Hiddur vs. Kallos

I published the following column in the Canadian Jewish News last week, but since they don't run it on-line, I'm including it here. Some of the ideas I used in a Chanukah article in YU's To Go from 5771 are involved here, but this is more sophisticated. Neal Stephenson fans (Anathem, specifically) may particularly like it:

My elementary school teachers explained Hellenic culture by telling our class that Greeks worshipped the beautiful body. Underscoring this point by noting that ancient Olympic competitors performed without clothing, these teachers succeeded in conveying an indelible image, but they oversimplified the role of Beauty in the original Chanukah and its celebrations today.

Greek culture honoured the body's physical beauty, but their emphasis was upon a broader conception of Beauty, or Kallos. Plato envisioned an abstract universe in which the characteristics we express as adjectives exist as nouns – a perfect Triangle, a perfect Blue, and a perfect Beauty, as independent entities.

Within that abstract Platonic universe, Kallos occupies a place of honour, and so every beautiful thing in our world is automatically admired as a reflection of that higher Kallos, even in the absence of any other redeeming characteristic. To cite from Plato's Phaedrus (Jowett translation), the most elevated person who observes beauty in our world "is transported with the recollection of the true beauty… he is like a bird fluttering and looking upward and careless of the world below; and he is therefore thought to be mad." And as Plato wrote in his Symposium (Nehamas translation), "Only in the contemplation of beauty is human life worth living."

This ideal was rejected by the Maccabees, for Jewish tradition spurns the idea that Beauty has inherent value. Beauty is neither good nor evil; it is only a characteristic of a good or evil entity. As Proverbs 31:30 states, "Charm is false and beauty is empty"; we don't admire Beauty for its own value.

However, Jewish tradition does teach that the act of Beautification, Hiddur in Hebrew, demonstrates devotion; as the Sages translated the Jews' song of praise at the Red Sea (Exodus 15:2), "This is my G-d, and I will beautify Him." Therefore, the same Maccabees who rejected Kallos pursued Hiddur in establishing the restored Temple's Menorah. The Talmud (Menachot 28b) teaches, "The branches of their Menorah were iron rods, and the Hasmoneans coated them with tin. When they became wealthier, they made the branches of silver. When they became still wealthier, they made the branches of gold."

We follow in the footsteps of the Maccabees and employ Hiddur on Chanukah, too. The Talmud records a baseline practice of lighting one flame per household on each night of Chanukah, but Jews all over the world follow the Talmud's highest "mehadrin" practice of lighting multiple flames, based on the number of Chanukah nights that have passed. As the 13th century commentary Tosafot explains, this practice is called mehadrin from the word Hiddur, signifying that it beautifies the mitzvah; we practice Hiddur in order to glorify our Judaism.

Beyond the religious message, Hiddur of a mitzvah also offers great practical value. I wish for my children to value the religious decisions I have made, but if my child sees rote observance, begrudging fulfillment of obligations and bottom-line satisfaction of expectations, she may find that model less than compelling. On the other hand, if our children will see that a mitzvah is a thing worthy of Hiddur, then perhaps they will desire to own it themselves. With their beautified Menorah, the Maccabees encouraged us to demonstrate, for ourselves and for our children, that mitzvot are worthy of Hiddur.

Buying the nicest menorah for myself

After the Jews cross through Yam Suf they sing, זה קלי ואנוהו, which the gemara (Shabbos 133b) renders as 'I will glorify Him'. We are to use a beautiful succah, lulav, shofar and so on; this is the concept called 'hiddur mitzvah'.

But here is my question: Is hiddur mitzvah supposed to be a selfish value? Or are we meant to take it less literally, as an imperative to beautify mitzvos in general, including those performed by others? In other words: Have I fulfilled 'hiddur mitzvah' by purchasing a nice mitzvah item for someone else?

In my years as a shul rabbi in charge of distributing the shul's lulav and esrog sets, I never looked in the esrog boxes before selecting my own. I always paid for an esrog of a certain level, and took one of the boxes marked at that level without opening various boxes to compare the products within. [Other than the embarrassing year when a vendor specifically gave me a 'special' esrog – which raised serious questions of bribery in my mind.]

