Parashas Emor: Does Hashem Hate Unibrows?

Does Hashem hate unibrows? No, of course not! But then why does the Torah ban a Kohen with a unibrow from serving in the Beis ha’Mikdash? In this dvar Torah we will examine the nature of these physical disqualifications and consider their implications within the Torah system as a whole.

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this blog post.

Parashas Emor: Does Hashem Hate Unibrows? 

Parashas Emor introduces the prohibition for a physically blemished Kohen to perform avodah (service) in the Beis ha’Mikdash (Holy Temple): “Any man from among the offspring of Aharon the Kohen who has a blemish shall not approach to offer the fire-offerings of Hashem” (Vayikra 21:21). This parallels the prohibition to offer blemished animals as offerings, which is also discussed in this parashah: “Any [animal offering] in which there is a blemish you shall not offer, for it will not be favorable for you” (ibid. 22:20). 

The pesukim (verses) specify a number of examples of both categories of blemishes which are expanded upon in great detail by Torah she’baal Peh (the Oral Torah). There are a total of 140 physical blemishes that disqualify a Kohen from avodah, 90 of which are unique to human beings, and 50 of which are common to Kohanim and animals. The halacha classifies these 140 blemishes by their location on the body. In order to appreciate the nature and scope of these blemishes, here are a few examples from each category: 

• head (misshapen skull, various forms of baldness)
• neck (too short, too long)
• ears (blindness, too small, asymmetrical in size) 
• eyebrows (unibrow, asymmetrical in appearance)
• eyelids (no eyelashes, too squinty)
• eyes (abnormal positioning, abnormal shape, abnormal size)
• nose (abnormal positioning, abnormal shape, abnormal size)
• lips (over/under-bite, cracked lips, frequent spittle)
• belly (swollen, "outie" navel)
• back (crooked spine, hunchback)
• hands (abnormal number of fingers, webbed fingers, left-handed person)
• reproductive organs (abnormal size, injured scrotum, missing testicle)
• legs (bowlegged, abnormal number of toes, clicking ankles)
• stature (disproportionate trunk, abnormal height)
• skin (albino, very red skin, any type of mole, scarring)
• miscellaneous (deaf, epileptic, suffering from tremors on account of sickness or old age, suffering from severe depression, bad body odor) 

The major question here is: Why should these blemishes disqualify a Kohen from avodah? Does Hashem have something against physically blemished individuals? Does He find clicking ankles to be annoying? Does He regard albinos as subhuman? Does bad B.O. spoil the “fragrant aroma” (Vayikra 1:9) of the burnt offerings? Indeed, some modern readers may find these laws to be not only questionable, but morally reprehensible, and accuse the Torah of stoking the flames of certain forms of discrimination, such as ableism, ageism, and other prejudices. 

Before offering an answer, we will briefly respond to the types of charges against Torah mentioned in the aforementioned paragraph. Renowned pathologist Dr. J. Beckwith begins his historical essay, Congenital Malformations: from Superstition to Understanding, as follows: 

Throughout most of human history, congenital anomalies were perceived as omens, portents, or punishments of supernatural origin. This concept is reflected in the term “monster,” probably derived from the Latin verb monstrare (to show or reveal). Other explanations for congenital abnormalities included witchcraft, astrological configurations, or emotional experiences of the pregnant mother. 

Individuals suffering from physical deformities and bodily abnormalities were feared, shunned, and ostracized in many cultures, especially in ancient times. Dr. Beckwith elaborates on this phenomenon, citing an example from a neighboring ancient civilization to ours: 

Birth defects were interpreted as omens or portents in many early cultures. For example, Babylonian–Assyrian cuneiform tablets include an extensive catalog of anomalies believed to represent omens, some of which are clearly based upon observation of actual cases. 

Torah society stands in stark contrast to these prevailing views and attitudes in the ancient world. Judaism does not regard individuals with physical abnormalities to be inferior in any way to any other person. There is no discrimination when it comes to their religious observance nor are there any limitations to their roles in the community (with the sole exception of Kohanim in Mikdash). These individuals were never regarded as “cursed” or “harbingers of evil” or anything that even remotely negative. Indeed, the Sages decreed that a blessing should be recited upon seeing such an individual: “Blessed are You, Hashem, our God, King of the universe, Who makes creations different.” In other words, physical abnormalities are not viewed as negative, but are regarded positively as expressions of the wisdom and magnificence of the Creator. Moreover, the Torah clearly states that the essence of the human being is the tzelem Elokim (truth-seeking intellect) – not the physical body. Thus, there are no grounds for the assumption that a person should have lesser value in the eyes of God simply because his or her body looks different.

Of course, this only strengthens our question! These laws of Kohanim’s blemishes are an anomaly – the only Torah laws which, on the surface, seem to stigmatize physical imperfections. 

The Sefer ha’Chinuch (Mitzvah #275) answers this question as follows: 

At the root of this mitzvah lies the reason that the majority of people’s actions are favorable to the hearts of those who see them in accordance of the eminence of those who do them. For when a man is distinguished in his appearance and good in his actions, he “will find favor and good success” (Mishlei 3:4) in everything he does in the eyes of all who observe him. If, however, he is the opposite of this – inferior in his form or peculiar in his limbs – then even if he is straight in his ways, his activities will not be so attractive to the heart of those who see him. 

