Parashat Shemot: Jewish Language and Clothing
The Weekly Mitzva
Yeshivat Har Etzion
PARASHAT
SHEMOT
Shiur
#13: Jewish Language and Clothing
By Rav
Binyamin Tabory
There is a well-known midrash that Bnei Yisrael merited redemption from
slavery in Egypt for their having retained particular mitzvot and symbols of
Jewish identity. Rav Huna said in
the name of Bar-Kappara (Midrash Vayikra Rabba 32:5) that we did not change our
names or our language, we did not speak lashon ha-ra, and everyone observed the
laws of arayot (forbidden relationships).
Arayot and lashon ha-ra are, needless to say, forbidden by the
Torah. But is there any law
requiring us to speak or familiarize ourselves with lashon ha-kodesh (the holy
language)? The Tosefta (Chagiga I)
says that once a child develops the ability to speak, his father should teach
him Torah and lashon ha-kodesh. If
he does not do so, the Tosefta adds, then "it would have been more appropriate
for him not to have been born." The
Sifrei (Parashat Eikev 11:20) comments that if a father did not do this, he is
considered as having buried his son.
The Sifrei derives this from the Torah's having juxtaposed the mitzva of
teaching children and the reward of long life, implying that if one teaches his
children Torah and lashon ha-kodesh, they will enjoy longevity. However, the converse is also true: if a
father does not do so, their days will be shortened.
Although the Rambam does not codify in Mishneh Torah the obligation to
speak lashon ha-kodesh, elsewhere he states explicitly that indeed such a mitzva
exists. The Mishna (Avot 2:1)
instructs us to be as meticulous concerning "easy" mitzvot as we are with
"difficult" mitzvot. The Rambam, in
his commentary on the Mishna, portrays the study of lashon ha-kodesh as an
example of an "easy" mitzva. If,
indeed, studying lashon ha-kodesh constitutes a mitzva, why does the Rambam make
no mention of it in his Mishneh Torah?
Let us first inquire as to whether this mitzva of studying and speaking
lashon ha-kodesh is an independent mitzva, or is merely a prerequisite to the
mitzva of learning Torah. The
Sifrei and the Midrash cited the mitzva of learning Torah together with the
requirement of teaching lashon ha-kodesh. And the Yerushalmi (Sukka, end of
chapter 3) formulates the halakha as follows: "Once a child can speak, his
father should teach him LASHON HA-TORAH."
These sources might imply a strong relationship between the study of
lashon ha-kodesh and Torah learning, namely, that the former serves to help
facilitate the latter, and does not stand on its own as an independent
mitzva.
Rav Yaakov Emden was asked if it is permissible to study Hebrew grammar
in the bathroom. He thought that
this was forbidden, given that the only proper way to study Hebrew grammar is
through the study of biblical grammar.
Consequently, one who studies grammar will inevitably be reminded of
sections of Tanakh. Since the study
of Tanakh is forbidden in the bathroom, we must also forbid the study of Hebrew
grammar. Rav Y. Gershuni
pointed out that if the study of lashon ha-kodesh were an independent mitzva,
then it would be intrinsically forbidden in the bathroom. Since Rav Yaakov Emden forbade it only
due to the inevitability of studying Tanakh, he apparently felt that learning
lashon ha-kodesh is only a prerequisite to Torah study.
We may, therefore, suggest that the Rambam felt that although there is a
mitzva of studying and speaking lashon ha-kodesh, it need not be mentioned in
Mishneh Torah, as it is merely a "hekhsher mitzva" (a prerequisite to the
performance of a mitzva). Indeed,
true study of the Torah also involves the study of lashon ha-kodesh, which
enables one to understand the Torah more fully.
The Torah Temimah (Devarim 11:19) mentions that he wrote an extensive
treatise entitled "Safa Le-ne'emanim" about this mitzva. In this essay, he raised the question as
to why no codifiers mention the requirement to speak lashon ha-kodesh. He suggested that perhaps the mitzva
applies only in the land of Israel, whereas in the Diaspora, it would be
impossible to fulfill for many reasons.
Despite this rationale, he was not satisfied and tried to suggest another
reason for its omission.
In our world today, when so much of Torah literature is available in
translation, one might wonder how important it is to study lashon
ha-kodesh. In truth, however,
besides the fact that much of Torah has not been translated, it is obviously
better to study Torah in the original.
The nuances and style of language are lost in translation. Le-havdil (to separate the holy from the
secular), if one reads Shakespeare in translation, does he get the full meaning
and depth of that literature?
Let us now turn our attention to the issue of clothing. Although many people instinctively
"quote" a midrash that Bnei Yisrael did not change their names, language or
style of clothing, S. Buber observes that there is no midrashic source regarding
clothing (footnote to Pesikta D'Rav Kahana 10:3). The Ritva (in his commentary to the
Hagada), though, apparently knew of such a midrash and explains it to mean that
Benei Yisrael wore tzitzit and were thus immediately recognized as Jews by their
special garments. The Kol Bo
(commenting on the Hagada's remark that Bnei Yisrael were "metzuyanim" –
"exceptional") writes that Benei Yisrael's unique clothing prevented
assimilation. Interestingly, Moshe
Rabbeinu himself seems not to have observed this custom. As we read in this parasha, when Moshe
arrives in Midyan, he does not identify himself, and when Yitro asks his
daughters who assisted them, they answer that it was an Egyptian. Apparently, he did not wear any special
garb that would identify him as a Jew.
Is this issue only a question of custom and Jewish identity, or is it
mandated by Halakha?
The Rambam (Hilkhot Avoda Zara 11:1) codifies a prohibition against
following the laws of gentiles, forbidding us from imitating their dress or
hairstyle. A Jew should be
recognizable by his clothes and distinguishable from gentiles through his mode
of dress. However, the Yereim (313
R 88) writes that it is forbidden merely to resemble the seven nations which
inhabited Israel, and to conduct ourselves like the Egyptians. Moreover, the Meiri (Avoda Zara 52b)
limits the prohibition to dressing or coifing oneself in a style resembling an
avoda zara. The Rama (Shulchan
Arukh, Y.D. 178) rules that clothing similar to non-Jewish style is only
forbidden if it would lead to immoral behavior. He also forbade wearing clothes that
were worn as part of special customs which had no objective value. Any clothing used for specific purposes
(such as clothing identifying doctors) is permitted.
Whether or not there is a halakhic imperative for Jews to distinguish
themselves in their dress, the popular "midrash" implies that it is certainly a
positive value. In fact, the
prophet Tzefanya said, "It shall happen on the day of the sacrifice that I will
remember (punish) the officers and princes and all those who dress themselves in
gentile garb" (Tzefanya
1:8).