My logic was simple: If I take the nicest esrog, then I will have the most beautiful esrog and someone else will be forced to settle for less. I shouldn't have a beautiful mitzvah at the expense of someone else. Just last week I heard about a rosh yeshiva in Israel (I forget whom) who has the same practice – he takes a less-beautiful esrog, and leaves the nicest one for someone else. So I'm not the only one doing this.

In support of this approach, one could argue that 'beautiful' has multiple meanings: Holding an aesthetically appealing esrog is one type of beauty, but another, deeper beauty is found in offering aesthetically appealing esrogim to others. Perhaps if I enable someone else to perform a mitzvah beautifully, I can claim 'credit' for hiddur mitzvah.

But is that really a correct application of hiddur mitzvah? Perhaps we are meant to feel a degree of selfishness regarding our personal relationship with Gd.

Let's turn the question to Chanukah, since that's coming up: Is it better for me to buy a beautiful menorah for myself and let others use their less-nice models, or for me to give a less-fortunate person money so that he will be able to use a beautiful menorah, and I'll make do with an older, cheaper menorah? Or: In a family with multiple menorot, should I take a less-nice menorah, to permit another to use a better one? [Yes, I know it's actually a chanukiah. No, I'm not about to start calling it that.]

We might draw on the Mishneh Berurah's comments (694:3) regarding the Purim Seudah, when he says it would be better for a person to enjoy a basic meal and use the rest of his funds to increase his gifts to the needy for their Purim meals – but that's a Purim-related halachah, and not really about hiddur mitzvah.

I'm not sure.

The Beauty of Chanukah

This is my article for this Chanukah's YU To Go:

Judaism is of two minds regarding Beauty, at times according it a place of honor, and at times denigrating it as superficial and without meaning. To take but one example: The Torah presents contradictory views of whether beauty indicates righteousness. Scripture and sages emphasize that our matriarchs must have been women of surpassing beauty – but regarding would-be leaders like Eliav and Avshalom, we are warned not to be impressed by aesthetics. Judaism both promotes and denies the value of beauty.

The rites of Chanukah, on the other hand, seem to demonstrate that the debate is closed: Physical beauty is a goal to be sought. Our celebrations are thoroughly invested with an impulse for beauty, directed by an imperative which values the attractive.

Chanukah’s perennial emphasis on beauty

Witness the talmudic description of the menorah constructed by the impoverished Chashmonaim in the wake of their military victory:[1]

שפודים של ברזל היו וחיפום בבעץ העשירו עשאום של כסף חזרו והעשירו עשאום של זהב

The branches of their menorah were iron rods, and the Chashmonaim coated them with tin. When they became wealthier, they made the branches of silver. When they became still wealthier, they made the branches of gold.

Although the iron and tin menorah was halachically acceptable, the Chashmonaim sought to beautify the menorah of the Beit haMikdash with gold. And lest one argue that this was only because the Menorah’s biblical predecessor was made of gold, note that the same impulse for hiddur, for beauty, applies to our own Chanukiah. Citing the biblical[2] principle of “שלא יהיו מצוות בזויות עליו, that one must ensure that his mitzvot are not degraded,” they ruled[3] that we must make sure to use a clean, fresh Chanukiah.[4]

This same desire for impressive appearances informs the candle-lighting options presented in the gemara:[5]

מצות חנוכה נר איש וביתו והמהדרין נר לכל אחד ואחד והמהדרין מן המהדרין בית שמאי אומרים יום ראשון מדליק שמנה מכאן ואילך פוחת והולך ובית הלל אומרים יום ראשון מדליק אחת מכאן ואילך מוסיף והולך

The mitzvah of Chanukah is for each family to light one lamp. Those who beautify[6] light one lamp for each individual. According to Beit Shammai, those who beautify still more light eight lamps on the first day, and then reduce by one per day. According to Beit Hillel, they light one lamp on the first day, and then increase by one per day.

