As a child growing up my younger sister and I often pleaded with our parents regarding our desire to have a pet dog. Although it took many years of such pleading, when I was 12 years of age and my sister 9 years old, my father felt we were ready to take on the responsibility of a puppy. Because my father had grown up with Daschunds as a boy in an ethnic German household, in which such dogs were named “Baron” and “Fritz”, the puppy chosen for my sister and me was a black and tan standard Daschund named “Kaiser”.
Kaiser was a most loving and playful pet, he had a happy and social demeanor toward everyone. Yet, Kaiser also was a very disobedient dog, a hard-head in many respects. Although he attended two six-week sessions of dog obedience training, he didn’t seem to learn a thing. My father would marvel that while at the gymnasium with the other dogs Kaiser would heel, stay, come, sit, and even give a paw. Returning home he immediately forgot everything he had learned. It seemed that Kaiser was born with “canine dementia” or short term memory loss aimed specifically at obedient behavior of any kind.
On certain occasions Kaiser’s lovable, loyal, yet bone-headed personality would change in a drastic and scary way. This occurred anytime he was given a “meat bone” leftover from roasts my mother had cooked for the family dinner. Although she preferred not to give Kaiser the meat bone, my father felt it was a deserving treat for him from time to time. My father would take the leftover bone containing some roasted meat down into the basement of our home and place it in a distant corner there. As this was being done my mother restrained Kaiser by the collar for the dog became frantic when he sensed the meat bone was to be given to him.
Once the bone was in place Kaiser dashed to the basement to eat its meat and chew on it for several hours. During that time we were instructed to leave him alone for to even go within three feet of him while in possession of the bone elicited the most ferocious snarls and growls. His eyes would glint with a warning look; with the meat bone in his possession he was no longer lovable, loyal or bone-headed. Instead he was transformed from a domesticated pet into an instinctual pack animal protecting his prey.
This childhood memory was brought to mind in considering Parashah Mishpatim this week, specifically the admonition of Moses regarding casting meat to the dogs;
People of holiness shall you be to Me; you shall not eat flesh of an animal that was torn in the field; to the dog shall you throw it.
(Exodus 22:30, Stone Chumash)
Interestingly, the commentators have much to say on this verse because the holiness of the people is directly connected to it. In the most literal sense a holy people is not to eat flesh that is torn (t’refah). This not only includes animals that are attacked and maimed in the wild, but also any animal that has a lesion or wound that will eventually kill it (cf. BT Chullin 3:1). As Ibn Ezra points out the flesh of a torn animal contains a “poisonous substance” making it unfit for human consumption. [1] Although eating carcasses and torn animals is disgusting to humanity in general, Ramban relates that one may partake of such foods if human survival is at stake. [2] Yet, the holiness of the people is not occupied with potential infectious processes or rancidity contained in torn or wounded animals, but instead is a matter of the soul.
The Ramban explains that eating forbidden foods has spiritual consequences, leading to “thickness and coarseness” of the soul. Such coarseness makes it difficult for G-d’s people to cleave to him because one’s soul becomes “disgusting by eating abominable things”. [3] When HaShem instructed Ezekiel to eat barley cakes (typically used as animal fodder) baked upon a fire fueled by human excrement, he expressed concern regarding pollution of his soul. Since his youth, Ezekiel had not partaken of any animal that died of itself or that had had been torn in its flesh and therefore his soul had not been affected by disgusting foods (cf. Ezekiel 4:9 -14).
Although Yeshua taught that it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but instead what comes out of the mouth that causes defilement (Matthew 15:11), this teaching was given in response to a Pharisaical tradition that eating permissible foods with unwashed hands caused one to be defiled. Since Torah forbids the eating of torn flesh, to do so is direct disobedience to G-d which inevitably affects the soul of the individual.
The position of Exodus 22:30 among the mishpatim (ordinances) in the text is also understood to contain lessons in holiness. At the conclusion of numerous interpersonal laws and prior to the law prohibiting false reports, HaShem relates the matter of holiness as illustrated by the dog. When a dog begins to bark all dogs within earshot will also begin to bark as a natural reaction. Although the group of dogs is unaware of the original reason for the barking, they yet bark with the others anyway.
