerusalem, theTempleMount, andtheTempleanditsvariousparts.
InKedushatAviv, RavAharonappliestheuniquescholarlyapproachthatcharacterizesallofhisteachingsinordertoelucidatethetopicofsanctity. Wewillnotebelowseveralpointsrelatingtotheauthor’smethodologicalapproach.
The Shades and Precision of Familiar Concepts
ThegrandplanoftheworkallowedRavAharontogivefreereintothefullnessofhisoriginality. Thisoriginalitystemsnotnecessarilyfromflashesofbrilliance, butratherfromtheauthor’sfundamentalandthoroughexaminationofthematerialunderstudy.
Toillustratethis, letusexamineonesmallelementofadiscussionconcerningthesanctityofEretzYisrael, aclassicsubjectinTalmudicscholarship. Thechapteropenswithareviewofsomeofthewell-knowndoctrines, astaughtbythesagesofBrisk– firstandforemostthedistinctionbetweenthe“sanctity” ofEretzYisraelandthe“name” ofEretzYisrael. Thisdualityregardingtheuniquestatusofthelandhasanumberofpracticalramifications, whicharequitefamiliartoanyoneathomeinthebeitmidrash. Thus, forexample, thegeographicalscopeofthe"name” ofEretzYisraelextendstothebroadboundariesofthelandconqueredbythosewhocameoutofEgypt (asopposedtothenarrowerbordersachievedbythereturneesunderEzra). Also, itisnevercancelled, evenaccordingtothosewhosaythattheinitialsanctificationofEretzYisraeldidnotholdforthefuture. Thirdly, itobligatesonlysomeofthecommandmentsconnectedtoEretzYisrael (forexample, eglaarufa, butnotterumotandma'asrot). RavAharonconsiderstheseclassicalmattersanddeclaresthat"Heavenhasleftmeroomtoilluminateanotherfacetoftheissue."FromherehecontinueswithnovelclarificationsandfurtherdevelopmentsthatgreatlybroadenthehalakhicconceptofEretzYisrael, asthetraditionaldichotomyisrestrictiveandthereisnoreasontoassumethatitisnecessarilytrue.
RavAharonarguesthatinadditiontothesanctityofthelandofEretzYisrael(whichobligatesthesettingasideofterumotandma'asrot), wecanspeakofthreedifferentconceptsthatunderliethe“name” ofEretzYisrael: 1) thechosenlandinwhichtheShekhinarests; 2) theplacewherethesanctityoftheTemplespreadsoutgradually (asexplainedinthefirstchapterofKeilim), thisbeingreflectedinthelawsgoverningtheremovaloftherituallyimpurefromthecamp; 3) thelandwherethepeopleofIsraelbecomeaunitedcommunityandinwhichtheyfulfilltheirpublicduties(e.g., eglaarufa).
Itis, ofcourse, possibletoattributeallofthesethingstothe“name” ofEretzYisraelandassumethattheyallapplywithinthebordersofthelandconqueredbythosewholeftEgypt. ButRavAharonwrites, inhischaracteristiclanguage, that"onecandistinguishbetweenthedifferentaspects."Itispossible, forexample, thattheindwellingoftheShekhinasanctifiesthelandindependentlyofanyconnectiontotheTemple. ItisalsopossiblethatneitheroftheseisnecessaryforregardingthepeopleofIsraelasacommunitydwellingintheirownland.
ThisapproachallowsforacertainflexibilitywhenweattempttodefinethegeographicalentityofEretzYisrael. ItmaybearguedthatthecovenantalboundariesofAbrahamarethedeterminingfactorregardingaparticularmatter, butregardingadifferentmatter, itistheboundariesmentionedinParashatMas'eiortheboundariesoftheconquestsofYehoshua. Thisdiscussionisentirelyindependentoftheideaofthe“sanctity” ofEretzYisraelregardingterumotandma'asrot, whichrelatestothelandsettledbythosewhoascendedfromBavel.
