Daf Ditty Pesachim 20: ‫חבת הקודש‬

Accommodations for the love of the Divine

O king of lovers

have you ever seen anyone more agreeable than me?

I am alive with those who are alive with you

and dead with those who are dead with you.

Rumi

I have received the teaching from my master the Baal Shem Tov,
what he himself was told from the heavens,

the reason for the late coming of Mashiach,

because people do not take a long enough time in

Ahavah Rabba

Toldos Yaakov Yosef

1
2
It was taught that if an impure needle were found in an animal, the meat is ritually impure. The
Gemara asks: With what liquid was this meat rendered susceptible to impurity? A food can
become impure only if it were rendered susceptible to impurity through contact with a liquid; how,
then, could the sacrificial meat become impure immediately after the animal was slaughtered?

3
If we say that it was rendered susceptible to impurity by the blood that flowed when it was
slaughtered, didn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba say that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: From where is it
derived with regard to blood of consecrated offerings that it does not render produce
susceptible to impurity? As it is stated:

‫ָהָאֶרץ‬-‫ ַﬠל‬:‫ ל ֹא ת ֹאֵכלוּ‬,‫ טז ַרק ַהָדּם‬16 Only ye shall not eat the blood; thou shalt pour it out
.‫ ַכָּמּ ִים‬,‫ ִתְּשְׁפֶּכנּוּ‬upon the earth as water.
Det 12:16

“You shall surely not eat the blood; you shall pour it upon the earth like water”

The Sages derived from this verse: Blood that is poured like water, i.e., blood from a non-sacred
domesticated animal that is poured out when it is slaughtered and not received in a vessel like
sacrificial blood, assumes the legal status of water and renders food susceptible to ritual impurity.
Blood that is not poured out like water, but is received in a vessel to be sprinkled on the altar,
does not render food susceptible to impurity.

4
Rather, say that this meat was rendered susceptible to ritual impurity by the other liquids of
the slaughterhouse, e.g., the water that was kept near the altar for washing the offerings. But
didn’t Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, say with regard to the liquids of the slaughterhouse:
Not only are they ritually pure, as noted in the testimony of Yosei ben Yo’ezer, but they do not
even render meat susceptible to impurity?

5
Rather, say that the meat is rendered susceptible to ritual impurity by the esteem for sacred
objects. According to this principle, certain items that cannot become impure by Torah law become
susceptible to impurity by rabbinic law due to their extreme sanctity. The Gemara rejects that
possibility: Say that the esteem for sacred objects is effective to disqualify the meat itself despite
the fact that it was not rendered susceptible to receive impurity, but does it also transmit impurity
to the extent that one counts first- and second-degree impurity from contact with that meat? Can
impurity based on the esteem for sacred objects be transmitted to other objects like standard
impurity?

6
If so, resolve from here that which Reish Lakish raised as a dilemma: With regard to a mass
from meal-offerings, does one count first- and second-degree impurity from contact with it or
not? Due to the esteem for sacred objects, the offering itself can become impure without having
been rendered susceptible through contact with liquid; however, the dilemma is whether or not it
transmits impurity to other objects.

The Gemara responds: Perhaps the dilemma with regard to the status of ritual impurity due to
esteem for sacred objects has not in fact been resolved. In the case of meat, Rav Yehuda said that
Shmuel said: It is referring to a case where the meat was from a cow brought as a peace-offering
sacrifice, whose hide and meat belong to its owner, and the owner led it through the river to

7
clean it, and he slaughtered it while liquid was still moist upon it. While the animal was being
flayed, water fell on the meat, rendering it susceptible to impurity.

Rabbi Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: We are dealing with a case where the shelamim animal
was taken through a river, and when it was slaughtered it still has some water on its hide.

RASHI

8
Rashi explains that after the animal was walked through the river, some of the water which
remained on the hide then dripped on the flesh, thus rendering it susceptible to tumah. Tosafos
points out a problem with this explanation.1

Any water which remains on the hide is now detached from its source (‫( תלושי‬because this water
does not flow onto the flesh from the river itself. We learned earlier (16a) that such water can only
be ‫ מכשיר‬if we have a verse which teaches us that it does so. There, Shmuel holds that the verse
“‫ ”יטמא‬refers to the ability of the liquids themselves to contract tumah, and not that it has the power
to be ‫ מכשיר‬while detached.

How, then, can our Gemara be speaking about water which is ‫ תלוש‬and its ability to allow the meat
to be susceptible to tumah?

Chazon Ish writes that Rashi simply means that such water can be ‫ מכשיר‬the meat ‫מדרב ן‬
The Gemara is therefore explaining that this water which originated outside the courtyard of the
Mikdash is not one of the “liquids of the courtyard—‫“ מטבחייא בית משקי‬and it therefore has the
ability to be ‫מכשיר‬at least on a rabbinic level.

Tosafos, on the other hand, holds that although this water came from outside the Mikdash,
nevertheless, now that it has been brought in, it is under the category of ‫ מטבחייא בית משקי‬and it
cannot be ‫ מכשיר‬while detached.

‫ חיבת הקודש‬-‫חולין דף לו‬

Rav Avigdor Schwartz writes:2

‫ עוסקת הגמרא בדף ל"ו בדין חיבת‬,‫אגב הדיון בדברי ר' שמעון בדבר שחיטה המכשירה לקבל טומאה‬
‫ יוכל לקבל טומאה אם יוקדש‬,‫ כי דבר מה שלא אמור היה לקבל טומאה כשלעצמו‬,‫ דין זה קובע‬.‫הקודש‬
‫( עומדת הגמרא על שתי השלכות אפשריות לחיבת הקודש‬:‫ בסיום הסוגיה )לו‬.‫להקרבה על המזבח‬:
"‫"אלא חבת הקדש מכשרא להו ומשויא להו אוכל‬.

,‫ כאמור‬.‫ וכן להכשירו לקבלת הטומאה‬,‫ יש צורך להגדירו כדבר מאכל‬,‫כדי שדבר מה יקבל טומאה‬
‫ היא הופכת חפץ רגיל )כגון עצים‬:‫הגמרא קובעת כי חיבת הקודש עשויה למלא את שתי הדרישות‬
‫ וכן מסוגלת לאפשר קבלת טומאה גם בדברי מאכל‬,‫ולבונה המיועדים להקטרה על המזבח( לדבר מאכל‬
‫שלא הוכשרו לקבלת טומאה‬.
‫ ד"ה‬,.‫ התוספות בזבחים )לד‬,‫ ואמנם‬.‫ שדין חיבת הקודש הוא דין תורה‬,‫( קובעת בפירוש‬:‫הגמרא )לו‬
‫ את זאת אומרים‬.‫ ולא רק אסמכתא‬,‫ שהדרשה הנזכרת בסוגייתינו הינה דרשה גמורה‬,‫ואפילו( קובעים‬
‫ הסבור שחיבת הקודש היא מעלה‬,(‫ ד"ה לפסולא בעלמא‬,:‫התוספות בניגוד לדעת רש"י בפסחים )מו‬
‫ אך אין היא מכשירה לטומאה מדאורייתא‬,‫שתיקנו חכמים מפני חשיבותם של קורבנות המקדש‬.

