“You shall not bring the fee of a whore or the pay of a dog into the house of the LORD your God in fulfillment of any vow, for both are abhorrent to the LORD your God” (Devarim 23:19).
The idea behind this commandment is that there are certain circumstances where bringing an animal as a sacrifice is forbidden. Specifically: 1 – a lamb that was given as payment to a prostitute in exchange for her services, and 2 – a lamb that was given in exchange for a dog. Neither of these can be brought as a Temple sacrifice. The sages differed regarding the question of whether this prohibition applies to all consecrated use (the opinion of the Tanna Kamma) or if it is only forbidden to be used as an actual Temple sacrifice (the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer). According to Rabbi Eliezer the animal could be used for other holy purposes, so, for example, he permits a cow given to a prostitute to be used to prepare the ashes of a Red Heifer that are used for ritual purification:
“One that is born from the side, the hire of a harlot or the price of a dog is invalid. Rabbi Eliezer says that it is valid, as it says, ‘You shall not bring the hire of a harlot or the price of a dog into the house of the Lord your God,’ (Devarim 23:19) and this was not brought into the house.” (Parah 2:3)
This disagreement represents two worldviews.
One perspective views the payment rendered as entirely disqualified, as it is contemptible money that is infused with defilement. Rabbi Menachem Recanati (Italy, 13th century) presents it as follows:
“Scripture hints to us that we must guard the Divine attribute that is called ‘the house of the Lord,’ which is a manifestation of the Divine Presence in all of its purity and holiness. We must direct towards it conduits of grace and mercy and cannot allow the fee of a whore or the pay of a dog – which act as the serpent who infected Eve with contamination – to influence it in any way, as we find written: ‘But you came and defiled My land, You made My possession abhorrent.’ (Yirmiyahu 2:7)”
This is an example of a prohibition that requires total avoidance, so that one can approach “the house of the Lord.” A person can only succeed in having the Divine presence with him if he rejects these things entirely. An abomination cannot be made kosher and cannot be included in holy activities. This is an almost mystical interpretation, based on the idea that money retains “an odor” of its source and cannot be cleansed or laundered.
The alternative approach suggests that the prohibition in this case aims to eradicate a specific act or behavior. It is normal for a person who sinned to try to whitewash his or her actions. Were the prostitute to be allowed to bring the payment she received as a Temple sacrifice, it could be perceived as some level of acceptance of the negative behavior, which is exactly why it is forbidden. The Ramban writes: “When harlots perform good deeds with the payment that they receive, they believe that it serves to atone for their sin.” In a similar vein, people who raise dangerous, destructive dogs, may then promise the proceeds of their sale to the Temple to assuage their guilt and receive atonement.
But the Temple cannot serve as a center for money laundering, as the prophets later stated: "When you come to appear before Me, who requires of you this trampling of My courts?” (Yeshayahu 1:12). Similarly, the sages, basing themselves on the verse “The robber who recites a blessing blasphemes the Lord” (Tehillim 10:3), teach that someone who steals dough and then turns towards heaven and attempts to rectify the act by separating Hallah, is not reciting a blessing, rather he is blaspheming. The problem is not so much showing contempt for what is holy, but how easily people try to push aside the sins that they have done; the utter lack of recognition of the evil that has been done coupled with the lack of any kind of self-reflection and attempt to right the wrong. Instead, there is only an attempt to paper-over the sin and ignore it. The problem is not the contempt shown to the Temple when such sacrifices are offered, but with the immediacy of forgetting the contemptuous act that was done by taking a “morning after” pill and trying to use the Temple service to rectify inappropriate conduct.
It was Rabbi Eliezer who ruled that the prohibition was limited and that the animal could not be brought as a sacrifice, but could be used for other Temple-related activities. The Gemara in Avoda Zarah relates that Rabbi Eliezer was condemned to death as a heretic by the Roman courts, and when he was spared, he spent time reflecting on what had happened to him. He recalled that he once met a heretic who asked him whether the harlot’s wages could be used to build a toilet for the High Priest. The week prior to Yom Kippur, the High Priest is placed in a special office in the Temple where he prepared for the service of the Day of Atonement, and the question related to the use of a degraded thing – the harlot’s fee - for a degraded use – a toilet – in the Temple. Rabbi Eliezer turned the question back to the heretic, and was pleased by the answer he received. The heretic suggested permitting it, based on a verse in the book of Michah (1:7) “For they were amassed from fees for harlotry, and they shall become harlots’ fees again.” Since the money came from a place of filth, let it go to a place of filth, suggesting that it can be used to build a bathroom. (The meaning of that verse in context is that it refers to the destruction of Shomron, and that the harlot’s fees that were donated for the purpose of idol worship would end up in the hands of those who destroyed the city of Shomron.) Rabbi Eliezer concluded that because he had enjoyed the heretic’s teaching, he was taken to be killed like a heretic (see Avoda Zarah 17a).
This Aggadah makes use of sarcasm to point out the weakness in Rabbi Eliezer’s position. It contrasts the holiest service, on the holiest day, performed by the holiest person with the most dirty and degraded things – the harlot’s fee and the toilet. One the one hand, the contrast seems to make sense. At the same time, one cannot escape the fact that all of these things are connected. One’s digestive system cannot be separated from those parts of the person that serve higher functions. We cannot distinguish between the human side of the High Priest and holy service that he performs. Perhaps accepting the teaching of the heretic is no different than heresy itself.
Rav Kook writes: “All of the greatness in the world cannot remove any of the base necessities of the world. Just as the heights attained by an individual do not free that individual of any of his or her bodily needs, even the most base ones.” (Orot HaTeshuvah 12:6:1). A great man cannot rid himself of the need to deal with small matters, as his body works according to human physiology.
Rav Kook continues: “But greatness – when received with purity by the recipient – directs a person so that she or he learns how to behave also with regard to small matters, so that they, too, can be raised up and become matters of significance.”
It is possible to give meaning even to the dark matters in our lives, but, Rav Kook warns, repentance must be deep and foundational, and it cannot be a tool for beautifying something objectionable. He writes:
“But one who engages in self-indulgence to the extent that they neglect to establish sacred life values for themselves – those who shout ‘I am saved’ even as they are mired in the muck of sin – this is the way of death, of indulgent idol worship, which says: ‘Present your sacrifices the next morning and your tithes on the third day, and burn a thank offering of leavened bread’ (Amos 4:4-5). One who confesses sin while, at the same time, abandoning truth and justice, following his or her own heart, is a heretic who accepts every murder and every depravity, even as she spreads out her hooves, saying: ‘I am pure’.” (Orot HaTeshuvah 12:10).