Thus, weareliberatedfromthefixedideathatanythingunrelatedtoterumotandma'asrotdependsontheboundariesofthelandconqueredbythosewholeftEgypt. Thedichotomousapproachisindeedconvenient, anditmay, infact, beimplicitinthewordsoftheRambam. However, dissociatingfromitisimportant, forexample, whenwediscussTransjordan. Thisareawascertainlysubjecttothelawsofterumotandma'asrotduringtheFirstTempleperiodbyTorahlaw, butitisreferredtoasan"impureland"inScripture. FromthistheRadbazlearnsthatinTransjordanthereis"sanctityofmitzvot,"butno"sanctityoftheShekhina."Wesee, then, thatthesanctityoftheShekhinaisnotfoundinallplacesconqueredbythosewholeftEgypt, despitetheirpossessingthesanctityofthelandwithrespecttomitzvot.Accordingtotheconventionalterminology, thissituationisdifficulttoexplain, tosaytheleast. Inthiscontext, RavAharoncitestheSifreZuta: "TransjordanisnotfitforthehouseoftheShekhina."
Anotherexamplerelatestothesanctificationofthemonth. Itisgenerallyassumedthatthesanctityoftimedependsonhumanaction, asexpressedintheblessing, "MekaddeshYisraelveha-zemanim,HesanctifiesIsrael, whosanctifytheappointedtimes."InRavAharon’schapteronthetopic, thisstatementistreatedthoroughly, systematicallyandindetail.
Firstofall, wemayask: Whois“Israel” inthiscontext? Doesitrefertoacourtofthree, theGreatSanhedrin, theleadersofthepeople("MosheandAharon,"accordingtoScripture), thenationofIsraelasacollective, orthepeopleofIsraelasindividuals? Thefactthattherearesomanypossibilitiesnecessitatesprecisionindefinition, and, asmentionedabove, areadinessforliberationfromconvenientdichotomousthinking.
Theaddedvalueinthisdiscussionissignificant. Someoftheoptionsmentionedappearintheexistingliterature, usuallyinanarrowerandmorelocalizedversion. Forexample, thecontroversyaboutwhetherthesanctificationofthemonthrequiresaSanhedriniswell-knownandhasbeenamplydiscussed. Buthereitplaysarolenotina"closed"two-sidedinvestigation, butinanopeninquiry: Whois"Israel"withregardtothesanctificationofthemo’adim? Thehorizonsofconsiderationandunderstandinghavethusbeengreatlybroadened.
Asforthefundamentalquestion, adistinctionmustbemadebetweenthelawinpracticeandthelawinprinciple; itispossiblethatinpracticethemo’adimaredeterminedbyacourt, butasrepresentativesofthepeople. Itmustalsobekeptinmindthattheprocessofestablishingthemo’adimiscomplexandhasstagesthatcanbedistinguishedfromoneanother– thedeliberations, thefinaldecision, andtheactualsanctification. Wemaypropose, forexample, thatinprinciplethedecisionisinthehandsofthecommunity, butthecourtactsontheirbehalf; regardingtheactualsanctification, however, thecourtactsindependently. ThepracticalramificationisthatthedecisionitselfmustbemadeinEretzYisrael (theplaceofthepeopleofIsraelasanationalentity), whereastheactualsanctificationcantakeplaceanywhere. Theidentityofthebodythatperformstheactualsanctificationisalsoacentralquestionwhenitcomestoexceptionalsituationsinwhichhumaninvolvementisindoubt– forexample, whenthemonthisnotsanctifiedatitsappointedtime, butisrather"sanctifiedbyHeaven."Istherestillaroleforthecourtinsuchacase? RavAharondemonstratesthatthisissueissubjecttoadispute.
Theproceedingdiscussionturnstothemannerinwhichthecalendarisdeterminedinourtimes, intheabsenceofaSanhedrinandauthorizedjudges. Doesthisprovethatintheendthehumanfactorisdispensable? Onceagain, theanswerdependsupondifferingopinions– whetherthecalendarinourdayisdeterminedinpracticebytheinhabitantsofEretzYisrael(Rambam), byanearlierdecisionmadebyR. HillelIIandhiscourt (Ramban), or"inHeaven" (RiMigash). TheRamban'sviewisostensiblythe"conservative"one, asaccordingtohim, themechanismforsanctifyingthemonthremainsinprincipleasitwasthroughouthistory, withone"slight"deviation– thematterwassettledlonginadvance. RavAharon, however, withhispenetratingobservation, discernsagreatdifferencebetweenprojectiveastronomicalcalculationsandwhattookplaceduringthetimeoftheTemple. Thelatterwasadirectsanctificationofthecurrentmonthinpresenttime, whereasthecourtofHillelestablishedacalendarasalong-termdirective, whichdictatesthemo’adiminadvancebasedonhowtheyfitthepre-determinedframework. Thus, itturnsoutthat, contrarytowhatwemighthavethought, theRambanactuallyagreeswiththeRiMigash, andnotwiththeRambam, thatinourtimethemo’adimbecomesanctifiedontheirown, withoutanydirectsanctificationonthepartofthecourt.
