Shaving One's Hair: Purification and Reconnection

Shaving One’s Hair—Purification and Reconnection

R. Yaakov Bieler

Parshat Metzora

5765

When the unfortunate individual smitten with “Tzora’at” (the affliction described in Parshiot Tazria and Metzora affecting people, clothing, furniture and houses, that results in first quarantine and then either destruction of inanimate objects or ostracism from the encampment for the duration of the condition for human beings), is finally declared ritually pure, one of the more curious prerequisites by which the individual ends his/her exile and rejoins the community is the shaving (as opposed to natural loss via old-age or illness) of body hair.

(VaYikra 14:8-9) “And the one that is to be cleansed will wash his/her clothes, AND SHAVE OFF ALL OF HIS/HER HAIR, and bathe him/herself in water, and s/he shall be clean; after that s/he may come into the camp, but shall dwell outside his tent for seven days. And it shall be on the seventh day, s/he shall SHAVE off his/her head and his/-- beard (1) and his/her eyebrows, even all his/her hair s/he shall SHAVE off; and s/he shall wash his/her clothes, and s/he shall bathe his flesh in water, and s/he shall be clean.”

The recognition that the removal of a good deal of body hair (2) is not exclusively a function of someone recovering from a spiritual/physical disease, (3) but may have broader positive symbolic significance is raised when a Levi being sanctified for community service has to undergo similar removal of hair..

(BaMidbar 8:7) “And this you will do unto them to cleanse them: sprinkle the water of purification upon them, and let them cause a RAZOR TO PASS OVER ALL OF THEIR FLESH, and let them wash their clothes and cleanse themselves.”

R. Shimshon Raphael Hirsch, in more of an essay than commentary at the conclusion of VaYikra 13, in addition to demonstrating that “Tzora’at” ought not to be identified with leprosy, and what the various stages of the disease may signify, attempts to offer an approach that would account for these two contexts of a requirement to remove one’s hair prior to attaining a new status, either reentering the community from which one has been previously banished (the “Metzora”), or being accorded a new public role within the communal structure of the Jewish people (the Levi).

R. Hirsch understands Devarim 24:8-9 as serving as the jumping off point for reflecting upon the significance of the “Tzora’at” phenomenon as a whole.

“Take heed in the plague of ‘Tzora’at’ and observe diligently and do according to all that the Kohanim, the Levi’im teach you, as I have commanded them, you shall observe to do. Remember what the Lord your God did to Miriam on the way, during your exodus from Egypt.”

Although the story of Miriam’s slandering Moshe in BaMidbar 12 could be understood as an isolated incident, whereby an individual on a high spiritual level is subject to a relatively extreme (4) Heavenly Rebuke for engaging in an ostensibly petty attack on her younger brother, (5) the recalling of the incident in Devarim in stark association with ALL occurrences of “Tzora’at”, serves to universalize what Miriam does and what happens to her as a result of her actions. The Tora requires us to conclude that whether the victim of “Tzora’at” be important or of minor significance in terms of his/her spiritual standing and communal accomplishments, certain actions will result in conditions that can affect not only one’s property, (6) but also his/her person to the point where social banishment will result for as long as the condition is not declared cured by a Kohen. R. Hirsch summarizes the primary sources of Jewish tradition in which the causes of “Tzora’at” are enumerated:

Arachin 16a—Seven sins bring about “Tzora’at”:

1) “Lashon HaRa” (speaking badly about another, even if the report is accurate)

2) “Shefichut Damim” (the spilling of blood) (7)

3) “Shevuat Shav” (an oath that is needless)

4) “Gilui Arayot” (sexual impropriety)

5) “Gasut HaRuach” (arrogance, crudity)

6) “Gezel” (thievery)

7) “Tzorat HaAyin” (cupidity, unkind selfishness)

Arachin 16b—The “Metzora” causes separation between man and wife, friend and friend. Therefore it is only proper that a separation be imposed upon him and the community in general.

His sin offering includes a bird (8) because he was guilty of “chattering” like a bird.

