Of Fires, Faces and Fields. Knowing Our Outer Limits: Aharei Mot-Kedoshim

(Vayikra/Leviticus 16:1-2)

(Vayikra/Leviticus 19:9)

(Vayikra/Leviticus 19:27)

Parshiot Aharei Mot and Kedoshim are usually paired together as a single Torah reading. They are temporarily separated during leap years when four additional Shabbats make it necessary to uncouple those parshiot (Vayakhel/Pekudei; Tazria/Metzora; Aharei Mot/Kedoshim and Behar/Behukotai).

Aharei Mot and Kedoshim offer a rich mélange of laws and statutes with a generous mashup of the Ten Commandments woven in. Included are agricultural laws, prohibitions against sexual deviancy, ethical laws, laws governing priestly conduct in the Sanctuary, and laws that defy logic which are referred to as   חוקים  huqqim.

Perhaps the most mysterious of the huqqim is that of the Se’ir l’Azazel, the hapless scapegoat which, on Yom Kippur, is carried out to the desert and cast over a cliff.

The Sages and commentators would have us believe that Azazel is merely a geographic location. To recognize Azazel as some devil or deity might raise too many questions, and serve no useful purpose.

Another of these obscure laws is the one described in Vayikra/Leviticus 19:27.

The phenomenon of long peyot/peyes that are a feature of hasidim and other demonstratively devout Jews is rooted in this verse.  Attempts to explain this requirement have been made, arguing that a tonsured skull or beardless face is the preferred style of adherents to other faiths. Yet as far as I can tell it is primarily Roman Catholic monks who have a tradition of tonsured hairstyles, and the Torah preceded their advent by some 1500 years.

If anything, it could be argued that featuring a distinct tonsorial style, however unique, might indeed be an emulation of other faiths that require distinct hairstyles at least for their priests (shaved Asian monks, tonsured Catholic monks, all manner of exotic hairdos among African and South American shamans and, historically, among Native Americans).

By contrast, 18 verses earlier, (Vayikra/Leviticus 19:9) the Torah’s prohibition against harvesting the corner of a field – פאה  peyah  –  would seem perfectly logical. We are required to leave part of our agricultural yield for the poor. Here, too, the designated section (of the agricultural field rather than the human head) goes by the same name – פאה  .

But why davka the corners of the field? Why not mandate that a certain percentage of each field should remain unharvested; and to make things easier for the poor, that this section be the most accessible from the road? Of what benefit is it to the poor to have to walk around an entire field when it would be so much easier to allocate the most accessible parcel of land?

Hence, while the charitable aspect of agricultural פאה Peyah certainly makes sense. The specific allocation of the outer corners of a field must surely convey a separate message – one that is directed to the farmer himself.

With this in mind, perhaps it is worth investigating any possible connection between the  פאה peyah of the field and that of a Jew’s head.

To do so, let us first go back to the opening two verses of parshat Aharei Mot (Vayikra/Leviticus 16: 1-2):

The opening verse of Aharei Mot is not there merely to state a historical/chronological fact. It is very much connected to what follows it, where God ordains limitations on the movement and conduct of Aharon and the kohanim in the Sanctuary.

We are given to understand that the reason for the fiery deaths of Nadav and Avihu was because they had breached the boundaries. Indeed, Divinely imposed boundaries and limitations are a defining feature of Torah law, and of much if not all of the laws in this week’s parshiyot.

Unfettered movement of a kohen; a farmer’s outright ownership of his field and harvest; an individual’s freedom to control his outward appearance; these are all part of a singular concept, one of imposed limitation. They are all reminders that we do not have absolute freedom. Whether our vocation is the priesthood or farming, or just a preference for being left alone to manage our hairstyle as we see fit, the Torah says “not quite”. Indeed, in every aspect of life – the spiritual (kehuna), the vocational (farming), the personal, we are free, but only up to a point. In each instance there is a designated limitation to remind us that … there are limits.

***

(You may also be interested in my past essay on Aharei Mot:

‘Why prohibiting eating blood is not part of the Seven Noahide Laws’

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/aharei-mot-why-prohibiting-eating-blood-is-not-part-of-the-seven-noahide-laws/ )