1
https://www.dafdigest.org/masechtos/Pesachim%20020.pdf
2
https://www.etzion.org.il/he/%D7%97%D7%99%D7%91%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%93%D7%A9

9
 ‫הרמב"ן בסוגיתנו )לה‪ ,.‬ד"ה ולי נראה( מציע עמדת ביניים בין רש"י והתוספות‪ ,‬המבוססת על ההבחנה‬
‫‪:‬בין שתי המשמעויות שהוצגו לעיל בדין חיבת הקודש‬
‫ו"‬
‫לי נראה דעצים ולבונה לאו בני אטמויי טומאת אוכלין מדאוריתא נינהו אלא מעלה דרבנן בעלמא היא‪,‬‬
‫ומה שאמרו בשמעתין דהוי חיבת הקדש דאוריתא היינו דרשא דוהבשר ולרבות צריד של מנחות אתא‪,‬‬
‫ועצים ולבונה אסמכתא בעלמא ומעלה דרבנן‪ ,‬דחיבת הקדש הכשר מים הוי דאוריתא‪ ,‬ואתו רבנן וגזור‬
‫‪".‬בה הכשר אוכל‪ ,‬ומעלה דרבנן הוא‬
‫כלומר‪ ,‬לדעת הרמב"ן הפיכת חפץ רגיל לדבר מאכל היא חידוש דרבנני‪ ,‬שאין לו יסוד בתורה‪ .‬מאידך‪,‬‬
‫האפשרות לקבל טומאה גם בלי הכשר משקה‪ ,‬קיימת מדאורייתא‪ .‬חידוש זה של הרמב"ן עולה בקנה‬
‫אחד עם היסוד שהצענו בעיון הקודם‪ .‬כפי שהסברנו‪ ,‬משמעותה של נתינת המים היא הכנסת החפץ‬
‫לעולמו של האדם‪ ,‬וכניסה זו הינה תנאי בסיסי בקבלת טומאה‪ .‬מסתבר מאוד לומר‪ ,‬שכניסת החפץ‬
‫לעולם של קדושה משמעותית לא פחות מכניסת החפץ לעולם האדם‪ ,‬ואותה כניסה כשלעצמה מאפשרת‬
‫‪.‬קבלת טומאה‪ ,‬בלי הכשר משקה כלל וכלל‬
‫לעומת הרמב"ן‪ ,‬מציע המנחת חינוך )מצוה קמ"ה‪ ,‬ס"ק ו'( פשרה הפוכה בדיוק‪ .‬לדבריו‪ ,‬הפיכת עצים‬
‫ולבונה לדבר מאכל מתאפשרת מדאורייתא‪ ,‬בעוד שקבלת טומאה ללא הכשר משקה היא דין דרבנן‬
‫‪:‬בלבד‪ .‬המנחת חינוך מסביר‬
‫ובכל התורה כולה אוכלים ומשקים חשובים‪ ,‬ולפי חשיבותו כן טומאתו‪ ,‬דהתורה גזרה דווקא אוכלים "‬
‫ומשקים חשובין מקבלין טומאה ‪ ...‬מצד הסברה דחיבת הקודש‪ ,‬דכיון דהוא קודש אף על פי שאינו אוכל‬
‫‪.‬מחמת חיבת הקודש הוי ליה כאילו הוא אוכל ודבר חשוב‬

‫אבל אוכלים בלא הכשר‪ ,‬דהם אוכלים אך דאין מקבלין טומאה גזירת הכתוב שצריכין הכשר מקרים‪ ,‬בזה‬
‫‪".‬איני יודע כלל מה חשיבות הוא לקודש דיקבל טומאה אף שלא בא מים עליו‬

‫המנחת חינוך איננו מתייחס לסברה שלפיה הכשר משקה מכניס את האוכל לעולם האדם‪ ,‬ורואה בהכשר‬
‫זה גזירת הכתוב גרידא‪ .‬ממילא‪ ,‬הוא מתקשה להבין כיצד חיבת הקודש פותרת את העדר הכשר‬
‫המשקה‪ .‬מאידך‪ ,‬המנחת חינוך סבור שאין דין מיוחד של טומאה באוכלים דווקא‪ ,‬וטומאה עשויה לחול על‬
‫‪.‬כל דבר חשוב‪ .‬לדעתו‪ ,‬דבר המשתייך לעולם הקודש הוא דבר חשוב‪ ,‬אף אם איננו אוכל‬

‫השאלה הפותחת את סוגיתנו היא האם יש למנות שני ושלישי בחיבת הקודש‪ .‬כלומר‪ ,‬האם חיבת הקודש‬
‫מהווה טומאה ככל הטומאות‪ ,‬וממילא עשויה "להתקדם" בדרך של שני ושלישי; או שמא חיבת הקודש‬
‫הינה דין ייחודי‪ ,‬אשר פוסל קודשים שנטמאו‪ ,‬אף אם על פי גדרי טומאה וטהרה הקבועים הם לא היו‬
‫אמורים להיטמא‪ .‬כמובן‪ ,‬אם מדובר על דין ייחודי‪ ,‬הוא איננו מתקדם לשני ולשלישי לטומאה‪] .‬יעויין עוד‬
‫במקדש דוד‪ ,‬סימן ל"ז אות ב'‪ ,‬המרחיב בכך‪ ,‬ומתלבט האם יש טומאה בחיבת הקודש‪ ,‬או שמא פסול‬
‫]‪.‬להקרבה בלבד‬
‫הרב אביהוד שורץ‬

‫‪Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:3‬‬

‫‪As on the previous daf, our Gemara discusses the case of a needle that is found in the flesh of a‬‬
‫‪sacrifice in the Temple, which renders the meat of the korban to be tameh (ritually defiled).‬‬
‫‪Although people or utensils (kelim) can become tameh at any time that they come into contact with‬‬
‫‪something that gives off tumah, generally speaking, in order for food to become tameh, it must‬‬
‫‪first be hukhshar - "prepared" by becoming wet (see Lev 11:38).‬‬

‫‪3‬‬
‫‪https://www.steinsaltz-center.org/home/doc.aspx?mCatID=68446‬‬

‫‪10‬‬
The halakha is that any of seven liquids will give food that status: water, wine, honey, olive oil,
milk, dew and blood. Our Daf asks how the meat of the korban became "prepared" so that it was
in a position to become defiled by the needle. The first two possibilities raised - that either blood
or water in the Mikdash prepared the meat of the sacrifice - are rejected by the Gemara: The blood
of the sacrifice itself cannot "prepare" food to become tameh. Liquids in the slaughterhouse in the
Temple neither become tameh themselves, nor do they "prepare" foods to become tameh.

The Gemara concludes that sacrifices have an inherent quality about them, referred to as hibat ha-
kodesh (the esteem for sacred objects), that gives them the status of being "prepared" to become
tameh. The rule of hibat ha-kodesh is that, because of their holiness and elevated status, they
become more susceptible to defilement.

There is general agreement that the higher level of kedusha that an object has, the more
possibilities there are for ritual defilement (regular hullin will only become tameh if it is one step
removed from the source of the tumah, so it can only become a sheni, a second level defilement.
Teruma (tithes), which are on a higher level of holiness, can become tameh from a sheni and
become a shelishi, a third level defilement. Kodashim, like sacrifices, can even become a revi'i, a
fourth level defilement).

The perception of things connected to the Temple as having a higher-level holiness that increases
the possibility of defilement is applied by the sages also to non-food items that ordinarily would
not be subject to the rules of tuma v'tahara at all, like the incense and coals that were used in the
Temple service.