VaYikra Rabba 16:1—Eight evil character traits and actions are causes for “Tzora’at”:

1) “Einayim Ramot” (lit. proud eyes; arrogance)

2) “Lashon Sheker” (lit. a lying tongue; lies)

3) “VeYadayim Shofchot Dam Naki” (hands that spill innocent blood)

4) “Lev Choresh Machshevet Avon” (a heart that constantly is considering iniquity)

5) “Raglayim Memaharot LaRutz LaRa’a” (feet that are rushing off to do evil (9)

6) “Mishloach Madanim Bein Achim” (intentionally aims to cause discord among brothers)

7) “Yafiach Kezavim” (spreads falsehoods)

8) “Eid Sheker” (false witness)

VaYikra Rabba 16:6—The “Metzora” transgresses the prohibition of “Motzee Shem Ra” (casting false aspersions on another). (10) (The Midrash is engaging in word play, breaking up the word “Metzora” into “Motzee” and “Ra”.)

R. Hirsch contends that already during quarantine, (11) the preliminary stage that precedes permanent exile, the afflicted individual has time to reflect upon the types of anti-social and destructive behavior in which s/he may have been engaging, specifically because he has been totally deprived of the opportunity to interact with others and thereby be tempted to once again engage in sinful behavior.

And indeed, the enforced loneliness of the isolating “Hasger” weeks may well be suited for exercising a most beneficial influence and bring the culprit to a serious contemplation and examination of how he has hitherto behaved in word, feelings and acts in his social contact with his fellow men from whom he is now separated, and so induce him towards a serious change in his attitude and feelings towards them, and to seriously make up his mind to improve, and so to emerge from this preliminary testing period already in a ‘pure’ state. (12)

But why should a person who lacks social graces and empathy for his/her fellow be beset specifically by diseases of skin and hair, as opposed to some other sort of calamity or personal setback? The commentator offers the following almost metaphysical hypothesis: The skin is the aspect of the body by which an individual senses everything in existence outside of him/herself, e.g., we recognize textures by means of our tactile sense, environmental temperature as well as humidity and precipitation are detected by our skin’s reaction to meteorological conditions, threats to our physical wellbeing are sensed when we experience pain as a result of a blow or corrosive material, etc. What applies physiologically to the skin can also be understood metaphorically. We are the poorer when we are not open to that which takes place around us, and rather than watch and value others as exemplars of “Middot” (ethical attributes) and humane behavior, reflect self-absorption resulting in general insensitivity to others. Not only should we constantly try to learn from the positive examples of those who inhabit our surroundings, but it is also important that we be positive pro-active contributors and models for general society and our fellow human beings. Consequently, should our skin become tainted as a result of Divine Fiat, it constitutes an objective message to us that there is a “moral unhealthiness” in the manner by which we are comprehending and relating to the outside world. If we have been contributing only strife, contention, and pettiness in our interactions with those around us, engaging in the types of behaviors listed above in the four primary sources summarizing what engenders “Tzora’at”, as opposed to the Heavenly Preference for our relating to others by means of goodness, ethical behavior, and truth and justice, then the intermediary between the individual and the outside world, the skin, will be supernaturally afflicted leading to social ostracism until such time as a significant attitude change for the better takes place.

This brings R. Hirsch to human hair: its own contamination by “Tzora’at” (13) and the need to remove bodily hair when one reaches the point of ritual purification. In the commentator’s view, hair is essentially a protective cover extending from the individual, that rather than sensing and processing the stimuli from the outside world, as does the skin, instead serves as a manifestation of one’s internal reality, as well as a barrier between a person’s external environment and his internal identity. Hair insulates the skin against the cold, and mitigates the pain of a blow that would otherwise land upon an unprotected patch of skin. This approach can also be applied to the Nazirite (BaMidbar 6:5) whose requirement to grow his hair long is a symbol of his withdrawal from the world. And he too at the end of his “Nezirut” shaves his head (Ibid., 6:18) to signify his reentry into an interactive community.