It is therefore truly fitting that the messenger (i.e. the Kohen), on whom atonement depends, should be a man of grace, handsome in appearance and fair in features, and pleasing in all his ways – that the minds of men may be drawn to him. And in addition to this, it is possible that in the perfection of his form lies an intimation of matters through which, as a man’s thoughts dwell on them, his spirit will be cleansed and exalted. 

It is therefore not right in any way that there should be in him [the Kohen] any deviation in any of his forms whatsoever, lest the spirit of the contemplator be distracted on account of the peculiarity and stray from the desired goal. 

According to the Sefer ha’Chinuch, physically blemished Kohanim were not barred from performing the avodah on account of any inherent deficiency or inadequacy on their part. Rather, as we say nowadays, it was all about “the optics.” The Beis ha’Mikdash is meant to be an awe-inspiring place, as the Sefer ha’Chinuch describes (Mitzvah #95): 

Hashem desired the good for human beings, as we have stated. Therefore He commanded us to establish a location that should be pure and clean to the ultimate degree of cleanliness, to purify there the thoughts of people and to rectify and perfect their hearts towards Him. 

Indeed, it is a mitzvah to be in awe of Mikdash, as the Sefer ha’Chinuch writes (Mitzvah #254): 

[He commanded us] to have a reverent awe of the Sanctuary: in other words, that we should regard and establish it in our souls as the place of awe and veneration, so that our hearts will be moved when we come there to pray or to bring offerings, as it is stated: “and you shall revere My Sanctuary” (Vayikra 19:30). 

The Sefer ha’Chinuch’s explanation of the Kohanim’s blemishes is built upon this idea, namely, that in order to produce the proper degree of awe, reverence, and inspiration in those come to the Beis ha’Mikdash, the Kohanim had to be flawless in their appearance. Anything less would detract from the intended effect of the Sanctuary, which was to inspire the visiting Jews to emulate the priestly models of avodah who ministered therein. 

A modern example of this phenomenon can be drawn from the world of fashion. Clothing companies know that in order to sell their products, they must use flawlessly attractive models, in ads and in clothing stores. These companies know that the vast majority of individuals will never live up to the beauty standards of these models, but will nevertheless purchase this clothing hoping that they will partake of some level of attractiveness, like these models. 

Just as attractive models enhance the attractiveness of the clothing they wear and cause the onlookers to aspire to this level of attractiveness, the same is true of the Kohanim. These are individuals who have devoted their lives to Hashem, to learning and teaching Torah, and to giving up their private civilian roles in order to live a life apart as models of avodas Hashem. They are intended to be the equivalent of Hollywood celebrities, epitomizing the life of chochmah (wisdom) and divine service rather than the life of fame and glamour. We are meant to look up to them and want to be like them, knowing full well that their lifestyle will likely be outside of our reach. When a Jew makes a pilgrimage to the Beis ha’Mikdash and sees Kohanim in action, he should be filled with a sense of awe and admiration. If that Kohen were blemished in any way, this would shatter the illusion and dilute the effect, thereby impeding the fundamental mission of Mikdash. 

This is why physical blemishes only disqualify Kohanim from their role in avodah, and do not invalidate any other Jew from doing any other mitzvah. Only Kohanim in the awe-inspiring Mikdash occupy this celebrity status in Judaism. There are other classes of individuals who are to be admired and emulated – such as talmidei chachamim (Torah scholars), tzadikim (righteous people), chasidim (pious people) – but none of these individuals function in the same capacity as the Kohanim of Mikdash. “For the lips of the Kokhen should safeguard knowledge, and people should seek teaching from his mouth, for he is an angel of Hashem, Master of Legions” (Malachi 2:7). Just as the true “angels of Hashem” are pristine in their metaphysical purity, so must their earthly counterparts be pristine in their physicality. 

I believe that this gives us some insight into the Torah’s general approach in mitzvos. The Rambam (Moreh ha’Nevuchim 3:32), in his famous explanation of korbanos (sacrifices), writes: 

Many commandments in our Torah are the result of a similar course adopted by the same Director, for it is impossible to go suddenly from one extreme to the other; therefore, it is impossible for man – according to human nature – to suddenly discontinue everything to which he has been accustomed. 

The Rambam applies this to korbanos, explaining that it would have been too much for Hashem to completely abolish a mode of worship to which the people had become so attached. He cites an example of Hashem using this approach in a non-mitzvah area: 

There occurs in the Torah a passage which contains exactly the same idea; it is the following: “God did not lead them by way of the land of the Philistines, even though it was near, for God said, ‘lest the people change their mind when they see war, and return to Egypt;’ but God led the people around, by way of the wilderness of the Sea of Reeds” (Shemos 13:17). Here Hashem led the people around, away from the direct road which He originally intended, because He was concerned that they might meet on that way with hardships too great for their ordinary strength; He took them by another road in order to obtain thereby His original goal. In the same manner Hashem refrained from commanding what the people by their natural disposition would be incapable of obeying, and gave the aforementioned commandments as a means of accomplishing His primary goal– namely, knowledge of Him, and the rejection of avodah zarah. 

The disqualifying blemishes of the Kohanim are another example of this phenomenon. On the one hand, the Torah does not assign any inherent value to physical attractiveness. At the same time, the Torah recognizes that it is human nature to care about physical appearances. The Torah can emphasize time and again that the essence of a human being is the tzelem Elokim and that true success lies in the pursuit of knowledge rather than beauty, but at the end of the day, the average Jew will still look askance at a Kohen with a unibrow, will be distracted by a Kohen who is an albino, and will be put off by a Kohen with bad body odor. 

