Q&A: A Harlot’s Fee and the Price of a Dog — Why Specifically a Dog?
A Harlot’s Fee and the Price of a Dog — Why Specifically a Dog?
Question
Good week, Rabbi,
The Sages understand the verse in Deuteronomy 23:19
You shall not bring the fee of a harlot or the price of a dog into the house of the Lord your God for any vow, for both of them are an abomination to the Lord your God.
in such a way that the word “dog” refers specifically to an actual dog, and not as an example of an animal that may not be offered on the altar. The Netziv of Volozhin already wondered about this in Ha'amek Davar:
“For both of them.” We explained above, on 22:22, that this expression serves to compare something that is not so self-evident to something more obvious. So too here: the fee of a harlot is understandable as an abomination, since harlotry is the very pinnacle of abomination. But the price of a dog is not something intelligible to us — why is it an abomination? In what way is a dog worse than a pig or any other impure animal, and why should its price be worse than that of any other thing? About this the Torah explains that both of them are equally called an abomination, and therefore there must be some spiritual reason connected to the life-spirit of the dog; and for that reason its price is an abomination and may not be offered.
Why not prefer the interpretation that “dog” is a paradigm for any impure animal whose price may not be brought to the Temple? And the reason Scripture mentioned specifically a dog is that this was the impure animal most commonly found in people’s homes. Just as we understand the verse in Exodus 22, “You shall be holy people to Me; flesh torn in the field you shall not eat; you shall throw it to the dog,” as not referring specifically to a dog, but to any creature to which the prohibition of carrion or torn flesh does not apply.
And I also saw in Isaiah 66
(3) “He who slaughters an ox is like one who strikes down a man; he who sacrifices a lamb is like one who breaks a dog’s neck; he who offers a grain offering is like one who offers pig’s blood; he who makes a memorial offering of frankincense is like one who blesses iniquity. They too have chosen their own ways, and their soul delights in their abominations.”
Radak on Isaiah 66:3
(3) “He who slaughters an ox” — He says that one who slaughters an ox in order to offer it before Me while remaining wicked, I regard him, in slaughtering the ox, as though he struck and killed a man. Likewise, one who sacrifices a lamb in order to offer it before Me is as though he broke a dog’s neck in order to offer it before Me. Likewise, one who offers a grain offering before Me is as though he offers pig’s blood before Me, for they are impure like the dog and the pig. And likewise, one who mentions frankincense is as though he blesses iniquity and falsehood before Me — that is, robbery, which is iniquity and falsehood.”
From this verse it seems that a dog is compared to a pig with regard to God’s lack of desire for it.
Answer
It is בהחלט possible and reasonable. I don’t know why they didn’t explain it that way.
However, the comparison to a harlot’s fee is problematic regardless. What is so bad about an impure animal? Why should its price be like a harlot’s fee?
See here several explanations (rather weak):
https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%90%D7%AA%D7%A0%D7%9F_%D7%96%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%94_%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%97%D7%99%D7%A8_%D7%9B%D7%9C%D7%91
Discussion on Answer
That is brought in the Wikipedia entry I linked above. But as a matter of Jewish law, it is certainly not correct.
With God’s help, 2 Sivan 5780
The harlot symbolizes brazenness, as it says: “You had the forehead of a harlot; you refused to be ashamed,” and about dogs it says: “The dogs are fierce of appetite; they never know satiety.” A trait that apparently was not beloved by Scripture ::
Best regards,
S.Tz.
Following up on this question, I came across a documentary film that mentions the issue of cultic prostitution, and from there it seems that the modern interpretation Gil mentioned in his comment is much more plausible. Why can’t the findings of modern scholarship be taken into account in halakhic ruling?
Here is a link to the film and to the relevant minute in it:
It is possible as an interpretation, but in terms of Jewish law the Talmud determines that it is speaking about a dog.
With God’s help, 26 Elul 5780
And perhaps the Torah sees a flaw specifically in selling the dog? A person had a faithful companion guarding his home and property, and he sells his faithful companion to a stranger for money — that is like “a harlot’s fee,” a woman who betrays her companion for money?
Best regards,
Guardian of Man’s Flock
On the great importance of dogs for security, see the article: “Commander of the canine unit: We prevented dozens of attacks in Judea and Samaria” on the Arutz 7 website.
I recall that in the past you said that where there is high confidence that the Talmud is mistaken, one can go against it. In this case, it is clear to me that the correct interpretation of “dog” in the Torah is male cultic prostitution. It is also clear from the context of the verses, which speak about the prohibition of the male and female cult prostitute.
To Oren — greetings,
Heaven forbid the thought police should hear your claim that “dog” means a gay male 🙂 I recommend that Rabbi Michi delete your offensive comment immediately 🙂
In shock,
Politically Incorrect
I’m not sure there is an error of the Sages here. After all, they too saw the biblical context, and they too understood that there is nothing special about a dog, and nevertheless they did not interpret it that way. Nothing has been discovered today that was not known to the Sages.
As far as I remember, I was speaking about demonstrable errors in the scientific sense — that is, errors such that if the Sages were here, it is clear to us that they too would admit that they had been mistaken from the outset. In such a case, the original ruling was made in error and therefore is not binding. As for interpretive reasoning, it is hard to reach so unequivocal a conclusion.
True, they saw the biblical context, but they were not familiar with other ancient sources from which it is understood that “dog” was a common term for a male cult prostitute. It is possible that this term disappeared by the period of the Sages, and so they interpreted the word “dog” according to the best of their understanding, literally. Nowadays, when we have access to many ancient sources and advanced dating methods, why shouldn’t we use those tools to refine our interpretation?
And to dear Politically Incorrect: in the film I linked above they say that the term “dog” was not meant in a degrading way, but דווקא as a term of loyalty. The temple servants were supposed to be loyal to their god just as a dog is loyal to its master. Their loyalty was expressed by performing sexual services for homosexual men, who in return gave payment for the support of the temple.
To the privileged hegemon Oren — greetings,
Go tell the PC police that when you compared LGBT people to a dog you meant it as praise 🙂
Your only good fortune is that you are not a public figure, not on the way to becoming Chief Military Rabbi or Minister of Education, and so we are not attacking you.
Best regards,
Castro Poodle, Commissioner for the Rights of Disadvantaged Populations
As I wrote, I have no objection at all to using such information in biblical interpretation. The question is how convincing it is for establishing that the Talmud’s words are a demonstrable error. In my opinion, that is not the case here.
What is the difference between interpretation and Jewish law? If the interpretation of the word “dog” is a male prostitute, then Jewish law should automatically fit that interpretation, no?
There is no difference at all. I wrote that one can use information relevant to interpretation, and by extension also draw conclusions for Jewish law. But in this case I was not convinced that the interpretation and the Talmudic conclusion are a demonstrable error, which would allow one to depart from them in Jewish law.
According to scholars, it is like a harlot’s fee — both are related to the prohibition of cultic prostitution. “The price of a dog” = a male prostitute, who was called a “dog” as a term of degradation, and also because of their posture in the ritual. And here the connection returns to the last interview in Makor Rishon.