The Role of the Written Law
Thevolumeunderdiscussionisuniqueinitscreativeuseofbiblicalverses. ThewindowtothismethodologywasopenedwidebythefounderoftheBriskerapproachofTalmudstudy, whoreliedheavilyontheideaof“gezeiratha-katuv,” "Scripturaldecree,"beyondwhatisgenerallyfoundintheliteratureoftheAcharonim. (Compare, forexample, thenumberoftimesthattheterm"gezeiratha-katuv"appearsinR. ChayimHa-Levi'snovellaeandhowmanytimesitappearsintheKetzotHa-Choshen.) Asarule, thisBriskerapproachdemonstratessensitivityandprecisionwithregardtothemeaningarisingbothfromthewordingandfromthecontextofthebiblicaltext.
Forexample, wementionedearlierthatRavAharondistinguishesbetweentwolevelsofhumaninvolvementindeterminingthecalendar: establishingasystemofdates, whichcanbedoneinadvance, asopposedtoimmediateanddirectsanctification. AccordingtotheRamban, thecalendarofR. HillelIIfulfillsthefirstcomponent, butitlacksthedirectsanctification. R. AharonidentifiesthesetwoaspectsintwodifferentpassagesoftheTorah. InParashatEmor, weread: "ThesearetheappointedseasonsoftheLord… whichyoushallproclaimintheirappointedseason."Thisdescribesa"proclamation"ofacalendarasaframework, whichcanbedoneonacomprehensivescaleandevenlonginadvance. Incontrast, inParashatBoweread: "Thismonthshallbetoyouthebeginningofmonths"– thesourceforthesanctificationofeachmonthinitstimebasedonasightingofthenewmoon. Thusitmaybesuggestedthatinourtime, accordingtotheRamban (aswellastheRiMigash), wefulfillthecommandinEmor, butweareunabletocarryoutwhatisstatedinBo. Fromthisitmaybeconcludedthatthiselementisnotindispensable. Ontheotherhand, accordingtotheRambam, whomaintainsthateveninourtime, thesanctificationoftheappointedtimesisexecutedinadirectmanner, wefulfillbothelements– theproclamationandthesanctification.
RavAharonusesthesamemethodinhiscomprehensivediscussionofthesanctityofShabbatandYomTov, withwhichthebookopens. Heretherecoursetobiblicaltextsismoreextensiveandisconsistentlypresentinthediscussion. Thisisalreadyapparentatthebeginningoftheessay, whichisdevotedtoanexaminationoftheTorahpassagesdealingwithShabbat, tothedistinctionsbetweenthem, andtotheirhalakhicramifications.
RavAharon'smainargumentisthattheversesinthepassageof“Ve-shamruBneiYisraeletha-Shabbat” inParashatKi-TisaconstituteachangewithrespecttothediscussionsofShabbatinYitroandinMishpatim.ParashatKi-TisaintroducestheconceptofdesecratingtheShabbat, aswellasthedeathpenaltyforthatoffense. Priortotheseverses, thefoundationofShabbatlayinitsbeingareminderoftheactofCreation, andthisfoundationgaverisetothemelakhotasprohibitedactions. ButinParashatKi-Tisa, theTorahpresentsShabbatasasignofthecovenantandasafocusoftherestingoftheShekhina, whichiswhytheseversesarefoundinthecontextofthecommandmentregardingthebuildingoftheTabernacle. OnlynowdoesperformingaforbiddenactiononShabbatbecomeitsdesecration– afterithasbeenestablishedthatithassanctitythatissubjecttodesecration (justasthesanctityoftheTempleisdesecratedbytheentryofsomethingthatisrituallyimpure). Theliabilityforthedeathpenaltyisnotfortheperformanceoftheprohibitedlaborinitself, butforitsconsequence– thedesecrationofthesanctity.
Thus, thereare“twodinim” regardingthesanctityofShabbat, andtheattributionofvariousdetailsofthelawsofShabbattooneortheotheraspectofthesanctityofthedayhashalakhicramifications.