In other words, the Torah must walk a fine line between its idealistic goal of perfecting human beings and the pragmatic realities of catering to human nature. That line can only be drawn by the Creator of man, “the God of the spirits of all flesh” (Bamidbar 16:22). Shlomo ha’Melech said: “Train the youth in accordance with his way (i.e. his nature), and even when he is old, he will not deviate from it” (Mishlei 22:6), and the same pedagogical tactic is employed by the Giver of Torah.

Mikdash, Moadim, and Tzedakah

I set out to write a blog post on a Shavuos related theme, but I realized that this idea doubles as a blog post on Parashas Emor and Parashas Kedoshim (hence the modified title below). This post was difficult to write since the themes it treats are so broad. Hopefully I did it justice.

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this blog post.

Artwork: Plains (Kaladesh), by Clint Cearley

Parashas Emor/Kedoshim: Mikdash, Moadim, and Tzedakah

Parashas Emor is the first comprehensive presentation of the moadim (holidays). The Torah walks us through each of the moadim, providing us with details about their dates, their korbanos, their mitzvos, and - in some cases - their themes.

After completing the presentation of Shavuos, the pesukim take an unexpected detour before moving on to Rosh ha'Shanah. Here is the passage in context:

You shall count for yourselves - from the morrow of the rest day, from the day when you bring the Omer of the waving - seven weeks, they shall be complete. Until the morrow of the seventh week you shall count, fifty days; and you shall offer a new meal-offering to Hashem. From your dwelling places you shall bring bread that shall be waved, two loaves made of two tenth-ephah, they shall be fine flour, they shall be baked leavened; first-offerings to Hashem ... You shall convoke on this very day - there shall be a holy convocation for yourselves - you shall do no laborious work; it is an eternal decree in your dwelling places for your generations. When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not remove completely the corners of your field as you reap and you shall not gather the gleanings of your harvest; for the poor and the convert shall you leave them; I am Hashem, your God. (Vayikra 23:15-21)

Right in the middle of its presentation of the moadim is a reminder about the agricultural tzedakah mitzvos of peah (leaving the corners of the fields unharvested) and leket (leaving the ears of grain that fall to the ground). This unclaimed produce was left to be gathered by the poor, the convert, and the other downtrodden individuals, thereby ensuring their sustenance in a systemic nationwide manner. 

The commentators are bothered by the glaring question: What are these non-moadim-related mitzvos doing in the middle of the Torah's presentation of the moadim? It would be one thing if this were the primary place where the Torah discusses peah and leket, but it's not. In fact, these mitzvos were introduced a few chapters earlier, in Parashas Kedoshim. Their appearance here is clearly intended as a context-specific reminder. Why is this reminder needed?

Rashi [1] cites a midrash from Toras Kohanim [2] which explicitly addresses this question, albeit in a cryptic fashion:

Rav Avdimi b'Rebbi Yossi said: Why did the Torah see fit to place this [reminder] in the middle of the festivals, with Pesach and Atzeres on one side and Rosh ha'Shanah, Yom ha'Kippurim, and Sukkos on the other side? To teach you that anyone who properly gives leket, peah, and shichechah [3] to the poor - it is considered as though he built the Beis ha'Mikdash and brought its korbanos in it.

This answer raises yet another question: How are the mitzvos of leket, peah, and shichechah equivalent to building the Beis ha'Mikdash and offering korbanos in it? The two categories of mitzvos don't even seem related: the former pertains to the realm of agriculture and tzedakah in everyday life, while the latter pertains to the avodah of the kohanim in the world of Mikdash!

The Ibn Ezra provides us with a clue - not in Parashas Emor, but in Parashas Kedoshim, where these mitzvos first appear. The pesukim there follow a similar pattern:

When you slaughter a feast peace-offering to Hashem, you shall slaughter it to find favor for yourselves. On the day of your slaughter shall it be eaten and on the next day, and whatever remains until the third day, it is rejected - it shall not be accepted. Each of those who eat it will bear his iniquity, for what is sacred to Hashem has he desecrated; and that soul shall be cut off from its people. When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not complete your reaping to the corner of your field, and the gleanings of your harvest you shall not take. You shall not pick the undeveloped twigs of your vineyard; and the fallen fruit of your vineyard you shall not gather; for the poor and the convert shall you leave them - I am Hashem, your God. (Vayikra 19:5-10)

Here, too, we see halachos of korbanos followed by a mention of the agricultural mitzvos of leket and peah. The Ibn Ezra [4] remarks on this juxtaposition:

The meaning of "when you reap the harvest" after [these laws of] slaughtering a peace offering [is as follows:] just as you have given the parts of the korban to Hashem, so too, you shall give to the poor and to the convert from the harvest of your land - for the sake of kavod Hashem (honoring Hashem).

Ibn Ezra identifies the common denominator between korbanos and the agricultural mitzvos: they all result in a kiyum (effect/fulfillment) of kavod Hashem. The question is: How?