Developing the analogy further to reflect the interaction between skin and hair in terms of how we learn and grow, it could be easily demonstrated that an individual’s values and beliefs can be understood to be made up of a confluence of inside and outside influences, “nurture” vs. “nature”. On the one hand, it is possible that outside trends, general culture and the people that represent them are inspiring and affirming. In such a case, it is important to be significantly open to such influences in order to actualize one’s potential in accordance with the models and stimulating positive ideas that inhabit the outside world = “healthy skin”. However, there are also times when one is required to mount defenses by asserting closely held personal values and beliefs contrary to prevailing social mores that will protect him/her from destructive assumptions and outlooks that happen to be informing general civilization = “healthy hair”. Typically, each person is confronted from without with a mixture of ideas and principles, both good and bad, and must determine how to sort through them, which to accept and internalize, and which to reject and immunize oneself against; where must the individual follow his/her personal instincts and sensibilities, and where must s/he defer to the conceptualizations and attitudes that are abroad.

Now transporting this idea of hair from the physiological to the psychic sphere, the spreading of the ‘Nega’ into the hair would express the idea that not only good and true impressions are lacking, but that positively bad ones which should be kept away, are finding entrance. (14)

Instead of the individual asserting his own understandings of propriety in the face of what is taking place in general society, sometimes his/her own self-expression, as manifested in hair, further supports evil and negativity. Apparently, social influences have been internalized to such an extent, that the individual now becomes a representative of the very mindset that s/he should have vigorously opposed. Since s/he demonstrates belief in the assumptions of the world that he should have been quick to reject, hair is no longer a barrier, but rather a statement of acceptance, assimilation and readiness to participate in society’s negative trends and behaviors. Consequently, just as these questionable personal values have to be altered for the good so that the “Tzora’at” can be cured, the hair that represented the individual’s past commitment to such negative values, must also be completely sheered off as part of this process.

To completely strip a body of all hair, would be to expose it naked to all of the influences of the outer world, would be well suited to awaken thoughts of removing isolating selfishness…the giving up of the unlawful selfish life with its lack of consideration for his fellowmen has to brought to his mind by the representative of the Sanctuary of the Tora, by a Kohen. (15) (16)

Although the absence of present day cases of “Tzora’at” (17) render the Tora’s description and R. Hirsch’s interpretation of the phenomena and its antidote moot and theoretical at best, it seems to me that this is not the case with respect to the dedication of the Levi and his need to remove his hair, described in BaMidbar 8:7.

…completely shaving all over is meant to impress the mind with giving up all isolating selfishness…If then this complete shaving … brought home in the minds of the Levi’im in the most impressive manner the complete cessation of any hitherto living for themselves, and a complete giving up their whole lives to the service of the community, it is easily understood how such a stripping of the “man of action” from all belonging to himself, such placing his person in the service of national purposes demonstrated the entry of the man of action into the realm of moral freedom in the most positive manner… (18).

According to R. Hirsch, the “Metzora” and the as yet undedicated Levi—or anyone else who has not undertaken serious communal responsibility—share a preoccupation with self and a lack of concern with those outside of their immediate respective circles. Of course, the “Metzora” has crossed the line, and in addition to thinking primarily of him/herself, s/he has acted immorally and cruelly to others. However, the difference between him/her and the Levi could be one of degree rather than kind, and if the Levi is left to his own devices, he could very well end up not only with similar attitudes, but even guilty of similar transgressions towards his non-Levi co-religionists. Nadav and Avihu, Levi’im of high standing, are castigated in Pesikta D’Rav Kahana 26:9 for, among other things, not marrying because they felt that all of the women that they knew were beneath them in terms of status. (19) Consequently, preoccupation with self must radically end for the communal servant, and the removal of the hair barrier symbolizes such a transformation in attitude.

Ironically, we often advise those who engage in communal work that a necessity for not “burning out” is a “thick skin”, i.e., the readiness to refuse to take to heart at least some of the unkind things that members of the community that one is serving may say when they are unable to get their way. It would appear to be good advice, particularly in light of the myriad anecdotes that can be given demonstrating how difficult it is to try to please a demanding group of passionate individuals. Furthermore, providing such services to the community at large may require one to pay less attention to one’s own interests as well as those of his/her family and friends. Yet, R. Hirsch cautions us by means of his symbolic explanation of both the removal of the “Metzora”’s hair as well as the hair of the Levi and the resulting exposure of their total selves to the community and its needs. It appears that there is no choice other than heightening our vulnerability to the slings and arrows of those that we are trying most to help and guide, while an overly developed concern to protect our own aspirations and responsibilities, could ultimate stand in our way and prevent us from truly achieving the ideal of (Avot 6:6) “Noseh B’Ohl Im Chaveiro” (sharing the burden of what one’s fellow has to bear).

