Mark Twain (1835–1910) quipped, “Clothes make the
man. Naked people have little or no influence on society.” He might well have
been thinking about the High Priest who served in the Mishkan (wilderness
Tabernacle), whose vestments were splendidly ornate and impressive. But had he
lived to observe the influence of Mahatma Gandhi (1869–1948), I wonder what he
might have said.
Aaron, the brother of Moses and the first High
Priest of Israel, and Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (known to his followers as
Mahatma, “the great-souled one”) had much in common.
Both were instrumental in helping their people
achieve independence. Aaron accompanied Moses every step of the way in
confronting Pharaoh and helping the Israelites escape the clutches of Egypt.
Gandhi was a leading activist in India’s struggle for independence from the
colonial rule of Great Britain.
Aaron was revered as a peace-maker. Pirkei Avot 1:12
adjures us: “Be of the disciples of Aaron, loving peace and pursuing peace,
loving human beings and drawing them close to Torah.” Mahatma Gandhi was
venerated for his nonviolent philosophy of passive resistance.
Each man was an informal and unacknowledged prophet
of his people. While Jewish tradition does not traditionally designate Aaron as
a prophet, Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz has dubbed him “the People’s prophet.” Where
Moses was aloof and imperious[1], Aaron was accessible and sensitive to the people’s
needs. “Because he understood the people and sympathized with their
shortcomings, he could guide them toward a goal that Moses had reached in a
different way. Moses operated from the higher to the lower: he was the
authority figure, giving orders and hardly explaining or educating. Aaron, on
the other hand, functioned from the lower to the higher, trying to lead the
people carefully, teaching and guiding them.”[2] Much the same can be said about Gandhi, who also
operated from the lower to the higher, teaching his people and guiding them in
the principles of nonviolent civil disobedience. While Hinduism does not,
formally, have prophets,[3] Gandhi’s extraordinary life and lasting influence
mark him as a prophet.
Both Aaron and Gandhi were fathers of four son.
Aaron’s two elder sons, Nadab and Abihu, came to a tragic end when they offered
“alien fire,” an unauthorized incense sacrifice. It was, essentially, a
rebellion against their father, whose mission as High Priest was to adhere to
the sacrificial service ordained by God. Gandhi’s eldest son, Harilal, also
rebelled against his father. He sought a Western-style education in England
(imagine Nadab asking Aaron if he could attend the university in Egypt), which
led to his cutting ties with his family.
Aaron and Mahatma Gandhi differ in a number of
ways, but Mark Twain’s humorous quip reminds us of one of the most visible
differences: clothing. Or was it really
so different?
Parshat Tetzaveh speaks at length about the bigdei
kehunah (priestly vestments) to be worn by Aaron and his sons when serving
in the Mishkan (wilderness sanctuary). Torah tells us from the outset that the
vestments are l’kavod
u-l’tiferet / “for
dignity and adornment” (Exodus 28:2).
The priestly vestments—a uniform of sort—distinguished the priests from the
people. Only they wore the special garments, which conferred immediate
recognition as priests. Clothes matter.
Gandhi understood this. In 1921, he made a
conscious and deliberate decision to trade in his traditional, ornate and
tailored Gujarati attire for the dhoti (loincloth) and chaddar (shawl)
made of khadi (homespun cotton) that was the “uniform” of poor people of
India.
While the priests dressed in bigdei kehunah in
response to God’s command to distinguish himself among the People Israel,
Gandhi donned the dhoti to identify with his people.[4]
Torah delineates Aaron’s garments, the special
vestments of the High Priest:
These are the vestments they are to
make: a breast piece, an ephod, a robe a fringed tunic, a headdress, and a
sash. They shall make those sacral vestments for our brother Aaron and his
sons, for priestly service to Me; they, therefore, shall receive the gold, the
blue, the purple, and crimson yarns, and the fine linen. (Exodus 28:4–5)
The Torah continues at length—more than 30 verses—detailing
the elaborate design of each element and the precise materials used in their
fabrication.
Beneath his special High Priest vestments, Aaron
wore the far simpler vestments of an ordinary priest. Torah prescribes four
garments: breeches, tunic, sash, headpiece.
And for Aaron’s sons also you shall
make tunics, and make sashes for them, and make turbans for them, l’kavod
u-l’tiferet / for dignity and adornment… You shall make for them linen
breeches to cover their nakedness; they shall extend from the hips to the
thighs. They shall be worn by Aaron and his sons when they enter the Tent of
Meeting or when they approach the altar to officiate in the sanctuary, so that
they do not incur punishment and die. it shall be a law for all time for him
and for his offspring to come. (Exodus 28:40, 42–43)
On the surface, it would seem that priestly
vestments are the opposite of Gandhi’s style of dressing, but when we scratch
the surface, similarities come to light.
Like Gandhi’s homespun cotton dhoti and chaddar,
the vestments worn by all priests were made of a simple woven fabric—linen, the
“common” fabric of the day.