We tend to think about tzedakah in the framework of kindness, righteousness, and justice - not in the framework of honoring Hashem. This underappreciated aspect of tzedakah is referenced in at least one pasuk: "Honor Hashem with your wealth, and with the first of all your produce" (Mishlei 3:9). Ralbag [5] explains:

"Honor Hashem with your wealth" in the same way as the Torah commands you to give the first of all your produce, seeds, and fruits as gifts to the Kohanim and Leviim for the wondrous benefit of guiding you to recognize that all good things flow from Hashem.

Similarly, Ralbag [6] writes that the purpose of the Mikdash and its korbanos is:

... to guide us to believe in the Existence of God, Lord of all, and that it is proper for Him to be worshiped, for everything is from Him, and therefore we are obligated to honor Him with our wealth; He is of the utmost greatness and glory, and for this reason we make for Him this Mikdash which wondrous in its beauty, artistry, and quality of construction.

Herein lies the connection between the tzedakah-mitzvos of peah, leket, and shichechah, and the purpose of the Mikdash and its korbanos. Mikdash exists for the kavod Hashem, to bring all human beings to the recognition of His Existence, His Malchus (Kingship), and His beneficence which extends to all of His creatures. All of the korbanos and matanos (gifts) we bring to the Mikdash reinforce this recognition. The requirement to give of the fruits of our labor counteracts the kochi v'otzem yadi ("my might and the power of my hand made me this wealth") mentality by prompting us to realize that all of the good we enjoy comes from Hashem, and that "He opens His hand and satisfies the desire of every living thing" (cf. Tehilim 145:16).

However, it is not enough merely to know that Hashem is the Cause of the good. This knowledge must be real to us to the extent that it affects our actions, and compels us to emulate His ways. We were not created to be passive admirers and observers of the Creator, but to be active agents of His Will to do chesed, mishpat, and tzedakah on earth. To praise Hashem for His beneficence and not emulate His ways would be hypocritical, and would constitute a pgam (blemish) in His kavod. By observing these agricultural mitzvos as agents of His will to do chesed, mishat, and tzedakah, we are enhancing His kavod by demonstrating the extent to which the Melech cares for His subjects. By fulfilling the mitzvos of leket, peah, and shichechah, we are demonstrating through our actions that God not only provides for our needs, but He guarantees the provision of the needs of those unfortunate individuals who live on the fringes of society.

This kiyum of kavod Hashem is only complete when both components - Mikdash and tzedakah - are fulfilled in concert with each other. To only discharge our duties vis a vis Mikdash would constitute a recognition of Hashem as ha'Tov ve'ha'Meitiv (the One Who is Good and does good), but the benefit of that recognition would be limited to our own minds, and would not impact the world around us. Likewise, to only fulfill our tzedakah duties would be good insofar as our implementation of chesed, mishpat, and tzedakah in the world are concerned, but our actions would not reflect the recognition that all of the goodness and blessing we enjoy comes from Hashem. The proper framework is only achieved by doing both sets of mitzvos in conjunction with each other, and only then do we achieve the full kiyum of kavod Hashem.

This, I believe, is what the midrash in Toras Kohanim cited by Rashi is getting at. The proper fulfillment of the mitzvos of leket, peah, and shichechah complements the proper fulfillment of the mitzvos of Mikdash and its korbanos. Both sets of mitzvos bring us to an awareness that Hashem is the Cause of all good. The act of giving of tzedakah to the poor produces the same kiyum as building the Mikdash and bringing its korbanos - provided that one is aware of this idea.

In answering our question in his commentary on our pesukim, the Ralbag [7] emphasizes that this idea is especially true in relation to the specific mitzvos associated with Shavuos, namely, the minchas ha'omer (Barley Offering brought after Pesach) and the Shtei ha'Lechem (Two Loaves brought on Shavuos):

This [reminder of leket and peah] came in this place to teach us that for the same reason that Hashem commanded us to offer the Minchas ha'Omer and the Shtei ha'Lechem from the new harvest - namely, to remind us that everything comes from Hashem - He also commanded us to provide benefit from this [harvest] to the poor before it comes into our possession, in order to remind us that this comes from Hashem, and He desired us to provide the poor with their portion and ourselves with the remainder, for everything comes from Him.

Since Shavuos is the Harvest Festival (as will be explained in our next post), the pesukim about Shavuos is the most appropriate place to remind us of this relationship between the agricultural mitzvos and Mikdash, though the idea is pertinent to all moadim and all korbanos in Mikdash year-round.

[1] Rabbeinu Shlomo ben Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary on Vayikra 23:22
[2] Toras Kohanim 13:12
[3] "shichechah" is another mitzvah in the same category as leket and peah. We are required to leave "forgotten" bundles of grain in the field to be claimed by the poor. Since it's in the same family as leket and peah, I'm going to continue to mention it along with them for the remainder of this post, even if all three aren't specified by the meforshim.
[4] Rabbeinu Avraham ibn Ezra (Ibn Ezra), Commentary on Vayikra 19:9
[5] Rabbeinu Levi ben Gershom (Ralbag / Gersonides) Commentary on Sefer Mishlei 3:9

[6] ibid. Commentary on Sefer Shemos 25, ha'toeles ha'shelishi
[7] ibid. Commentary on Sefer Vayikra 23:22

Parashas Bechukosai: Why are Women Worth Less than Men?

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this blog post.