RavAharonfurtherexplainswhytheprohibitedlaborofkindlingismentionedseparatelyinParashatVayakhel(ontheassumptionthatthereisnohalakhicdifferencebetweenitandanyotherprohibitedlabor, ontheTannaiticviewthatitsspecificationisamereillustrationofseparateculpabilityforeachtransgressionofShabbatlaw). Kindlingisfundamentallyalaborconnectedtofoodpreparation, andsuchalaborisprohibitedonlybecauseofthe"covenant"aspectofShabbat. Therefore, itcouldnothavebeenprohibitedbeforeParashatKi-Tisa. HencethedifferenceinthedefinitionofthesanctityofthedaybetweenShabbatandYomTov.
Wehavepresentedhereonlyafewfundamentalideasonwhichtheauthorproceedstoexpandandbuildentireedifices.
A Conceptual Space
MuchoftherichnessofRavAharon'swritingsderivesfromhiscommitmenttothetruth. Byvirtueofthiscommitment, heavoidsadherencetoconventionalideasandoftenraisesdoubtsaboutcommonlyacceptedmatters, andthusheentertainsmanyvariedpossibilities. Somereaderswillbefrustratedbythefactthatsomuchisleftinquestion. Intheirview, Torahnovellaearemeasuredaccordingtotheirsuccessinclarifyingandprovingfromthesourcestheopposingsidesofthevariousinvestigations– "thereisnogreaterjoythantheclarificationofdoubt."However, fromRavAharon'spointofview, theabilitytomaintainaconceptualspaceinwhichdifferentpossibilitiesareopenisasourceofsatisfaction. Accordingtotheatmosphereofthebook, successfullyremovingathreattooneoftheoptions, thus"proving"thateverythingisstillpossible, isasourceofrelief. Thistendencyisexpressedinphrasessuchas"itmaybeargued"or"itmaybesuggested."ThefactthatthesepossibilitiesarenotdirectlysupportedbytheviewsofanyoftheRishonimisnotareasontoignorethem.
Forexample, accordingtothewell-knownpositionoftheRambam, theopinionthatmaintainsthatagentile'spurchaseoflandinEretzYisraelcancelsthesanctityofthelandforthepurposeofterumotandma'asrotfurtherarguesthattheexemptioncontinuesevenifthelandisboughtbackbyaJew. ThisisbecausetheJew'spurchasefallsintothecategoryof"theconquestofanindividual,"asopposedtoanationalacquisition. RavAharonexplainsatlengthwhythisisnotnecessarilyso, despitetherulingoftheRambam. Itispossiblethatevenaccordingtotheviewthatthegentile'sownershipcancelsthesanctity, thatsanctityreturnswhenJewishownershipofthelandisrestored. Firstofall, theRambamassumesthat"theconquestofanindividual"isaproblemeveninEretzYisraelitself, andnotonlyinSyria, amatterthatissubjecttodispute. Second, itmaybesuggestedthatwhenallofEretzYisraelisinJewishhands, theprivatepurchaseofaparticularfieldjoinsthecollectiveownershipandbecomespartoftheconquestofthecommunity, despitethefactthatthepurchaserhimselfisinterestedonlyinhisprivateownership. Itisfurtherpossiblethatevenifthepurchaseistheconquestofanindividualanditcannotsanctifythelanddirectly, itisabletojointhefieldtothepartofEretzYisraelthatisalreadyholy, andthusisendowedwithautomaticsanctity. Itisalsopossiblethatevenifthegentile'spurchaseofthelandcancelsitssanctity, itisnotfullycancelled(aswouldbeinasituationofdestructionorofgeneralforeignoccupation), butisrathertemporarilyfrozen, anditisthereforeliabletorevealitselfonceagainwithoutanotheractofsanctification.
Inarelatedmatter, theauthordiscussestheviewofR. ChayimBriskerregardingthestatusofthelawsrelatingtothesanctityofthelandwhenthemajorityofthenationisnotfoundinEretzYisrael. AccordingtotheRambam, duringthetimeoftheSecondTemple, therewasnoobligationtosetasideterumotandma'asrot, sincetherewasnoreturnofall (ormost) ofthepeopleofIsraelinthedaysofEzra, “bi’atkulkhem.” R. Chayimexplainsthatthisdeficiencyisnotanindependentconditionforobligation, butratheradeficiencyinthesanctityoftheland. Inaccordancewiththisunderstanding, heassumesthatthecriterionof"bi’atkulkhem"referstothemomentofthesanctificationoftheland (thetimeofEzra'sarrival). Ifitfailsatthatpoint, thesituationisirrevocabledespitesubsequentimmigration.