RAMBAM

Mishneh Torah, Other Sources of Defilement 12:13,‫משנה תורה‬

‫יג‬

‫ ֲאָבל ְבֹּקֶדשׁ ִחַבּת ַהֹקֶּדשׁ ַמְכַשׁ ְרָתּן‬.‫ ַבֶּמּה ְדָּב ִרים ֲאמוּ ִרים ִבְּתרוָּמה‬.‫ֳאָכִלין ְנגוִּבין ֶשׁלּ ֹא ֻהְכְשׁרוּ אוְֹכִלין אוָֹתם ְבָּיַד ִים ְמֹסָאבוֹת‬
‫ ַוֲאִפלּוּ ל ֹא ָנַגע בּוֹ ֶאָלּא ְבּכוּשׁ אוֹ ֶשָׁתַּחב לוֹ ֲחֵברוֹ ְלתוֹ’ ִפּיו ֲהֵרי ֶזה‬.‫ְוָאסוּר ְלִמי ֶשָׁיָּדיו ְטֵמאוֹת ֶלֱאכל ֹקֶדשׁ ֶשׁלּ ֹא ֻהְכַשׁר‬
‫ ְוֵאין ָצ ִרי’ לוַֹמר ֶשִׁאם ָנְגָﬠה ֻטְמָאה ָבֳּאָכִלין ֶשׁל ֹקֶדשׁ ֶשׁלּ ֹא ֻהְכְשׁרוּ ֶשׁ ִנְּטְמאוּ ִמְפֵּני ֶשִׁחַבּת ַהֹקֶּדשׁ ַמְכַשׁ ְרָתּן‬.‫ָאסוּר‬:

Dry foods that have not become susceptible to contract impurity may be eaten with impure hands.
With regard to what does the above apply? To terumah. With regard to consecrated food, by
contrast, the cherished quality of consecrated food causes it to be considered as susceptible to
impurity and it is forbidden for someone whose hands are impure to eat consecrated food even if
it was not made susceptible to impurity by contact with liquids.

11
Even if the person with impure hands did not actually touch the consecrated food with his hands,
only with a weaving needle or his friend inserted it into his mouth, this is forbidden. Needless to
say, if a source of impurity touched consecrated food that was not made susceptible to impurity by
contact with liquids, it becomes impure, because the cherished quality of consecrated food causes
it to be considered as susceptible to impurity.

Mark Kerzner writes:4

Yesterday that if a needle is found in the meat of a sacrifice (such as a cow), then that meat is
considered impure, while the hands and the knife are pure, and explained the reason for it.

But why should the meat ever become impure? Any food, to become impure, must first become
wet with water. While any animal is alive, it cannot become impure, and they have just slaughtered
it!? It cannot be any liquid in the Temple, because these are all pure .

Nor can it be the impurity declared out of love for holy things, because such impurity was only
declared on object themselves, not giving them the power to transmit impurity further. Rav
Yehudah gave an answer: the owner led the cow through a river on the way to the Temple, to wash
it off, and this water was still dripping. Since the owner wanted this water to be on a cow, all
precondition for impurity is fulfilled.

The Talmud suggests and refutes a hypothesis about impurity. If a dead reptile is found in an
earthenware utensil, it makes the utensil impure. Can we view the utensil as being full of impurity,
contaminating any food that is inside? - No, we cannot. The Torah said, "anything inside," which
tells us that food is impure by virtue of being inside. Thus, we have to say that the reptile touches
the air, and the air touches the food, resulting in a lesser degree of impurity

The Function of Hekhsher Okhel

Rav Moshe Taragin writes:5

Foodstuffs can only receive imparted tuma (ritual impurity) if they first undergo a process known
as hekhsher (being made fit) by contact with one of seven mainstream liquids. According
to Chullin 34b, the requirement of hekhsher is based on two Torah verses. The assertion of two
different sources may imply two very different models toward understanding the function
of hekhsher okhel.

The first verse (Lev 11:34) describes the food object and mandates that it first come in contact
with liquid: all food which is eaten which first comes in contact with water can receive tuma. This

4
http://talmudilluminated.com/pesachim/pesachim20.html
5
https://www.etzion.org.il/en/function-hekhsher-okhel

12
verse portrays contact with water as necessary to confer upon the item a status of food and render
it suitable for tuma transfer. In order to be susceptible to tuma, an object must be categorized
as okhel (food). Just as the foodstuff must be edible and of a minimum quantity, similarly it must
be cleansed by contact with a liquid. Until the requisite cleaning, the material is not defined as
“okhel asher yeiachel,” food which is typically eaten, and therefore cannot receive tuma. In this
model, hekhsher okhel is necessary to confer a full status of “shem okhel” upon the item.

Our model for determining the status of food is borne out in several locations. Rashi, in his
commentary on Lev 11:37, asserts that the legal status of okhel is only acquired through this
aforementioned hekhsher, which reinforces the role of hekhsher as a deciding factor in food
categorization. A gemara in Chullin (18) equates the function of hekhsher okhel to the completion
of an oven construction. Just as an unfinished oven isn’t yet considered a halakhic kli (vessel) and
doesn’t absorb tuma, similarly unwashed food is not considered fully prepared and therefore
cannot receive tuma.

By way of these two gemarot, a structural parallel is created between completing the construction
of an oven and cleaning foodstuffs through contact with liquid. In each instance the object in
question becomes completed and can now receive tuma.

Similarly, the Chinukh (mitzva 160) equates hekhsher okhel to the ripening stages of fruits
for teruma (priestly portion) and ma'aser (tithing). Just like teruma cannot be taken prior to the
natural maturation of fruits, tuma cannot be transmitted until hekhsher okhel. The parallel seen
here establishes hekhsher as a final stage in the creation of halakhic okhel.

By contrast, a second verse (Lev 11:38) describes the actual tuma transfer, but does not discuss
the status of the food that receives the tuma. If water falls on seed and a dead carcass touches the
seed, tuma is transferred. Such a description suggests that hekhsher okhel does not alter the status
of the food but rather becomes the vehicle for tuma to be transferred. In other words, the first verse
suggests that contact with liquid is necessary to legally define the object as food which is, by virtue
of its status, capable of receiving tuma.

The second verse implies that contact with liquid facilitates the actual ma'aseh tuma (transfer
of tuma). Ramban’s comments on Lev 11:37 indicate a preference for this model. He claims that
many tuma-conferring items are covered in dust and cannot adhere properly to foodstuffs unless
that food is moist. Consequently, the Ramban claims that the need for moisture is to enable
adherence to an item and thus tuma transfer. According to the Ramban, hekhsher okhel enables the
mechanics of tuma transfer rather than fully developing or completing the object.

This question about the nature of hekhsher okhel may help solve an interesting qualification
of hekhsher: the liquid must contact the foodstuff after it is harvested. Water that contacts the
item before it has been harvested does not create the hekhsher, as we will see shortly.

Rashi (Chullin 118b s.v U-keshem) and the Rambam (Hilkhot Makhshirin 1:1) each wrestle with
the issue of attached and detached produce. Both Rashi and the Rambam issue an apparently
technical solution.

13
They explain that if any contact with liquid were to create hekhsher, all food would inevitably
undergo hekhsher as a result of contact with rainwater. Inasmuch as the Torah assumes that only
some produce experiences hekhsher, undoubtedly the contact must occur after detachment. Neither
Rashi nor Rambam provides a logical structure as to why pre-detachment hekhsher is insufficient;
they merely prove that it cannot yield hekhsher.