Preface: I struggled with the title of this blog post. I wanted it to be attention-grabbing in the same way as the pesukim themselves are attention-grabbing, but I also wanted a title which will be read in one way by a reactive person (who will likely dismiss it), and in another way by someone who is more open-minded and is willing to investigate before drawing conclusions - since that is one of the major points of this blog post. 

Artwork: Ardent Plea, by Chippy

Parashas Bechukosai: Why are Women Worth Less than Men?

The Facts

The final chapter of Sefer Vayikra begins with the laws of arachim - a type of vow which allows a person to donate the monetary equivalent of the value of one's field, one's house, one's animal, or the value of a human being to the building fund of the Beis ha'Mikdash. 

In the case of a pledged field, house, or animal, the Kohen evaluates the worth of the item on an individual basis. However, when it comes to pledging the value of a human being, the Torah establishes fixed amounts based solely on age and sex. This valuation of human beings doesn't take into account any other qualities: wealth, health, appearance, mental capacity, tribe, or even whether a person is a Jew or a gentile.

The Torah she'bi'Chsav explicitly states the value for each age/sex combination:

The valuation of a male shall be: for someone twenty years to sixty years of age, the valuation shall be fifty silver shekels, of the sacred shekel. If she is female, the valuation shall be thirty shekels. And if from five to twenty years of age, the valuation of a male shall be twenty shekels and of a female ten shekels. And if from one month to five years of age, the valuation shall be five silver shekels; and for a female, the valuation shall be three silver shekels. And if from sixty years and up, if for a male, the valuation shall be fifteen shekels; and for a female, ten shekels (Vayikra 27:3-7)

Here is the same information in the form of a table, incorporating some modifications from Torah she'baal Peh:

The Questions

I presented these facts to some of my students today. As I anticipated, one of them reacted by exclaiming: "WHAT?! HOW CAN THE TORAH SAY THAT MEN ARE WORTH MORE THAN WOMEN? THAT IS INCREDIBLY SEXIST!"  

To this student, and to anyone else who might respond in a likewise fashion, I would say the following: "Clearly, you are bothered by what the Torah says, and you have a legitimate question. Let's see if we can formulate your question in a clearer and more precise fashion."

Thankfully, the Abravanel does an excellent job of articulating the questions. He writes:

1. Why did the Torah establish the values of arachin vows for human beings? It would have been more fitting to entrust [this task] to the Kohen to evaluate each person in accordance with his or her value. For example, there might be a person who is worth 100 [shekels] and another person who isn't even worth 10. Just as the fields, and properties, and animals are evaluated by the Kohen, why aren't people evaluated in the same manner?  

2. Why did the Torah differentiate between the value of a male and the value of a female, seeing as how both of them are human beings, as it is stated, "male and female He created them" (Bereishis 1:27) "and He called their name 'man'" (ibid. 5:4)? In the realm of damages we see, "If the ox shall gore a slave or a maidservant, thirty silver shekels" (Shemos 21:32) - without making a differentiation between male and female. Why is the matter like this in this mitzvah? 

3. Why don't these valuations have a specific and set ratio between the male and the female? Between the ages of 20 and 60 the value of a female is 3/5ths the value of a male. From age 5 to 20 the value of a female is half the value of a male. From one month to 5 years the value of a female is 3/5ths the value of a male. And from 60 years and up the value of a female is 2/3rds the value of a male. It behooves us to investigate why this is the case. 

Let's take a moment to appreciate the difference between my student's initial reaction and the Abravanel's questions. The student was bothered by these facts and immediately jumped to a conclusion that the Torah was being sexist (i.e. discriminating against women out of the belief that they are inferior). In contrast, the Abravanel approached the area with the objective mindset of a scientist, looking for patterns, anomalies, and clues which might lead to deeper insight. This step of formulating the questions is critical. Even if we don't end up finding satisfactory answers, we will still have moved one step forward towards understanding.

An Approach

I would like to present Rav Hirsch's explanation, which answers the Abravanel's questions. His answers might not appeal to everyone, but I believe this is a good example of a valid and fruitful type of approach or method.

Rav Hirsch begins by examining the facts in search of some foothold from which to develop a comprehensive theory. He writes:

The eirech (valuation) of a male in these stages of life is 5, 20, 50, and 15 shekels, respectively. The eirech of a female is 3, 10, 30, and 10 shekels, respectively. These fixed amounts surely were not chosen arbitrarily, without reason. Since they do not take into account the physical, spiritual, moral, and social uniqueness of each nefesh (soul/being), and they vary only according to gender and age, it must be that they represent some common factor that is equal in all the nefashos, and that varies only according to age and gender.

Rav Hirsch's first deduction is a solid one. Unlike other areas of halacha, where we factor in a person's qualities, background, or circumstances, the laws of arachin are only interested in the subject's age and gender. Whatever these numbers represent, they must somehow be tied only to gender and age. Rav Hirsch continues:

Furthermore, since we are dealing here with erkecha nefashos la'Shem, with the national valuation of persons for God and His Sanctuary, it follows that this factor - common to all the nefashos and modified only by age and gender - pertains to the relation of these nefashos to God and to His Sanctuary. If we are not mistaken, then there is no factor that is common to all the nefashos as regards their relation to God and His Sanctuary, and that varies only according to age and gender, other than the task and mission of life that are given to every nefesh. On this basis we can explain the meaning of the numbers given here by Scripture, which rise and fall according to age and gender. 