In similar fashion, the proper treatment of slaves, other’s property, and concern for the helpless will not render one holy if they become caught up in speaking gossip or evil of others. Such speech is often evoked by one person in a crowd which leads to many others chiming in without much thought to their words, just like a group of dogs. The sages also note that the Hebrew phrase lakelev tashlichun oto (לַכֶּלֶב תַּשְׁלִכוּן אֹתוֹ) can be translated “throw him to the dogs” as well as “throw it to the dogs”. This suggests that one who gives a false report is worthy to be thrown to the dogs. [4]
The specific detail of throwing torn flesh to the dogs is also related to the holiness of HaShem’s people. In a mystical sense, the torn animal is understood to have suffered the harsh and insolent judgment of HaShem by dying a violent death. Meat containing such harsh judgment should not be eaten by holy people for harshness and insolence is not suited to holy living. Therefore, the meat is tossed to the dogs to whom it belongs “for the dogs are greedy” (cf. Isaiah 56:11). [5]
The preposition lamed pointed with a patach as used in conjunction with the Hebrew word for dog, kelev (לַכֶּלֶב) can indicate a specific dog to which the torn flesh is to be thrown rather than “dogs” in general. Ibn Ezra understands this specific dog to be the sheepdog who risks his life to guard the herd and flock in the field. Since the torn flesh is that which is found in the field, the dog that guards the animals in the fields is due such flesh as his rightful reward. [6] Therefore, people of holiness are careful to give every creature its due reward and recognize that HaShem does not withhold the reward of anything, human or otherwise.
Rashi understands lakelev of Exodus 22:30 to be referring specifically to the dogs within Egypt on the night of the exodus when the plague of the firstborn struck the land. Exodus 11: 7 states that not one dog would move his tongue against either man or beast of Israel on that night. Such silence of the dogs toward Israel would distinguish them from the Egyptians. Because the dogs remained unnaturally quiet on the night of the exodus the torn flesh of the field would be their reward. [7]
From this, Rashi relates that regarding the issue of torn meat, the dog is more respectable than the Gentile. Since meat which dies of itself may be sold to the foreigner (Deuteronomy 14:21) and such meat if touched by an Israelite causes ritual impurity, then it stands to reason that flesh torn by beasts, which does not cause ritual impurity (for it is to be handled and tossed to the dogs) may also be sold to the foreigner. [8] Therefore, the same t’refa meat that the dog receives as a free and deserved reward must be purchased by the Gentile. Rashi’s insights are based on Mechilta which understands the dog to receive preference over the non-Jew in its right to torn meat.
With these thoughts in mind, how is it that Yeshua himself would refer to a Gentile, Canaanite woman who sought him for healing of her daughter, as a “dog” in the Gospel accounts of both Matthew and Mark?
And Jesus went away from there and withdrew to the district of Tyre and Sidon. And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and was crying, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely oppressed by a demon.” But he did not answer her a word. And his disciples came and begged him, saying, “Send her away, for she is crying out after us.” He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me.” And he answered, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” She said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.” Then Jesus answered her, “O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed instantly.
(Matthew 15:21-28 ESV)
Daniel Lancaster, writing in Torah Club Volume 4, cites the understanding of Lachs that the term “dogs” as used in relation to Gentiles was a common Jewish idiom of the day. [9] Therefore, Yeshua’s use of such a term should not be viewed as insulting necessarily, but rather as employing common “street lingo”. Lancaster instead focuses on the woman’s knowledge of Jewish terminology as she uses the Messianic title “Son of David” in referring to Yeshua. This combined with her ability to rephrase and restructure the “dog” analogy impressed Yeshua, causing him to grant her request. [10]
Interestingly, in the Gospel account, the woman’s use of the title “Son of David” elicits no response from Yeshua at all. Kneeling at his feet and likening herself to a dog under the master’s table leads to the fulfillment of her request. This understanding alone would suggest that Yeshua was on an ego trip of some sort. The woman’s recognition of him as “Son of David”, the Messianic King of Israel, was not enough. Her pleas for help from this king went completely ignored. Not until she fell at his feet and likened herself to a dog was she worthy of help from him. But Yeshua does not commend her for extreme humility or self-abasement; instead he describes her as one of “great faith”.
As the woman kneels at his feet, Yeshua explains that the bread of the Children of Israel should not be thrown to the dogs — a comment using the same phraseology as Exodus 22:30. Food is thrown to a dog that cannot be trusted to take it from one’s hand. No matter how tamed or domesticated a dog is, be it sheepdog or house dog, when fresh meat from a torn animal is presented to it, the dog will act according to its most base instincts as a pack animal with its prey. Therefore, such food is thrown not given, to an animal acting on sheer instinct alone.
When the Canaanite woman comes to Yeshua seeking healing for her daughter, she is displaying the most natural base instinct of every mother, an instinct that is driven to protect and preserve the life of her child at any cost. Yeshua’s miracles, though beneficial for physical health and healing, have a greater purpose, being meant as signs proving that he was sent by G-d Himself.