A subsequent question about the function of hekhsher okhel may significantly influence the
application of hekhsher okhel. To that end, it is unclear how much of the surface area of the food
must come in contact with the liquid in order to qualify as hekhsher. The gemara itself does not
directly address this issue, but the Vilna Gaon (Shulchan Arukh OC 158:9) infers that even limited
contact with liquid would suffice to render hekhsher.

By contrast, the Arukh La-ner on Keritut 15b infers from the Rambam (Makhshirin 1:1) that the
entire item must be cleansed by the liquid; the Rambam employs the term "immersed," which
suggests that the entire food is enveloped in the liquid.

Rashi and Tosafot address a gemara in Pesachim (20a) which rules that animals which passed
through a river undergo hekhsher through contact with the river water. Rashi assumes that a
droplet will ultimately touch the flesh after shechita (ritual slaughter). Tosafot claim that the entire
skin became moistened, presumably demanding that the entire surface area become moistened.

Perhaps this question is influenced by the nature of hekhsher: if hekhsher merely enables the
passage of tuma, perhaps even limited contact with liquid facilitates the process. Moistened food
can absorb tuma from a conveyor, whereas completely dry food cannot. However, if hekhsher is
meant to represent the final preparation of the produce, a comprehensive cleansing would be
necessary.

An additional question arises regarding the requirement of deliberate liquid contact. This issue
may also depend on the nature of hekhsher. The gemara in Bava Metzia 22a asserts that the contact
must be deliberate rather than accidental, but does not elaborate whose knowledge is necessary
for hekhsher to occur. The Rambam (Tumat Ochlin 12:11) posits that only the awareness of the
owner is sufficient for valid hekhsher. By contrast, Tosafot in Bava Kama (98a s.v. hah) claim that
any human awareness is sufficient for hekhsher. Once again, the dispute about how to
achieve nichuta (consciousness) may be a product of what hekhsher is trying to accomplish.
If hekhsher aims to define the produce as fully developed food, perhaps the recognition of the
owner is all that is necessary to change the status by virtue of his ownership.

However, if hekhsher enables proper tuma transfer, any hekhsher recognized by a human is
deemed meaningful enough to register as part of the tuma process.

Hekhsher is not necessary in two significant cases, and they deserve further attention. By
examining these scenarios further, the function of classic hekhsher can be more positively
identified. Why are these cases exceptional, such that they do not require hekhsher?

One such exception is that of food belonging to hekdesh (sanctified for Temple use). As the gemara
in Chullin 36b asserts, these foodstuffs do not require actual hekhsher since chibat ha-kodesh

14
machshartan, the affection people feel for hekdesh suffices in place of actual hekhsher. The
gemara in Chullin 36b therefore supports hekhsher as a model by which okhel status is conferred
upon food. As we have learned, typical foodstuff is not considered okhel until it is cleansed and
prepped for consumption.

However, the high regard people have for hekdesh renders any hekdesh food material
as okhel even is not fully prepared. If hekhsher were an instrumental stage in transferring tuma, it
should be required in situations of hekdesh as well. In truth, Rashi (Chullin 36, Zevachim 46,
and Menachot 21) repeatedly suggests that hekdesh is not an exception and that this rule is only a
Rabbinic chumra (stringency). Assuming, as Tosafot do, that the rule is indeed de'oraita (Torah
law), it would imply an object-based function to hekhsher.

An additional exception surrounds Rabbi Shimon's position regarding shechted (ritually

slaughtered) animals. Rabbi Shimon contends that animals do not require actual liquid contact
since the act of shechita prepares the animal for consumption and functions as hekhsher. Such an
exception would suggest that hekhsher represents the final stage of produce preparation.
Since shechita is pivotal in halakhically preparing meats, it may serve a similar function to
actual hekhsher and replace it. If hekhsher entailed part of the tuma transfer process, it is not
immediately clear how Rabbi Shimon could have imagined that shechita would supplant or
obviate it.

15
 ‫חבת הקודש‬
‫חיבת הקודש הוא מושג בדיני טומאה וטהרה‪ ,‬הנוגע גם בדיני קדשים‪ ,‬ולפיו‪ ,‬היותו של דבר קדוש בקדושת‬
‫הגוף מאפשרת לו להיטמא אף אם לא הוכשר לקבל טומאה כנדרש בחולין‪ ,‬או אף אם מצד עצמו לא היה‬
‫יכול לקבל טומאה כלל‪.‬‬
‫דין זה הוא אחד מכמה חומרות שיש בדיני טומאה וטהרה של קדשים לעומת דיני טומאה וטהרה של חולין‬
‫או תרומה‪ .‬ישנה מחלוקת האם חומרא זו היא מדאורייתא או מדרבנן‪.‬‬

‫הגדרה‬
‫על פי ההלכה‪ ,‬כאשר אדם‪ ,‬כלי או מאכל נוגעים בדבר טמא‪ ,‬הם נטמאים ממנו‪ .‬אולם‪ ,‬בניגוד לכלים המקבלים‬
‫ישנו תנאי נוסף לקבלת טומאה‪ ,‬והוא שהמאכל נשטף מיד עם גמר מלאכתם והכנתם לשימוש‪ ,‬בטומאת אוכלין טומאה‬
‫עד שהמאכל לא נשטף במשקה הוא איננו מקבל טומאה כלל‪ ,‬אף אם יגע בדבר טמא‪ .‬דין זה ‪.‬באחד משבעת המשקים‬
‫‪.‬בנוסף לכך‪ ,‬עצמים שאינם כלים וגם אינם ראויים למאכל אינם מקבלים טומאה כלל ‪.‬נקרא הכשר לקבל טומאה‬
‫ישנה חומרא ביחס לדין הבסיסי הזה‪ ,‬והיא המכונה "חיבת הקודש"‪ .‬שני דינים נפרדים כלולים ‪,‬בדיני טומאת קדשים‬
‫בחיבת הקודש‪ .‬האחד‪ ,‬שגם דבר שאינו אוכל‪ ,‬ולא אמור היה לקבל טומאה כלל‪ ,‬יכול להיטמא כשמדובר בקודש כאילו‬
‫דין שני הוא שאף על פי ]‪.[1‬המוקטרת עם המנחות‪ ,‬והקטורת הלבונה ‪,‬המערכה של המזבח היה אוכל‪ ,‬למשל עצי‬
‫שאוכלים מקבלים טומאה רק לאחר הכשר‪ ,‬כאשר מדובר בקודש חיבת הקודש מחשיבה את האוכל כאילו הוכשר והוא‬
‫]‪.[2‬מקבל טומאה גם בלי הכשר רגיל במשקה‬
‫יש הסבורים‪ ,‬כי אף על פי שבחיבת הקודש כלולים שני דינים‪ ,‬כאמור‪ ,‬והיא מועילה הן להחשיב את החפץ כאוכל והן‬
‫להכשיר אוכל לקבל טומאה בלי הכשר במים‪ ,‬לא ניתן לומר את שני הדינים באותו החפץ‪ .‬כלומר‪ ,‬כאשר מדובר באוכל‬

‫‪16‬‬
 ‫ממש חיבת הקודש מבטלת את הצורך בהכשר‪ ,‬אולם כאשר מדובר במה שאינו אוכל חיבת הקודש אמנם מאפשרת לו‬
‫]‪.[3‬לקבל טומאה‪ ,‬אך רק לאחר הכשר במים‬