This is the crux of Rav Hirsch's theory, namely, if we are evaluating eirech nefashos la'Shem ("the value of souls to Hashem"), and if this valuation is determined solely on the basis of age and gender, then these numbers must have something to do with "the task and mission of life that are given to every nefesh" - irrespective of any other personal quality. We will now see how he develops this approach:

Let us compare the numbers fixed for a male, namely, 5, 20, 50, and 15, to the numbers fixed for a female, namely 3, 10, 30, 10. Bear in mind that the full eierch amount for an adult male from the age of 20 to the age of 60 is 50 shekels, whereas the full eirech amount for an adult female is 30 shekels and that both these numbers - 30 and 50 - are 10 times the eirech of an infant girl or boy, whose eirech is 3 or 5. It appears, then, that we are not mistaken in proposing that the key to the whole scale is the numbers 3, 5, and 10. 3 is the signature of the female's life mission; 5 is the signature of the male's life mission; and 10 is a sign of completion and perfection.

Allow me to repeat this last point for emphasis: Rav Hirsch infers that 5 represents man's life mission; 3 represents woman's life mission; 10 signifies completion and perfection. How do these values make any sense? Rav Hirsch explains:

We venture to suggest that the home and the family - man, woman, and child - are represented by the number 3, whereas the society is represented by the number 2, as we often find in the Torah. Accordingly, the family and the society together would be represented by the number 5. The number 3 is the signature of woman's mission, namely, the family and the home, whereas the number 5 is the signature of man's mission, namely, the family and the society.

Rav Hirsch is working with the premise that a woman's life-mission pertains primarily to realm of the home, whereas a man is responsible for his home and his community. The number 3 represents the home, insofar as the smallest family unit is three people (man, woman, and child). I don't know where Rav Hirsch gets the idea from that society is represented by the number 2, but he seems to maintain that this is a recurring theme throughout Torah, and - for the purposes of this blog post - we'll take his word for it. Thus, woman's number is 3 (home) whereas man's number is 5, which is the sum of home (3) + community (2).

Now Rav Hirsch explains how these numbers account for all of the different values at each stage:

The eirech of an infant boy and of an infant girl starts with these two numbers, which signify the mission of man and woman. This eirech remains fixed for them, until they reach a trainable age, at the end of their 5th year.

From the end of the 5th year to the end of the 20th year are the years of training and completion in preparation for their mission. The preparation of the woman is on one level - preparation for the home; and its signature is 10. The preparation of the man is on two levels - preparation for the home and for the society; and its signature is 20. 

From the end of the 20th year to the end of the 60th year are the years of the full attainment of the male and female missions. The signature of this full attainment - as regards the woman's mission - is the product of 10 and 3: 30; whereas as regards the man's mission, it is the product of 10 and 5: 50.

From the end of the 60th year until the end of a person's life are the years of ziknah (old age) - the years of the harvest of life. As regards one's work as an individual, one can look back with satisfaction at the completed edifice of his life. As regards one's work in society, one can look back at least at a substantial contribution to the community. Hence, for the woman, whose work is in the individual realm, the signature of ziknah is a number representing completion: 10; whereas for the man, whose work is in the individual realm and also in the societal realm, the signature of ziknah is a number representing completion, plus partial completion: 10 + 5 = 15.

If one accepts Rav Hirsch's initial interpretation of the key numbers (i.e. 3, 5, and 10), then his interpretation of each of the stages fits quite nicely. To sum it up:

• 1 month to 5 years - pre-training: at this stage, prior to embarking on the preparation for one's life mission, we have the "base value" representing the life-task of each gender: the value of the male (5) and the value of the female (3), without any degree of completion (no 10s)
• 6 to 20 years - training for the mission: since 10 signifies the process of perfection, the woman's value lies in her single track of perfection (i.e. the realm of family) whereas the man's value lies in his dual-track of perfection (i.e. the realm of family and community); therefore, the woman's value at this stage is represented by a single 10, whereas the man's value reflects his dual track, and is a double-10 (i.e. 20). 
• 21 to 60 years - full attainment of mission: the Torah signifies a completed life-task as a product of the number representing completion (10) and the number representing the life-task of that specific gender. Thus, the man's value during this time is 10 x 5 = 50, whereas the woman's is 10 x 3 = 30.
• 61 years and up - the harvest of life: this value reflects what has been accomplished after the prime of one's life; the woman can look back at her contribution as being totally complete; in contrast, the man can only claim total completion in his family life, but only partial completion in the realm of his societal contributions; thus, the woman's value is the number of completion (10) whereas the man's is full completion plus partial completion (10 + 5 = 15).

This answers all three of the Abravanel's questions. 

1. Why did the Torah establish the values and not leave it up to the Kohen? Because the values here signify the life-missions of the age and gender to which the individual belongs - not the particular qualities of that individual, as is the case in the valuation of animals, houses, and land.

2. Why did the Torah differentiate between the valuation of men and women? Because their life-missions lie in different realms: the woman's is in the home, and the man's is in the home and in the community.

3. Why the differing ratios? Because the numbers are significant because of what they represent at each stage of life - not the intrinsic value of each gender. 

Upon hearing Rav Hirsch's explanation, my student said, "But the man is still worth more than the woman!" I responded that Rav Hirsch isn't necessarily learning that the monetary value of the ararchim-vow is an actual appraisal of the worth of the human being in the same way that a price tag indicates the value of the item. Rather, he is learning these arachim-valuations as symbolic - using fixed numbers as symbols to reflect ideas about the respective life-tasks of men and women.