The weight assigned to aesthetics informs our choice of fuel for the Chanukiah, too. Malachi[7] rebuked the Jews of his day for bringing inferior animals as korbanot, and he dared them, “הקריבהו נא לפחתך,” “Bring it now to your [human] ruler! Would he be satisfied, would he show favor to you?” The sages applied this principle to various elements of korban activities: Using water which has been left exposed for Succot libations,[8] using inferior klei sharet [service implements] in the Beit haMikdash,[9] bringing an offering with excrement upon it[10] or in it,[11] and tearing open a korban’s limb before bringing it on the mizbeiach.[12] They also extended the principle to kiddush wine, which is compared to the wine poured on the mizbeiach.[13] And, invoking this principle, Rav Yosef Teumim[14] ruled that one may not use fouled oil for the Chanukiah.[15]

Using beauty to defeat the Greeks

Perhaps this emphasis upon beauty in our Chanukah celebration is not a definitive statement on Judaism’s approach to the physical, though; perhaps it is a Chanukah-specific product of our ancestors’ victory over the Greeks. Each Yom Tov which celebrates the defeat of a foe includes some denial of that enemy’s approach, a message designed to counter the ethos of our antagonists. So it is that our Pesach celebration includes the slaughter of the lamb, one of Egypt’s gods.[16] So it is that Purim incorporates elements of unity, countering Haman’s description of the Jews as מפזר ומפרד, scattered and divided.[17] Perhaps Chanukah employs beautification of Divine service in order to counter the Greek emphasis on the beauty to be found in the elements of this world.

In a fourth century BCE discussion of Love, Plato put the following words into the mouth of Socrates: “Only in the contemplation of beauty is human life worth living.[18]” True, he was referring to internal as well as external elegance, but his definition of beauty did not extend to the beauty of ritual mitzvot. This aesthetic emphasis persisted in Greek culture and values into the Hellenistic period, and Jews who were attracted to the world of Plato’s descendants may have been drawn to this ideal.

To this influence our Chanukah celebration replies: Find beauty in mitzvot! Kindle a splendid Chanukiah, pour pure fuel into its lamps, and honor the mitzvah with increasing levels of splendor. With this you will encourage your generation and the generations of your descendants to avoid the errors of the mityavnim, and to embrace a life which sees beauty in mitzvot. Like the korban for Pesach, like mishloach manot for Purim, the beauty of Chanukah’s celebration will perpetuate the lessons of the original victory.

To take this a step further: Our ancestors may have rejected Hellenism, but who can doubt that the values of Chanukah’s vanquished yet survive and thrive? Our present reality seeks and rewards beauty - and we are undoubtedly influenced. Our eyes, and therefore our hearts, are drawn to beautiful things. Seen against this backdrop, the drive to beautify our mitzvot is about more than continuing the victory over the Greeks; throughout the year, the elegance of our Torah can serve as a magnet to attract our focus and inspire our commitment. The greater our efforts to demonstrate a Jewish life which is glorious and worthy of honor, the greater will be the reward in its lasting influence upon us and upon our children.

May we be מהדרין מן המהדרין in all of our mitzvot, on Chanukah and throughout the year, reveling in the beauty of our Torah, countering the influences of the Hellenic world and creating a Judaism for all to admire.

---

[1] Menachot 28b

[2] See the many rishonim cited in Sdei Chemed ב:לח who argue that this is a biblical principle, extrapolated from the rule that one may not fulfill the mitzvah of כיסוי הדם (covering the blood of a schechted bird or beast) with one’s foot.

[3] Masechet Sofrim 20:3, Tur Orach Chaim 673

[4] On Shabbat 22a they also noted that we may not examine coins by the light of the Chanukiah, and that we may not light a non-Chanukiah flame from the Chanukiah itself, under this same principle.

[5] Shabbat 21a

[6] This is the translation of מהדרין according to Tosafot Shabbat 21a והמהדרין. Rashi, on the other hand, renders מהדרין as “those who pursue.”

[7] Malachi 1:8

[8] Succah 50a

[9] Sotah 14b

[10] Zevachim 85a

[11] Menachot 69a

[12] Chullin 90b

[13] Bava Batra 97b, and see Rashbam there

[14] Pri Megadim, Eishel Avraham Orach Chaim 154:19, based on Ran, Chullin 36b בדפי הרי"ף

[15] The aforementioned rabbinic principle of avoiding degradation of mitzvot appears to be distinct from the biblical mandate of avoiding the use of inferior items for mitzvot. The former prescribes behavior, where the latter is about mitzvah objects.

