When I was very young, back when kids had to use VHS cassette takes to watch movies, there was a straight-to-video Mickey Mouse cartoon that I loved to watch. Little did I know that it was largely based on a children's book by none other than Mark Twain, entitled, The Prince and the Pauper. The story is about a fictionalized version of the Prince of Wales, Edward VI, heir to the throne of King Henry VIII. Historically, he took over the throne from his father at a young age, instituting major religious reforms in 16th century England, until his premature death at age 15. In the book, however, he is presented as a hero who learns of the injustices perpetrated against the poor and his ignorance of it by switching places with a poor boy named Tom.
Tom wanders his way into accidentally meeting Prince Edward, who notices that they look remarkably similar, aside from his royal garments and Tom's tattered clothes. The prince proposes that they switch outfits, at which point he immediately experiences how the working class is treated, as less than, as subject to ridicule, and as undeserving of trust or dignity. Meanwhile, Tom is groomed to be King Henry's successor and is almost crowned king of England until he helps Edward convince the court that they have switched places and that he is the true heir to the throne. Once Edward returns to his rightful place, he declares his intent to implement fairer treatment of the poor and installs Tom as his ward, forever after being protected as a member of the royal class. This notion of switching places, of transferring a special status from one to another, is addressed by a מצוה we read about this morning.
After the תוכחה, after the blessings and curses that G-d tells the Jewish People will apply to them depending on their behavior, the תורה ends ספר ויקרא with a series of rules about certain sanctified items. Among these Temple-related topics is the idea of transferring sanctity of tithes, particularly מעשר שני and מעשר בהמה. The תורה says that one can choose to sanctify land or other property, thus making it the property of the Temple treasury. If you want to have the land back, you have to pay, to the Temple treasury, the value of the land plus an additional 25%. Similarly, if you sanctified a non-kosher animal, you can pay the value of the animal plus 25% to redeem it. And finally, you can even redeem a tithe at the same rate:
וְאִם־גָּאֹל יִגְאַל אִישׁ מִמַּעַשְׂרוֹ חֲמִשִׁיתוֹ יֹסֵף עָלָיו׃
If anyone wishes to redeem any of his tithes, he must add one-fifth to them.
Specifically, the תורה is referring to a tithe that is separated from a farmer's produce after already setting aside תרומה for a כהן and a first tithe, מעשר ראשון, for the Levite. This מעשר שני, which is required during the first, second, fourth, and fifth years of a שמיטה cycle, can be consumed by the farmer but must be eaten only in Jerusalem. The תלמוד explains that תורה here gives permission to transfer the sanctity of that tithe onto money, at the value of the מעשר שני plus 25%, and to bring that money to Jerusalem to buy food and consume it there. While this costs extra, it makes the burden of consuming so much sanctified food in Jerusalem easier for those who don't live close by to ירושלים. However, this idea of transferring sanctity is limited. The תורה twice tells us that while sanctity of certain things can be transferred to money, the same is not true regarding moving sanctity between one animal and another:
לֹא יַחֲלִיפֶנּוּ וְלֹא־יָמִיר אֹתוֹ טוֹב בְּרָע אוֹ־רַע בְּטוֹב וְאִם־הָמֵר יָמִיר בְּהֵמָה בִּבְהֵמָה וְהָיָה־הוּא וּתְמוּרָתוֹ יִהְיֶה־קֹּדֶשׁ׃
One may not exchange or substitute another for it, either good for bad, or bad for good; if one does substitute one animal for another, the thing vowed and its substitute shall both be holy.
If you vow to bring a certain animal as a קרבן, you can't switch that animal for another, even if the second animal is of higher value. Not only is the sanctity not removed from the original animal, but the second animal becomes sanctified too. Moreover, says the תורה, this rule applies to another type of tithe called מעשר בהמה. Unlike humans and some other species, which may mate and give birth at any time of the year, kosher animals have mating and birthing seasons during specific months. When the birthing season is over, there is a מצוה for the farmer to count their newborn animals one at a time and to designate the tenth of each group of ten as sanctified for מעשר בהמה, which will be brought as a קרבן and consumed in Jerusalem, just like מעשה שני. However, here, too, there is no way to redeem or transfer the sanctity of the מעשר בהמה animals:
לֹא יְבַקֵּר בֵּין־טוֹב לָרַע וְלֹא יְמִירֶנּוּ וְאִם־הָמֵר יְמִירֶנּוּ וְהָיָה־הוּא וּתְמוּרָתוֹ יִהְיֶה־קֹּדֶשׁ לֹא יִגָּאֵל׃
He must not distinguish between good and bad, or make substitution for it. If he does make substitution for it, then it and its substitute shall both be holy: it cannot be redeemed.
Again, you're not allowed to take animals that end up being the tenth and switch places, even if the new one is of higher value. Again, both animals, the old and new, will be considered sanctified. Why can't the sanctity of animals be transferred to money or other animals, like the sanctity of מעשר שני or other קדשי בדק הבית, things sanctified as belonging to the בית הקמדש? And what message is being conveyed by these rules?