Shabbat Shalom, and let us expose our “skins” and our hearts to our fellow in need, make his/her concerns ours, and contribute to peace and perfection throughout our community.

(1) VaYikra 13:29, 38 state that “Tzora’at” can equally affect both men and women. Furthermore, the paradigm for the association between “Tzora’at” and “Lashon HaRa” (evil speech) is Miriam in BaMidbar 12. Consequently, if the Tora includes the shaving of the BEARD among the parts of the body where hair must be removed at the time of the purification of the “Metzora”, it is assumed that rather than being a term intended to exclude women from not only this process, but perhaps the entire category of “Tzora’at”, the word is simply an example, and will come into play only when referring to a specific gender and his purification.

(2) According to RaShI on 14:9, the requirement to shave off body hair applies only to collections of hair (as opposed to random hairs here and there) that are ordinarily visible (as opposed to hair that might grow within various bodily orifices).

(3) “Tzora’at” appears to be a physical phenomenon that has spiritual roots. It most approximates psychosomatic phenomena that are also reflected in Yaakov’s limp after struggling with what according to “ChaZaL” was an angel, and the “Sota”’s dying after drinking the bitter waters in the event that she had indeed been unfaithful to her husband and was intimate with the man who her husband has suspected.

(4) Nadav and Avihu did die after all when they were judged to be in violation with God’s Standards, so Miriam merely getting “Tzora’at” for seven days is certainly a lesser form of censure.

(5) For a different treatment of Miriam’s transgression, see www.kmsynagogue.org/KiTetze1.html

(6) Tzora’at affecting clothing and furniture: VaYikra 13:47 ff.; affecting homes: Ibid., 14:34 ff..

(7) While a literal understanding of this phrase connotes murder, the term is also used metaphorically to apply to embarrassing someone in public, making him/her blush, and consequently causing blood to leave one part of the body and concentrate in another.

(8) See VaYikra 14:4 ff. .

(9) R. Hirsch notes that the Midrash calls attention to specific parts of the sinner’s body, i.e., his/her eyes, tongue, hands, heart, feet, and contends that they are being utilized for bad rather than good.

(10) The paradigm of Motzee Shem Ra with regard to a “Chatan” saying about his wife that she has been unfaithful to him during the period of “Eirusin”—see Devarim 22:13-19..

(11) e.g., VaYikra 13:26..

(12) The Pentateuch translated and explained by R. S.R. Hirsch, Vol. 3 Leviticus, Part 1, Judaica Press, Gateshead, England, 1976, p. 362.

(13) VaYikra 13:29 ff.

(14) Hirsch p. 363.

(15) Hirsch p. 374.

(16) The derivation for requiring a Kohen to do the shaving of the Metzora appears in Sifra Metzora, Parsha 1; Yalkut Shimoni, Parshat Metzora #559: From where do we know that the slaughter of the birds and the sprinkling of the blood of the bird and his shaving should be carried out by a Kohen? The Tora teaches, (VaYikra 14:2) “This is the law of the ‘Metzora’ on the day of his/her purification, and s/he will be brought to the KOHEN.”

(17) Based upon RaMBaM’s comment in Mishna Tora, Hilchot Teruma 7:9 that a “Kohen Meyuchas” (a Kohen whose lineage can be traced all the way back to Aharon HaKohen) is required to declare a “Metzora” ritually pure, RaDVaZ contends that since we have no such Kohen among us, therefore the Parsha of “Metzora” cannot be in presently in effect.

(18) Hirsch, Vol. 4, Numbers, p. 129.

(19) See www.kmsynagogue.org/Tetzave.html for further development of this theme.