‫ג ד ר ה ד ין‬
‫הסתפק האם חיבת הקודש מועילה להכשיר לטומאה לחלוטין‪ ,‬או רק לעניין פסול הקודש משימוש‪ .‬כלומר‪ ,‬ריש לקיש‬
‫לאחר שחיבת הקודש הכשירה חפץ כלשהו לקבל טומאה והוא נגע בטומאה‪ ,‬האם הוא נטמא לגמרי ולכל עניין‪ ,‬בדיוק‬
‫ויטמא דברים נוספים אם יגע כפי שהיה נטמא אילו הוכשר כרגיל ולא עקב חיבת הקודש‪ ,‬ועל כן יהפוך לולד הטומאה‬
‫בהם )"מונין בו ראשון ושני"(; או שחיבת הקודש אינה מועילה כדי שהחפץ שהוכשר על פיה יטמא לגמרי‪ ,‬אלא רק‬
‫ספק זה ]‪.[4‬גורמת לו להיפסל לשימוש אם נגע בטומאה‪ ,‬אך לא הופכת אותו לטומאה שבכוחה לטמא חפצים נוספים‬
‫]‪.[5‬נאמר בשני החלקים השונים של דין חיבת הקודש‬
‫ודאי שהאוכל שנטמא בחיבת הקודש יכול להמשיך מסיקים כי מדרבנן ואביי דן בספק זה‪ ,‬ורב יוסף התלמוד הבבלי‬
‫אף שלשתי ‪.‬ולטמא דברים נוספים‪ ,‬אך ספקו של ריש לקיש נותר בלתי פתור ביחס לדין הבסיסי מדאורייתא‬
‫היא האם יש לשרוף אותו‪ ,‬האפשרויות‪ ,‬אם כן‪ ,‬החפץ שנטמא מאוכל שהוכשר בחיבת הקודש הוא טמא‪ ,‬הנפקא מינה‬
‫ספק ]‪.[4‬כדי קדשים שנטמאו טומאה ודאית מדאורייתא‪ ,‬או שהוא אסור בשימוש עקב הטומאה מדרבנן‪ ,‬אך אין לשרפו‬
‫פושטים את הספק שאוכל הנטמא בחיבת הקודש אינו עושה זה לא נפשט בתלמוד הבבלי‪ ,‬אך בתלמוד הירושלמי‬
‫]‪.[6‬מניין‪ ,‬כלומר שאינו יכול להמשיך ולטמא דברים נוספים‬
‫בספק זה אינה ברורה‪ .‬במקום אחד הוא מביא את הספק כלשונו‪ ,‬מבלי לחלק בין דאורייתא פסיקת הרמב"ם‬
‫]‪.[8‬אך במקום אחר הוא כותב בסתם כי אוכל שהוכשר בחיבת הקודש מטמא אחרים ]‪;[7‬ודרבנן‬

‫מקור הדין ותוקפו‬

‫אֶשׁר ִיַגּע "על הפסוק כמקור‪ ,‬מובאת דרשה ‪.‬בגמרא בכמה מקומות נאמר שדין חיבת הקודש הוא דאורייתא‬ ‫ְוַהָבָּשׂר ֲ‬
‫הלומדת מהמילה "והבשר" לרבות שגם דברים שאינם מוכשרים לקבל טומאה )י"ט ‪',‬ז ‪,‬ויקרא( "ְבָּכל ָטֵמא ל ֹא ֵיָאֵכל‬
‫מציין שניתן ללמוד את הדין מהמילה "והבשר" שהיא מילה רש"י ‪.‬בדרך כלל יכולים להפסל אם מדובר בקדשים‬
‫]‪.[9‬שבתחילתה מיותרת בפסוק‪ ,‬או מוי"ו החיבור‬
‫אולם‪ ,‬דעות אחרות ]‪.[10‬אף על פי כן‪ ,‬נחלקו הראשונים בתוקפו של הדין‪ .‬יש הסוברים שהוא אכן דין דאורייתא גמור‬
‫בתווך בין שתי גישות אלה‪ ,‬ישנם פוסקים ]‪.[11‬סוברות שהוא דין מדרבנן והפסוק המובא בגמרא הוא רק אסמכתא‬
‫כי המחלקים בין חלקים שונים בדין חיבת הקודש‪ ,‬שחלקם מדאורייתא וחלקם מדרבנן‪ .‬התוספות מצטטים את דעת ר"י‬
‫סבור כי יש לחלק בין שני הדינים הרמב"ן ]‪.[12‬כללית אכן מדובר בדין דאורייתא‪ ,‬אך יישומו בעצים הוא דרבנן בלבד‬
‫שהוזכרו לעיל‪ :‬חיבת הקודש שמבטלת את הצורך בהכשר לטומאה היא דאורייתא‪ ,‬אבל הדין המאפשר גם לדברים‬
‫יש המציעים חילוק זהה‪ ,‬אך הפוך‪ :‬חיבת הקודש המאפשרת לעצים ]‪.[13‬שאינם אוכל לקבל טומאה הוא רק מדרבנן‬
‫ולבנונה לקבל טומאה אף על פי שאינם אוכל היא מדאורייתא ונלמדת מן הכתוב‪ ,‬אך חיבת הקודש המבטלת את הצורך‬
‫]‪.[14‬בהכשר היא מדרבנן בלבד‬

‫דינים‬
‫גם ‪.‬ולא בדברים הקדושים רק בקדושת בדק הבית ‪,‬דין 'חיבת הקודש' נוהג דווקא בדברים הקדושים בקדושת מזבח‬
‫כלומר ‪),‬למשל באמצעות כלי שרת( בדברים המיועדים מזהח‪ ,‬נוהג דין זה דווקא אם כבר חלה בהם קדושת הגוף‬
‫אך עדיין לא בלבד )כלומר שהוקדשו אבל אם עדיין חלה בהם קדושת דמים ‪,‬שכבר התקדש גופם ולא ניתן לפדותם‬
‫אמנם‪ ,‬יש הסוברים כי מדרבנן חיבת הקודש ]‪.[15‬התקדש גופם‪ ,‬ולכן ניתן יהיה לפדותם( לא נוהג בהם דין חיבת הקודש‬
‫חלק א'‪, ,‬נוהגת גם לפני קידוש בכלי שרת המחיל קדושת הגוף‪}}.‬הערה|תוס' מנחות שם ד"ה אע"ג; תשובות הרשב"א‬
‫‪.‬סימן לב‬

‫הלכות ‪,‬משנה תורה לרמב"ם ;'דף כ"ג‪ ,‬עמוד ב ‪,‬מסכת חגיגה ;'דף ל"ו‪ ,‬עמוד ב ‪,‬מסכת חולין ‪,‬תלמוד בבלי ^ ‪1.‬‬
‫‪'.‬פרק ו'‪ ,‬הלכה ח ‪,‬איסורי המזבח‬
‫הלכות שאר אבות ‪,‬משנה תורה לרמב"ם ;'דף כ'‪ ,‬עמוד א ‪,‬מסכת פסחים ‪,‬תלמוד בבלי ;חולין שם ^ ‪2.‬‬
‫‪.‬פרק י'‪ ,‬הלכה י"ז ‪,‬הלכות טומאת אוכלים ‪,‬משנה תורה לרמב"ם ;פרק י"ב‪ ,‬הלכה י"ג ‪,‬הטומאות‬
‫‪.‬ד"ה יצאו 'דף כ"ג‪ ,‬עמוד ב ‪,‬תוספות מסכת חגיגה ^ ‪3.‬‬