RavAharonraisesdoubtsaboutthisinlightoftheRambam'sstatement, "TheScripturalcommandmenttoseparate teruma appliesonlyin EretzYisraelandonlywhentheentireJewishPeopleislocatedthere,"whichdoesnotmentionthislimitation. EvenaccordingtoR. Chayim'sfundamentalassumption, RavAharonasks, whynotconsiderthelaterjoiningofmostofIsraeltobeacontinuationoftheconquest, despitethefactthattheydidnotarriveinthedaysofEzra? RavAharonthenproposesadifferentunderstandingthatunderminesthepositionofR. Chayim. Itispossiblethatwhatwassuggestedaboveregardinggentileownershipisalsotrueofgentileconquest. Inotherwords, evenatatimeofdestruction, thesanctityofthelandisnottotallycancelled, butonlyfrozen. ThisisbecausethesanctityofthelandstemsfromitsdesignationastheinheritanceofthepeopleofIsrael. WhenthepeopleofIsraelarenotthere, thesanctityexistsinpotential. ThepeopleofIsrael'srealizedpossessionofandcontroloverthelandactualizesthissanctity. Itisthereforepossiblethatwhatisreferredtoasan"actofsanctification"ofEretzYisraelisinfactmerelythefulfillmentofaconditionforrevealingthissanctityinactuality.
EvenifwedonotacceptthisunderstandingconcerningthesanctificationofEzra, itispossibletoacceptitwithregardtotheconditionof“bi’atkulkhem.”AndevenifEzrahadtoperformsomeformalactofsanctification, afterhim– andeveninourtime, whenthesecondsanctificationisstillinforce– wecertainlydonotneed“bi’atkulkhem” aspartoftheactofsanctification, but, asstated, asarealitythatactualizesthedestinyofthelandandrevealsitsfullsanctity.
ThesemusingsandtheirlikeopenmanytheoreticalavenuesregardingconceptsofsanctificationandthesanctityofEretzYisrael, aswellastheirapplicationinpractice.
What Is Sanctity
Thusfarwehavenotedsomeofthescholarlyqualitiesofthebook, butattentionmustalsobepaidtoitscontents. Giventhatthebookencompassessomanyfacetsofthelawsofsanctity, doesitalsohavesomethingimportanttosayaboutthenatureofsanctityintheeyesofHalakha?
Theeditorsofthebookhavedoneusaservicebyappendinganessaythataddressesthisquestion, andwewillmakeuseofitheretodealwiththeissue, howeverbriefly. Thechaptersofthisvolumerevealaconceptionofsanctitythatisnotonlymulti-facetedinitself, butistheobjectandbackgroundforhumanactivitythatreciprocallyaltersitsnature. TheTorahdoesnotviewsanctityasaguestfromanotherworldthatlandsinthehuman-naturalworldandtransformsitsorder. Onthecontrary, itisintegratedintothelifeoftheindividual, whorespondstoitwithreciprocityandcreativity. Sometimesapersonwillfindhimselfreactingtotheappearanceofsanctitywithadeclarationandwithrecognition, thisinordertoreceiveandintegrateitintohisearthlylife, butwithoutcreatinganewdimension. Ontheotherhand, apersonoftendoesaddanewdimensiontoexistingholiness, whatRavAharoncallsitshuman"stratum."Anotherpossibilityisnottoaddanewdimensiontosanctity, butto"deepen"theexistingdimension. Thesetwolatteroptionsarecertainlydistinct, andillustrateonceagaintheauthor'scloseattentiontoprecisedefinitionandclassification. Finally, ofcourse, therearecasesinwhichman'sactivityistheprimarysourceofsanctity– whetherdeliberatelyinitiatedorspontaneouslygenerated. Atthesametime, onthenegativeside, wemustexaminethesituationsinwhichapersoncancancelholiness, ordesecrateandimpairitwithoutabolishingitaltogether, andwhenexistingsanctityiscompletelyindifferenttohumanactions. Theeditorsillustratethesevariousavenuesusingdetailedexamplesfromthebook.
ThepagesofKedushatAvivfaithfullyreflecttheimageoftheauthor, whoinvestedhisheartandsoulinthiswork. ThevolumeexemplifieshisloveofTorahandhispassionfortruth, andprovidesaninspiringmodelofpersonalcreativity. ThesearethefoundationsofRavAharon'sheritage, nowbequeathedtohisdisciples.