An example of this type of numerical symbolism can be seen in the common Jewish practice of making donations in multiples of 18, which represents the numerical value of חי (chai = life). Imagine if everyone who would have donated $18 would donate $20 instead. From a strictly fiscal standpoint, $20 donations are much better. Nevertheless, people often want the amount they donate to represent something, or to convey a message. Donating $18 might provide less monetary value than donating $20, but it is superior in the message it conveys through the significance of the number 18.

I believe that is how Rav Hirsch regards these arachim-valuations. Yes, it is true that a woman who pledges her eirech will, in fact, be donating less money to the Beis ha'Mikdash than her male counterpart, but I think that it is a mistake to view this as indicative of women being inferior to men. This is especially true considering that this explanation comes from Rav Hirsch, who emphasizes the equality of men and women elsewhere in his Torah commentary.

Guess what? The student who objected ended up saying that she liked Rav Hirsch's explanation, and didn't find it to be sexist. That's great, but even great is the value of the methodology lesson that the student gained: things aren't always as they first appear, and if you take the time to formulate good questions, and approach your analysis in a deliberate and thoughtful manner, perhaps you'll find something you didn't expect.

Afterthought (5/30/19): 

Upon revisiting this post, I thought of another analogy. Women have two X chromosomes in each cell, whereas men have one X and one Y. Imagine if, upon first learning this fact, a student exclaimed, “THAT IS INCREDIBLY SEXIST! Why should a MAN get TWO types of chromosomes and a woman get stuck with just an extra of the same type?” We would all recognize such a question as being immature and misguided – and yet, when a person asks a question like this about the structure of a mitzvah, then it is often treated as a legitimate critique of Torah. 

This double-standard reveals a difference in the way people approach the empirical sciences versus the way they approach the analysis of Torah and mitzvos. This difference can be boiled down to two points: (1) in the sciences, people accept facts as facts, and (2) they recognize that these facts are determined by chochmah (wisdom) – namely, the lawfulness of nature. But when it comes to Torah and mitzvos, (1) people often refuse to even accept the facts as facts, and (2) they attribute the facts to social causes (e.g. “primitive beliefs about the world,” “outdated social norms,” “Old, white, cisgendered rabbis upholding the patriarchy under the guise of religion in order to oppress women and rob them of their power”). 

Ultimately, when analyzing Torah and mitzvos, the question is this: Do you regard the facts of Torah as being authored by the same Creator as the facts of nature? If so, then you should approach them with the same analytical objectivity, letting your investigation be guided by the facts and the nature of the subject matter, unencumbered by preexisting prejudices. If not, then on what basis do you make this distinction? If this latter question cannot be answered, then chances are it stems from some form of emotional prejudice or bias rather than from a genuine analysis of what Torah and mitzvos are.

Davening North and South (2 of 2)

This is the sequel to Davening North and South (1 of 2), which should be read before proceeding.

The Key Question 

In my opinion, the key question is not Question #1: "How does this work?", but Question #2: "Why isn't tefilah sufficient?" 

We maintain that tefilah is effective, and that Hashem does respond to our prayers. "Hashem is close to all who call upon Him, to all who call upon Him in truth" (Tehilim 145:18). There is nothing more that a person can do or should do besides calling upon Hashem, in truth, in accordance with Hilchos Tefilah. 

From this standpoint, our Gemara seems problematic. To suggest that a person who wants chochmah or wealth should modify his tefilah would seem to imply that his tefilah is somehow lacking. After all, if his tefilah were complete and "worthy" in Hashem's eyes (so to speak), why would he need to change anything? 

An Approach

The strength of this question has led me to suggest the following theory: If a person truly understood what tefilah is, and if he related to it in the correct way, then he would have no need for our Gemara's advice. He would find the shemoneh esrei as established by the Anshei Kneses ha'Gedolah to be entirely sufficient and worthy of being favorably accepted by Hashem. 

I realize that this theory means that our Gemara is an anomaly. Most halachos of tefilah apply to all daveners. In contrast, our Gemara is directed at a specific demographic: the rotzeh she'yachkim (one who desires to become wise) and the rotzeh she'yaashir (one who desires to become wealthy). 

You might be thinking, "Doesn't everyone want to become wise or wealthy?" Yes. But that's not the type of person that our Gemara is dealing with. Our Gemara is aimed at a person who is looking for an edge - someone who feels that he has exhausted all of the normal channels, and is searching for some device by which he can get ahead of the game. He wants to be more proactive in his quest for chochmah/wealth, and he is looking for additional ways to guarantee his success. 

This mentality poses a problem when it comes to tefilah. The rotzeh she'yachkim/she'yaashir will not be content with requesting chochmah/wealth by using a "standard tefilah." He'll feel that his regular tefilah isn't an adequate vehicle for obtaining what he desires. Consequently, he will turn elsewhere in pursuit of a "competitive advantage." Instead of placing his security in Hashem, he will place it in basar va'dam (human beings), or kocho v'otzem yado ("his might, and the strength of his own hand"), or avodah zarah (idolatry, superstitious practices, and magical forces). This would undermine one of the fundamental objectives of tefilah, which is to reinforce our bitachon (security) in Hashem. 