‫‪17‬‬
 4. ^ ‫לקפוץ מעלה אל‬:1 2 ‫תלמוד בבלי‬, ‫מסכת חולין‬, ‫דף ל"ו‬.
5. ^ ‫תלמוד בבלי‬, ‫מסכת מנחות‬, ‫ עמוד ב‬,‫'דף ק"ב‬.
6. ^ ‫תלמוד ירושלמי‬, ‫מסכת חגיגה‬, ‫ הלכה ב‬,'‫'פרק ג‬.
7. ^ ‫משנה תורה לרמב"ם‬, ‫הלכות שאר אבות הטומאות‬, ‫ הלכה י"ד‬,‫פרק י"ב‬.
8. ^ ‫משנה תורה לרמב"ם‬, ‫הלכות שאר אבות הטומאות‬, ‫ הלכה ג‬,'‫'פרק ח‬. ‫בביאור שיטת הרמב"ם עיין כסף‬
‫משנה‬, ‫ הלכה י"ד‬,‫ פרק י"ב‬,‫הלכות אבות הטומאות‬.
9. ^ ‫רש"י‬, ‫מסכת פסחים‬, ‫ עמוד ב‬,‫'דף כ"ד‬, ‫ד"ה והבשר למה לי וד"ה והבשר כל טהור‬.
10. ^ ‫מסכת זבחים תוספות‬, ‫ עמוד א‬,‫ד"ה ואפי' ומסכת מנחות 'דף ל"ד‬, ‫ עמוד א‬,‫ד"ה יצאו; תוספות רבנו 'דף כ"א‬
‫מסכת זבחים פרץ‬, ‫ עמוד ב‬,‫ד"ה לפוסלה; וכן משמע במשנה תורה לרמב"ם'דף מ"ו‬, ‫הלכות פסולי‬
‫המוקדשין‬,‫ הלכה י"ב‬,‫פרק י"ח‬.
11. ^ ‫מסכת זבחים רש"י‬, ‫ עמוד ב‬,‫ד"ה לפסולא ומסכת מנחות 'דף מ"ו‬, ‫ עמוד א‬,‫ד"ה עצים; וכן משמע 'דף כ"א‬
‫במשנה תורה לרמב"ם‬, ‫הלכות איסורי המזבח‬, ‫ הלכה ח‬,'‫'פרק ו‬.
12. ^ ‫תוספות מסכת חגיגה‬, ‫ עמוד א‬,‫ לביאור החילוק בין עצים 'דף כ"ד‬.(‫ד"ה יצאו )שהתחיל בעמוד הקודם‬
‫ללבונה ושאר דברים ראו אבן האזל‬,‫ כד‬,‫פסולי המוקדשין יח‬, ‫ ולדעתו זו גם דעת הרמב"ם‬,‫ד"ה שוב‬.
13. ^ ‫חידושי הרמב"ן‬, ‫חולין לה‬. ‫ד"ה אלא "ולי נראה‬..."
14. ^ ‫מנחת חינוך‬, ‫מצוה קמה‬, ‫ ולדעתו זו דעת הרמב"ם‬,‫ד"ה וער"מ‬.
15. ^ ‫תלמוד בבלי‬, ‫מסכת מנחות‬, ‫ עמוד א‬,‫מסכת חולין 'תוס ;'דף ק"א‬, ‫ עמוד א‬,‫ד"ה צריד 'דף ל"ו‬.
16. ^ ‫מסכת זבחים 'תוס‬, ‫ עמוד א‬,‫מסכת חולין 'ד"ה והבשר; תוס 'דף ל"ד‬, ‫ עמוד ב‬,‫ד"ה עצים 'דף ל"ו‬.

PROOF THAT "CHIBAS HA'KODESH" MAKES "KODSHIM" FIT

TO BE "METAMEI"

Mordechai Zvi Dicker writes:

Rav Yosef (Chullin 36) attempts to prove from Rebbi Shimon's statement in the Mishnah (33a)
that Chibas ha'Kodesh is able to be Machshir the object of Kodshim to become Tamei such that
it will be Metamei other objects that it touches.

Rebbi Shimon states that the Shechitah of an animal is Machshir the animal to be Mekabel Tum'ah.
As RASHI explains, since the Mishnah is discussing the Shechitah of Chulin, the only type of
Tum'ah with which it can become Tamei is Tum'ah that will make other objects Tamei (since
Chulin does not become Pasul from being eaten). If Shechitah works to make a Chulin animal
Tamei such that it can be Metamei other objects even though there was no Hechsher Mashkin, then
Chibas ha'Kodesh also works to make Kodshim Tamei to be Metamei further even though there
was no Hechsher Mashkin.

Rav Yosef's proof is not clear. While it is true that Chulin that becomes Tamei does not become
prohibited to eat, it certainly is prohibited to cause Chulin to become Tamei. This indeed is what
Rebbi Shimon means in the Mishnah when he says that since the Shechitah is Machshir the animal
to become Tamei, one may not eat it while his hands are Tamei! What, then, is the proof that the
animal becomes Huchshar with regard to making other things become Tamei? Perhaps the
Hechsher works only to make it prohibited to be Metamei the animal and thereby prohibit it from
being eating while one's hands are Tamei!

18
Moreover, the Gemara's proof from the case of "ha'Botzer la'Gas" is difficult to understand. Rebbi
Zeira attempts to prove that Chibas ha'Kodesh is an effective Machshir for Tum'ah to be Metamei
further from Shamai's ruling (and Hillel's ruling, according to his later retraction) regarding one
who picks grapes in order to make wine. When one picks grapes and some of the juice comes out,
the grapes become Huchshar, even though the owner is not pleased that the juice came out. The
Hechsher is effective even to be Metamei other foods, because if it would not be, there would be
no relevance in the fact that grapes of Chulin become Huchshar for Tum'ah. The same would apply
to Chibas ha'Kodesh.

What is the Gemara's proof from that case? In that case, too, perhaps the grapes become Huchshar
only with regard to becoming Tamei themselves, but not with regard to being able to be Metamei
other foods, and the relevance of this Tum'ah is to prohibit picking the grapes with Tamei hands.

Moreover, even though the grapes themselves may be eaten when they are Tamei, the Terumah
that is separated from them afterwards may not be eaten. Perhaps that is the extent to which the
grapes become Tamei, and they do not become Tamei to be Metamei other foods! (RASHASH)

RASHASH understands the Gemara's proof differently from Rashi. He says that the word
"Huchshar" implies a complete Hechsher, one that makes the object fit to become Tamei and to be
Metamei other foods.