A discussion in the Babylonian Talmud (tractate
Zevachim) about these garments reveals the Rabbis’ attention to both the
quality of l’kavod
u-l’tiferet / for
dignity and adornment (Exodus 28:40)
and their recognition that the priestly “uniform,” like Gandhi’s “uniform,” was
essentially peasant attire. How, then, were the vestments l’kavod u-l’tiferet / for dignity and adornment?
[18a] Our Rabbis taught [in a
baraita]: If [the priestly vestments] trailed [on the floor], or did not reach
[the floor], or were threadbare, and [the priest] officiated [in them], his
service is valid. But if he put on two pairs of breeches, two sashes, or if he
was lacking a vestment, or if he wore one too many, or if he had a plaster on a
wound in his flesh, or if [his vestments] were [18b] besmeared or torn, and he
officiated, his service is invalid. Rav Yehudah said in Shmuel’s name, “Trailing
[vestments] are fit; [vestments that] do not reach [the floor] are unfit.” But
was it taught [in the baraita] that if they do not reach [the ground] they are
fit? Rami b. Chama said, “There is no difficulty: Here [the teaching of Shmuel]
means where he hitches them up by the sash; here [the baraita], where from the
very outset they are not long enough. Rav said, “Both [garments] are invalid.” (BT Zevachim
18)
Let us examine the passage and then consider how we
might understand it.
The Talmud cites a baraita (Mishnaic-era oral
teaching) that delineates three qualities of priestly attire that do not
disqualify the priest who wears it: if the priest’s clothing is too large and
drags on the ground, or is too small and doesn’t quite reach the ground, or is
worn out and threadbare, the sanctuary service done in the garments is
nonetheless acceptable. If, however, the priest wears two items where only one
is required, or is missing one of the four specified garments, or adds
something to the attire not commanded by God, or comes to the sanctuary in
garments that are soiled or torn, then the service or sacrifice he does is
unfit. The baraita leaves room for the possibility
that a priest does not have an outfit that fits perfectly, or the money to
replace one that is worn out, but expects him to keep it clean and repaired and
to wear the required items—no more and no less—that Torah prescribes.
Rav Yehudah brings a teaching from Shmuel that
contradicts the baraita. Shmuel agrees that a garment that is too long does not
invalidate the priest’s service, but opines that garments that are too short
are not acceptable. Shmuel is echoing Torah’s concern for modesty: excessive
cover is fine, but insufficient cover is not.
The Gemara points out the contradiction between the
baraita and Shmuel concerning priestly garments that are too short to reach the
ground. Rami b. Chama seeks to resolve the contradiction by telling us that
Shmuel envisioned a priest who had hitched up his excessively long garment with
a sash in such a way that it was then too short—this Shmuel declared to be
unacceptable. The baraita, according to Rami b. Chama, concerns garments that
were too short from the get-go. In other words, if the garments are too short
because that’s all the priest has to wear, they do not invalidate his service;
if they are too short because he sloppily hoisted them with his sash, but
failed to be careful to cover his body, his service is not acceptable.
Finally, Rav (whose decision is considered final in
this matter) says that both “too short” garments are unacceptable—meaning
garments that were too short in absolute size, or hiked up too far.
Given the priority on modesty, this decision is not
altogether surprising. What is interesting to note is that dirty and torn
garments are unquestionably unacceptable—dignity requires one to launder and
repair them—but in cases where the priest’s sash can alter the drape of the
garment to the proper length, this is perfectly acceptable.
The Rabbis saw the priests’ garments as “every man’s
clothing” in substance, but how the priest wore it elevated it to being l’kavod u-l’tiferet / for dignity and adornment (Exodus
28:40). So, too, Gandhi’s dhoti
and chaddar: On Gandhi, pleasant clothing conveyed dignity and moral
vision. The old adage, “the clothes don’t make the man,” isn’t true. The
man makes the clothes.
© Rabbi Amy
Scheinerman
-->
[1] Could this be accounted for by
Moses' upbringing in the palace as the son of Pharaoh’s daughter?
[3] Hinduism is not an Abrahamic
religion. It does not include the concept of people who claim to be representatives
of God and deliver God’s messages to people. It does, however, promote the idea
of an avatar (“descent”), the incarnation of a deity, which appears in lower
(earthly) real of existence for a special purpose.
[4] Gandhi’s choice of the dhoti made
of khaki was also an economic and political statement, because he called
for a boycott of foreign cloth. Less than a month later, he wrote: “I do not
want either my co-workers or readers to adopt the loincloth. But I do wish that
they should thoroughly realise the meaning of the boycott of foreign cloth and
put forth their best effort to get it boycotted, and to get khadi
manufactured. I do wish that they may understand that swadeshi means
everything.” (Swadeshi, meaning “self-sufficiency,” refers to an economic
strategy that was part of the Indian Independence Movement. It began prior to
Gandhi’s involvement in Indian
independence. Swadeshi included a boycott of British products and a concomitant
revival of traditional, domestic Indian production.)
No comments:
Post a Comment