This is where our Gemara comes in. Essentially, our Gemara offers a mechanism by which the rotzeh she'yachkim/she'yaashir can satisfy his desire for a competitive edge from within the institution of tefilah. Our Gemara tells him, "Yes! We CAN give you a way to 'hack' the system and become wise/wealthy! All you have to do is turn your face slightly to the south/north when you daven. Just remember that this is where the Menorah/Shulchan in the Beis ha'Mikdash is." 

The Gemara's solution operates on a number of levels. At the very least, its implementation effectively harnesses the the rotzeh she'yachkim's/she'yaashir's need to proactively seek security and ropes it back into the institution of tefilah. If nothing more, it will prevent him from taking security in that which is not Hashem. Even better, it will enhance the kavanah of his tefilah, insofar as he relates to it as a "special" tool for furthering his personal success. At best, it will actually serve as an avenue of intellectual and psychological development which will make him more worthy of hashgachas Hashem, thereby raising his eligibility for his prayers to be answered.

This brings us to the next question: Why north for wealth and south for wisdom? At this point, the most I can offer is speculation. The most straightforward approach is one which is based on the keilim mentioned by R' Yitzchak: the Shulchan and the Menorah. In other words, the siman (mnemonic device) offered by R' Yitzchak isn't simply a way to remember which direction is which, but is a very part of the mechanism itself.

Generally speaking, an explanation along these lines will look something like this: 

• The Shulchan and the Menorah reflect specific ideas having to do with wealth and chochmah, respectively.
• By facing in the direction associated with that kli, the davener will think about that concept during his tefilah. 
• This concept will bring him to a truer understanding of what he seeks, and this understanding will raise him to a higher level. 
• Eventually, his value-system will shift, and he will no longer feel the need to rely on the Gemara's device. Tefilah alone will suffice.

The particulars of this approach will differ, depending on how one understand the significance of those keilim. I'll give an example, just so you can see what a full answer might look like.

• The Shulchan is the place of the Lechem ha'Panim (Show-bread). When the rotzeh she'yaashir faces in the direction associated with the Shulchan, he will contemplate the idea that "not by bread alone does man live, but rather by everything that emanates from the mouth of Hashem does man live" (Devarim 8:3). This will guide him to reflect on the Source of his wealth and the ultimate objective of his wealth, namely, to sustain himself and his family in order to serve Hashem. Over time, the continual contemplation of this idea will affect his relationship to wealth, and the hashgachah will respond accordingly.
  
• Likewise, the Menorah provides light, which represents Torah and chochmah. When the rotzeh she'yachkim faces in the direction associated with the Menorah, he will be guided to reflect on the nature of chochmah, the limits of our chochmah, the purpose of pursuing chochmah, and so on. By "infusing" his tefilah with these ideas, he will gradually transform his relationship to chochmah, and in so doing, will become more worthy of receiving it.

Truth be told, I'm not really interested in exactly how turning northward and southward will lead him to insights about wealth and wisdom. To reiterate the main conceptual move: the aim of the Gemara's advice is not to improve upon a regular tefilah, but to harness and redirect the energies of a particular type of person in a manner most conducive to his personal development. 

It is this conceptual move which allows us to explain the machlokes between R' Yitzchak and R' Yehoshua ben Levi on which direction the rotzeh she'yaashir should face. I can't fully define the machlokes, but I'll describe each side.

R' Yehoshua ben Levi maintains that we ought to guide the rotzeh she'yaashir to the realization that chochmah will make him wealthy. Shlomo ha'Melech emphasizes this point throughout Mishlei and Koheles. For instance: "for to sit in the shadow of wisdom is to sit in the shadow of money" (Koheles 7:11). R' Yehoshua ben Levi argues that if we can draw this guy into the pursuit of chochmah - even as a lo lishmah to obtain wealth - then we ought to go for it. Ideally, this might eventually lead him to become a chacham.

R' Yitzchak agrees with everything that R' Yehoshua ben Levi says about the relationship between chochmah and wealth, but he disagrees with the approach we should take in guiding the rotzeh she'yaashir. Chazal repeatedly warn us that the pursuit of wealth cannot coexist with the pursuit of chochmah. For instance: "R' Yochanan said: '[The Torah] is not across the ocean' (Devarim 30:12) means that Torah is not to be found in merchants and tradesmen" (Eiruvin 55a). Similarly, "[Hillel said:] anyone who is excessively occupied in business will not become wise" (Avos 2:6). While it's true that a chacham will be in a better position to make money, a person who is attracted to wealth is unlikely to succeed in the pursuit of chochmah. For this reason, R' Yitzchak advises him to focus on the pursuit of wealth, since this is more realistic objective for the rotzeh she'yaashir.

In other words, both Amoraim agree that the rotzeh she'yaashir is in need of guidance. The question is: What form should that guidance take? R' Yehoshua ben Levi maintains that we should take this guy's desire for wealth and hitch it onto the chochmah-train as a lo lishmah in hopes that it will eventually make him into a chacham. R' Yitzchak maintains that this approach is overambitious and unrealistic, and that it would be better to allow this guy to pursue wealth independently of chochmah. At least his tefilah will anchor his security in Hashem.

I realize that this approach is half-baked. I still think that the initial move is what opens up the machlokes.

Your Move

That's all I have to say on this sugya for now. As always, your thoughts, questions, and ideas are welcome!