The Tum'ah of Chibas ha'Kodesh alone, however, is never referred to as "Huchshar" in the
Mishnah or Beraisa. Since the Mishnah quoted here uses the term "Huchshar," it must mean that
the object becomes Huchshar to make other foods Tamei even without the Hechsher Mashkin.
This is a proof that Chibas ha'Kodesh also causes a complete Hechsher to be Metamei further.
This is also the explanation of the RASHBA.6

We learned (Chullin 36) that food items are not susceptible to contract tum’ah unless they first
come into contact with one of the seven liquids prescribed for this function. Items designated as
kodoshim can contract tum’ah even without coming in contact with these liquids, because the
cherished status of being holy advances their status to being fully eligible for tum’ah as is.7

If we have some dry flour from a minchah, and this flour has not come into contact with a liquid,
it is nevertheless susceptible to contract tum’ah due to its holiness. Reish Lakish inquires how we

6
The Rashash did not have the commentary of the Rashba
7
https://www.dafdigest.org/masechtos/Chullin/Chullin%20036.pdf

19
are to understand the tum’ah which a holy object might acquire. On the one hand, perhaps this
tum’ah follows normal procedures, and it can become a rishon, which in turn can effect a sheni,
and so on. Or do we say that the cherished nature of the holy is enough to have this flour be tamei,
but it cannot transmit tum’ah any further?

Rashi (op cit) explains that the case is where the flour was placed in a kli shareis (a service vessel
of the Mikdash) as part of a minchah, and a proper amount of oil was added to blend with the flour.
The Gemara in Menachos (101a) tells us that the concept of “the cherished nature of the holy
prepares an item to become impure” only applies once something has been sanctified, such as the
flour of a minchah once it is placed in a holy vessel.

We know that it is not critical that the oil and flour of a minchah be blended fully. Therefore, our
case is discussing a dry portion of flour that did not come in contact with the oil, so it did not
become prepared for impurity by touching oil, which is a liquid. Tosafos points out that we have
a rule regarding kodoshim, and that is that all items found in one vessel are viewed as being
combined and joined.

The verse in Num (7:14) says,

.‫ ְמֵלָאה ְקֹטֶרת‬,‫יד ַכּף ַאַחת ֲﬠָשָׂרה ָזָהב‬ 14 one golden pan of ten shekels, full of incense;
Num 7:14

“one ladle,” from which the Gemara (Chagiga 23b) learns that if one part of the contents of a
vessel becomes tamei, it is as if everything in the container has come in contact with the tum’ah.
This is apparently applicable to our case as well.

If part of the flour has come into contact with oil and it is prepared for tum’ah, even the dry flour
in the vessel should be prepared for tum’ah, and standard rules should apply, even without using
the special rule of “the cherished status of the holy prepares, etc.”

In Tosafos HaRosh, Rabeinu Meir explains that the lesson that all the contents of a vessel are
combined is not written in the verse in Bamidbar explicitly, and it is learned from a drasha. We
therefore only apply this rule to the extent that it is taught, namely that everything in a vessel
combines to become tamei, but not that everything combines to be prepared to become tamei.

‫כל שומר שבת כדת מחללו הן הכשר‬

— ‫הן הכשר חבת קודש גורל‬
The Chofetz Chaim, zt”l, explains the importance of keeping Shabbos with a parable. “God calls
Shabbos a gift. Can you imagine a bride receiving a ring from her groom to symbolize their
engagement and returning the ring? Everyone understands that this is a definite sign that their
engagement is over.

20
Shabbos is like an engagement ring since keeping Shabbos shows that we are betrothed to God.
One who violates Shabbos is like a bride who breaks her engagement by returning her ring. How
can a person act in a way that breaks his engagement with God, heaven forbid?”1 We have no idea
of the greatness of Shabbos.

The Ohr HaChaim, zt”l, explains that no non-Jew—or even an angel—can fathom the deep
connection to God that is imparted to Jews on Shabbos.2 But many wonder when they will actually
come to feel this deep connection on Shabbos themselves.

Rav Shalom Shwadron, zt”l, provides an answer to this pressing matter. He said, “In the Shabbos
zemiros we ‫ ’ כל שומר שבת כדת מחללו הן הכשר‬,find ‫ גורלו קודש חבת‬.‘We may wonder what does chibas
hakodesh, a stringency of kodoshim that they are considered prepared to receive impurity even
without liquid, have to do with keeping Shabbos?

The key to this question is a statement on Chullin 36. There we find that due to chibas hakodesh,
even the wood and frankincense can become defiled. In light of this we understand the connection:
‫ — כהלכתו שבת שומר כל‬Everyone, even a person who does not yet feel the holiness of Shabbos, but
keeps Shabbos will lot his — ‫ —הן הכשר חבת קודש גורלו‬be like that of the wood and frankincense
which chibas hakodesh sanctifies, even though they are not food.

Similarly, by keeping Shabbos even one who is not worthy to feel the light of Shabbos due to his
own merit will eventually become ‫ מוכשר‬and capable, and he will merit to feel the holiness of
Shabbas kodesh.

‫חבת הקודש‬

Moses and the Shepherd – Poem by Shaykh Rumi

Moses heard a shepherd on the road praying, God,

Where are You? I want to help You, to fix Your shoes
and comb Your hair. I want to wash Your clothes
and pick the lice off. I want to bring You milk,

21
 to kiss Your little hands and feet when it’s time
for You to go to bed. I want to sweep Your room
and keep it neat. God, my sheep and goats
are Yours. All I can say, remembering You,
is ayyyy and ahhhhhhhhh.

Moses could stand it no longer.

Who are you talking to?
The One who made us,
and made the earth and made the sky.
Don’t talk about shoes
and socks with God! And what’s this with Your little hands
and feet? Such blasphemous familiarity sounds like
you’re chatting with your uncles.
Only something that grows
needs milk. Only someone with feet needs shoes. Not God!
Even if you meant God’s human representatives
as when God said, I was sick, and you did not visit me,
even then this tone would be foolish and irreverent.
Use appropriate terms. Fatima is a fine name
for a woman, but if you call a man Fatima,
it’s an insult. Body-and-birth language
are right for us on this side of the river,
but not for addressing the Origin,
not for Allah.

The shepherd repented and tore his clothes and sighed

and wandered out into the desert.

A sudden revelation
came then to Moses. God’s voice:
You have separated Me
from one of my own. Did you come as a Prophet to unite,
or to sever?

I have given each being a separate and unique way

of seeing and knowing and saying that knowledge.
What seems wrong to you is right for him.
What is poison to one is honey to someone else.
Purity and impurity, sloth and diligence in worship,

22
 these mean nothing to Me.
I am apart from all that.
Ways of worshiping are not to be ranked as better
or worse than one another.
It’s all praise, and it’s all
right.
It’s not Me that’s glorified in acts of worship.
It’s the worshipers! I don’t hear the words
they say. I look at the humility.
That broken-open lowliness is the Reality,
not the language! Forget phraseology.

I want burning,
burning.
Be friends
with your burning. Burn up your thinking
and your forms of expression!

Moses,
those who pay attention to ways of behaving
and speaking are one sort.
Lovers who burn
are another.

Don’t impose a property tax

on a burned out village. Don’t scold the Lover.
The wrong way he talks is better than a hundred
right ways of others.

Inside the Kaaba

it doesn’t matter which direction you point
your prayer rug!

The ocean diver doesn’t need snowshoes!

The Love-Religion has no code or doctrine.
Only God.

So, the ruby has nothing engraved on it!

It doesn’t need markings.

23
God began speaking deeper mysteries to Moses. Vision and words,
which cannot be recorded here, poured into
and through him. He left himself and came back.
He went to Eternity and came back here.
Many times this happened.

It’s foolish of me
to try and say this. If I did say it,
it would uproot our human intelligences.
It would shatter all writing pens.

Moses ran after the shepherd.