The רמב״ם in הלכות תמורה, about these rules, acknowledges, as we should, that the laws of sacrifices and sanctity, in general, should be viewed as חוקים, as laws that have inscrutable meaning. Nonetheless, he says, it is valuable for us to try to derive lessons from these laws when we can, to understand some of the inner logic. The רמב״ם explains that the laws of תמורה are actually motivated by the same logic as the laws of מעשר שני. הקב״ה does not like it when we try to transfer sanctity because it displays regret in donating or sanctifying our property. Therefore, the תורה created fines to discourage us from doing that. In the case of מעשר שני and sanctified land or property, the תורה merely instituted a 25% monetary fine for transferring sanctity. In the case of animals that are designated for קרבנות, the תורה simply chose a different strategy, to make the transfer from the original animal fail and yet to add sanctity to the new animal. These rules penalize people who try to take back their donations and will encourage people to be very discerning when they are מקדיש, sanctify, animals or property. According to this view, there is nothing worse about switching animals than about redeeming other הקדש – the תורה simply uses different means to prevent both.
Rav Amnon Bazak argues that the fact that the תורה doesn't allow any substitution, even of an animal of higher value, represents a difference between our ownership of produce and other items, as opposed to animals. Concerning מעשר שני, to produce in which the farmer invested money and time to plow, till, plant, and water the land, he has the right to transfer the sanctity to money, albeit at an additional cost of 25%. But the birth of animals is mostly out of human control – it depends much more on nature and on the role and will of G-d. Therefore, says Rav Bazak, we have the prohibition of תמורה, not redeeming or transferring the sanctity of animals meant to be קרבנות, to make this distinction.
The חפץ חיים and הכתב והקבלה take a different approach. The problem is not that transferring sanctity represents a type of greed toward the Temple or unjustified ownership over the animals but rather disrespect toward the sanctified animal. To take a holy animal and try to transfer its sanctity to another animal shows a lack of respect for the uniqueness of the original קרבן.
Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch explains that doing this shows that you think of the קרבן as merely a means to an end, that G-d just wants flesh of some kind and it doesn't matter which animal is offered. But as opposed to produce or land, קרבנות are not just sanctified meat – they are meant to represent us, to stand in our place and provide atonement where our own bodies should have been. The רמב״ן explains that קרבנות motivate us to change by showing us that the sheep or goat or bull being offered, which has blood of similar color and many of the same organs, is physically no different from us. We are unique only concerning the extent to which we sanctify our behavior and personality, that we make ourselves better than animals. From a strict justice perspective, if we do not rise about our animal, instinctive behavior, we should have the same fate as the קרבנות.
For someone to think that they can merely exchange one animal for another, ignoring the important message invested in the original designated animal, is to misunderstand the notion of קרבנות altogether. Based on this idea, the חפץ חיים suggested that the number of lashes depends not on the number of new animals one tries to sanctify from an original קרבן but rather on the number of קרבנות that one is abusing to transfer their sanctity.
The idea that one קרבן, which represents a unique personality, a specific message with a specific sanctity, cannot be exchanged is extremely important. I've long struggled to understand our priority in Jewish education. Is our goal to have as many people coming to shul and davening and doing מצוות as possible, regardless of the quality of their learning, and even at the expense of those at the margins? Do we prioritize numbers in the community over substance and the unique needs of some individuals? Or should we focus more on giving every Jewish child the most thorough and substantive education we can, even if that risks exposing them to the temptations and theological questions that that entails? This understanding of תמורה implies that we must not see each person as interchangeable, that we have to think about each individual, and not only the community as a mass.
But Rav Moshe Feinstein and Rabbi Ephraim Meth offer another perspective on תמורה. Perhaps the greatest violation of trying to transfer sanctity is not just the disrespect to the originally sanctified animal but the disrespect to the one that you are trying to sanctify in its place. It represents a failure of imagination in the possibilities of sanctity. Why should קדושה, holiness, be restricted to only one animal, such that if one is invested with קדושה, another must be made חולין, profane? Why does it have to be a zero-sum game? Says Rav Moshe, this is aligned with משה's assertion to יהושע:
וּמִי יִתֵּן כָּל־עַם ה׳ נְבִיאִים כִּי־יִתֵּן ה׳ אֶת־רוּחוֹ עֲלֵיהֶם׃
"If only all Hashem's people were prophets, if only Hashem would put His spirit upon them!"
We have a responsibility to see holiness in every Jew, to believe that no matter where a person is on their journey, they have value that adds to our community and that they deserve our love and investment. They deserve to be counted, to be included, to be given responsibility, to be considered holy, and to be mourned upon passing.
Mark Twain begins The Prince and the Pauper with a quote from Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice:
"The quality of mercy…is twice blest;
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes:
'Tis mightiest in the mightiest: it becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown;
Compassion, says Portia to Shylock, does not weaken the giver but rather strengthens both the giver and the receiver. That is what Prince Edward learns from his תמורה with Tom. תמורה teaches us that the same is true of קדושה, of holiness. Nothing is lost from us in affording sanctity and dignity to more people, to Jews who may not yet, or ever, be the same as us.
A rabbi I once admired recently expressed that ארץ ישראל is only for those who already observe תורה and מצוות, that those who don't keep every jot and tittle of the תורה deserve any suffering they get. The מצוה of תמורה, says Rav Moshe, refutes this zero-sum perspective, the idea that only some of us have sanctity and that those who are שומר תורה ומצוות lose something if we afford dignity and sanctity to those who do not. No - קדושה can spread, can belong to all of us. And we must, as a community, make sure that every single Jew, no matter where they are and what they do or don't do, understands that.
No comments:
Post a Comment