[16] See, for example, Shmot Rabbah 16:2

[17] Shut Chatam Sofer 1:196 citing Manot haLevi to Esther 9:19

[18] Nehamas translation of Plato’s Symposium, 211d

You're so vain...

Four years ago, when half of my right eyebrow turned white, my dermatologist counselled me to apply a cream (Elidel) that might help the pigment cells regenerate, and to dye it in the interim. He also talked about treating the small segments of skin that had turned a little lighter than normal.

My gut reaction was to recoil; it seemed vain, this idea of undergoing cosmetic treatments. (Leave aside the substantive halachic issue surrounding whether a male may dye his hair for cosmetic purposes.) The doctor pressed the point, gently noting that many people would respond negatively to a face that looked odd.

He was likely right, but I decided against his advice and left my ugly mug as is.

That conversation came to mind this past week, as I prepared a shiur for adolescents, entitled, “What I learned from Susan Boyle.” I ended up going a different route with the shiur, but here's the core idea I was going to use:

After talking about the difference between the ways people reacted to Susan Boyle before she sang and the way they reacted afterward, I was going to present five sources, with different perspectives on beauty:

1. Samuel I 16:1-7 (Shemuel’s trip to coronate a son of Yishai)
And G-d said to Samuel… Fill your horn with oil, and I will send you to Jesse of Bethlehem, for I have seen a king for Myself among his children.
And when they arrived and Samuel saw Eliav (the firstborn), he declared, “G-d’s anointed one is here before Him!”
And G-d said to Samuel, “Don’t look at his appearance and his height; I have rejected him. It’s not about the things people see; people see the visible, but G-d sees the heart.

2. Talmud, Taanit 31a (regarding the talmudic Tu b’Av matchmaking session)
Beautiful women enticed potential husbands by saying, “Look at beauty; wives are for beauty!”

3. Proverbs 31:30
Charm is false and beauty is empty; a woman who is in awe of G-d is to praised.

4. Isaiah 33:17
Your eyes should see the king in his beauty.

5. Talmud, Taanit 20a-b
Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, was riding a donkey along a riverbank, traveling from Migdal Gedor, where he had been studying. He was very happy, and filled with pride because he had learned a great deal. He encountered an extraordinarily ugly man, who greeted him, “Peace to you, my master!”
Rabbi Elazar did not reply with a greeting; instead, he said, “Empty one – how ugly this man is! Is everyone in your city as ugly as you?”
The man replied, “I don’t know; go tell the Craftsman who made me, ‘How ugly is this vessel You created!’”
Rabbi Elazar realized he had sinned. He descended from the donkey and threw himself down on the ground and said, “I am humbled before you; forgive me!”
The man replied, “I will not forgive you until you go tell the Craftsman who made me, ‘How ugly is this vessel You created!’”

The first source says that beauty is a false indicator of worth, while in the second source women cited their appearance as something worth noting.
Then the line from Proverbs decries beauty as a false indicator, but Isaiah says that a king should maintain his beauty for the public.
And then Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, is chastised for being influenced by physical appearances.

(I would have brought many more sources on both sides if this wasn't a session for teens; there is considerably more evidence on both sides.)

Which is it? Is beauty a valid indicator of worth, or a misleading cheat?

I think my dermatologist was right: Beauty is a major factor in first impressions and shallow encounters. The positive texts above talk about shallow relationships – a first meeting with a potential spouse, a royal audience. It’s normal to pursue beauty when setting up that relationship, because the other party has nothing else to use in making an assessment. And pursuing beauty in these shallow settings won’t convince me that my physical appearance is Me; I know the difference.

But when we use appearances to shape what should be deep relationships, then we include beauty as one of the traits define our genuine identity and worth. The negative texts talk about what should be a deeper relationship - picking someone to be king, admiring one’s spouse, valuing someone else. Those ties should be based on our true characters. If we pursue beauty in these cases, then we send a message (to others and ourselves) that physical beauty is our true identity.

Not terribly deep or novel, I suppose, but I think it’s a message that matters for teens.