He followed the bewildered footprints,
in one place moving straight like a castle
across a chessboard. In another, sideways,
like a bishop.

Now surging like a wave cresting,

now sliding down like a fish,
with always his feet
making geomancy symbols in the sand,
recording
his wandering state.

Moses finally caught up

with him.

I was wrong. God has revealed to me

that there are no rules for worship.
Say whatever
and however your loving tells you to. Your sweet blasphemy
is the truest devotion. Through you a whole world
is freed.
Loosen your tongue and don’t worry what comes out.
It all the Light of the Spirit.

The shepherd replied,

Moses, Moses,
I’ve gone beyond even that.

24
 You applied the whip and my horse shied and jumped
out of itself. The Divine Nature and my human nature
came together.

Bless your scolding hand and your arm.

I can’t say what has happened.
What I’m saying now
is not my real condition. It can’t be said.

The shepherd grew quiet.

When you look in a mirror,
you see yourself, not the state of the mirror.

The fluteplayer puts breath into a flute,

and who makes the music? Not the flute.
The Fluteplayer!

Whenever you speak praise

or thanksgiving to God, it’s always like this
dear shepherd’s simplicity.

When you eventually see

through the veils of how things really are,
you will keep saying again
and again,
This is certainly not like we thought it was!

Divine Love8 and concessions made ‫חבת הקודש‬

The first time I read Rumi’s story of Moses and the Shepherd, I was struck by the
fact that the shepherd was much closer to God than Moses even though the
shepherd’s conception of God was not even remotely plausible.

8
https://www.nimatullahi.org/divine-love/

25
Years later, when I revisited this story, it appeared to me that Rumi had unraveled a deep
mystery of divine love: in order to love God, one does not need to have a correct conception
or description of God; what is required is a burning heart.

Rumi’s story begins when Moses, on his way through the desert, came upon a shepherd addressing
God. “O You who decide all things,” the shepherd beseeched God, “where are You that I might
become Your servant, sewing Your shoes and combing Your hair? That I might kiss Your delicate
little hands and massage Your little feet, and sweep out the small corner of the room where You
lay Your head. O You to whom I offer all my goats in sacrifice, You from whose remembrance
come all my sighs and cries.”

Hearing what he dismissed as misguided babbling, Moses approached the shepherd to rebuke him
and let him know that he had become an infidel by uttering such blasphemous nonsense. When the
shepherd heard the rebuke from one who was the Prophet of God, he became deeply ashamed of
himself and repentant for the blasphemies he had expressed.

With a burning heart, he tore his garments and fled into the desert. Suddenly, a revelation came to
Moses from God: “Know that I do not look at one’s outward speech but at what lies within. I look
into the heart to see if it be humble, even if the words spoken seem to lack respect. The heart is
the substance, speech only an accident, and it is the substance that is the only object for Me. I
desire a burning heart, not mere words and conceptions. Light a fire of love in your soul, Moses,
and burn away all expression and thought. For those concerned with outward conventions and
practices are one sort, while those whose being, and spirit burn are of another sort entirely.”

Human love begins with an encounter—our conceptions and descriptions of the person we love
come later. Descriptions help us to be connected with the person we have come to love only after
that love has been ignited through the encounter.

The same holds true for divine love. Without an encounter with the divine, there can be no divine
love. One cannot engage and participate in divine love through descriptions of the divine alone—
even if they happen to be the “right” sort of descriptions. An encounter with the divine is the

26
precondition of divine love. It comes first: afterwards one may choose whatever descriptions one
wants to refer to the divine—just as the shepherd did.

But how does the divine encounter happen? There is no recipe or formula for such an encounter.
It may happen suddenly through any ordinary experience in the world such as seeing the smile of
a friend, hearing a melody, grasping the meaning of a love poem, receiving kindness from a
stranger, or watching the gentle movement of a caring person.

The point is that once the encounter happens, one begins his or her journey on the path of divine
love. How is this love different from love between human beings? In Rumi’s story God tells Moses
that what He wants is a “burning heart” not mere words and expressions. If we take the expression
of “burning heart” to be our guide here, then divine love refers to a mode of loving rather than a
love that is defined in terms of its object. What makes our love divine is not what we love, but the
way we love what we love.

This may sound contradictory. On the one hand I have suggested that an encounter with the divine
is the precondition of divine love and on the other hand I am proposing that what makes our love
divine is the way we love, not what we love. Why should a divine encounter be necessary if it is
only the manner of our loving that makes our loving divine? Moreover, if we are capable of
encountering the divine to begin with, why not characterize divine love in terms of such an
encounter?

The encounter with the divine is essential for us to fall in love with the divine. Nevertheless, such
an encounter is not an event that happens outside this world or beyond our space-time continuum.
This is because each object in this world manifests the divine and therefore an individual may
encounter the divine in anything, anywhere and at any time. But once it happens—and it is crucial
that it does happen— we come to realize that the divine permeates everything. Thus, one way of
defining divine love would be the love of everything, as distinguished from the love of one
particular object. But this definition does not sufficiently distinguish divine love from human love,
and the question still remains: is the nature of divine love (i.e., the love of everything) the same as
human love?

Once we acquire the realization that the divine permeates everything, then the nature or mode of
our love of the divine changes dramatically. As the object of our love becomes everything, the
manner of our loving evolves from human to divine.

Divine love may begin with our loving another, but gradually our love grows to embrace
everything, and as our love encompasses everything, we transcend the norms associated with
human love and the manner of loving changes in three important ways.

The first is its unconditional nature. Human love is a reciprocal relation between two people based
on mutual expectations. If we are mistreated by the person we love, or the person we love does not
meet our expectations, it is only human that we fall out of love and seek another person who might
better fulfill our expectations and needs. In divine love, however, the conditional nature of human
love is transcended. Our love becomes divine when it does not diminish in the face of harshness
or indifference from the person we love.

27
To possess a “burning heart” means never to cease loving—no matter how our beloved behaves,
whether with harshness or with kindness. The shepherd continues to be in love with God despite
Moses’ rebuke even though he “sees” Moses’ reproach as coming from God Himself.

The second way in which divine love differs from human love is the indiscriminate or all-
encompassing nature of divine love. In our love for others, we love people who care for us or to
whom we feel close. We may feel indifferent to others and occasionally we may even find it
possible to hate others. Divine love, on the other hand, is all encompassing. The possessor of a
“burning heart” cannot find it in his or her heart to hate or be indifferent to anyone. It is as though
divine love erases any thought and feeling of indifference or hatred that we may have towards
others. This is the essence of compassion. The one who is in love with the divine wants others to
be happy and free from suffering regardless of who they may be—foe or friend.

The third difference is that in divine love the lover is selfless in relation to his or her beloved. In
ordinary love, it is customary for the lover to desire his or her beloved only insofar as the beloved
can satisfy the lover’s needs and desires. Here the lover is motivated by what makes him or her
happy, not by what the beloved may want. But in divine love priority and importance are given to
the beloved; the lover wants only what the beloved wants. Rumi expresses this type of love for his
master, Shams Tabrizi, in these lines:

O king of lovers have you ever seen anyone more agreeable than me?
I am alive with those who are alive with you and dead with those who are dead with you.

It is the initial encounter with the divine that makes our journey on the path of divine love possible.
Without such an encounter it is an impossible task to love unconditionally, indiscriminately and
selflessly.

‫חבת הקודש‬

28