Yeshua likens his miracles to bread, not meat. Bread is the product of raw materials that are manipulated by man in order to create satisfying sustenance. Bread in this way symbolizes holy living that takes the raw materials of mundane life and elevates them through obedience to HaShem to create experiences of spiritual sustenance. A torn limb is ready to be eaten without any human intervention by the dog that comes upon it. It is raw and pure physical sustenance void of any creativity or thought regarding spirituality and the things of G-d.
The politically correct and honoring title “Son of David” as used by the desperate woman did not convince Yeshua that she was seeking anything more than physical healing for her daughter in the most instinctual sense. The reply he gives to her as she kneels at his feet indicates this, for it is not fit to throw the children’s bread to the dogs. Yeshua’s miracles are the Children of Israel’s bread because those of G-d’s nation would best recognize the higher, creative, spiritual significance of them. Such bread is not worthy to be thrown to one who is acting on instinct alone. One does not throw a delicate croissant to a dog who is craving a meat bone.
The woman’s response to Yeshua is quite telling. She does not desire the bread to be thrown to her. She is not a dog in the sense of the wild pack animal that will not approach its master when functioning upon base instinct alone. She is right at his feet, like a lap dog sitting under the table. In this way she verbalizes that although a Gentile, she is in the master’s house, in his domain, among the Children of Israel, believing him to be the Son of David and Messiah to come. Therefore she understands it is the master’s duty to care for her, for she has been domesticated by him. She is watching and waiting to take the crumbs that fall to her from his most honored table. This was the great faith that caused her to be deserving of a miracle, for such bread would not be wasted upon her, but would instead nourish and strengthen and elevate her spiritually.
With this in mind I must say that I am honored, as a Gentile, to be considered less respectable than a dog when it comes to t’refah (torn meat). The dog is given greater respect than me for the meat is tossed to it as a free reward. The Gentile must pay for the same meat, providing profit to the Israelite who sells it to him. But the same interaction also brings profit to the Gentile, who is not relegated to the role of a dog.
In paying for the meat the Gentile is involved in a human transaction, his intellect and will is engaged in his decision to purchase the meat. Such meat will be inspected and considered and bartered over. The dog has no choice in the matter but to act on instinct alone, helpless but to satisfy its hunger and cravings, unable to reject the disgusting meat thrown at it being completely overcome by its base self.
The Gentile who buys torn meat does so of his own free will and intellect. He either will decide to make use of a beast killed in a severe fashion with no regard for holiness or compassion in the situation, or he will decline to purchase such an animal for many reasons ranging from the most practical to perhaps the most profound. But the choice is up to the goy. The meat is not thrown to him, it is offered to him for sale, a transaction from human to human, involving choice and intellect.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Nine years after receiving my patiently anticipated Daschund puppy, now 21 years of age, I enjoyed a nice Sunday dinner with my family. Having a roast for the meal my father suggested that Kaiser be given the meat bone from it. As my mother separated the bone from the leftovers, Kaiser — aging, thin, and graying around the snout — looked up with mild interest his tale wagging slightly. As my father made the trip to the basement to place the bone, the dog waited patiently at the top of the stairs, not needing to be restrained.
When my father returned he encouraged the dog; “go get it boy!” he said. Looking down the staircase with pensive eyes, Kaiser didn’t make a move. Short legs that were arthritic limited his mobility. Therefore, my father brought the bone up from the basement and placed it in Kaiser’s dish, in the corner of the kitchen. Sauntering slowly to the dish he sniffed the bone and then walked away from it. My father shook his head and with a sad look predicted that Kaiser would not live much longer. Within two weeks he was dead.
This is one of my last memories of my childhood dog, for he died while I was vacationing out of state. His inability to be overcome by a meat bone and to act according to the most basic instincts of his species was an ominous indicator that there was not much life left in him.
How curious and wonderful it is that just the opposite is true regarding the human species. To live beyond and above base instincts, emotion, and desire, is for us, life itself. To draw near to Israel’s Mashi’ach and to partake of the bread from his table, as one of the nations, is eternal life. This is the honor that is found in being less respectable than a dog.
________________________________________________________________________________________
[1] Ibn Ezra as cited in, Michael Carasik (translator), The Commentator’s Bible, Jewish Publication Society, Philadelphia, PA, 2005, p. 195.
[2] Ramban as cited in Michael Carasik, ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Rabbi Yisrael Meir Kagan, Chofetz Chaim, Chapter 6; The Prohibition Against Listening to Lashon Hara, available at: http://www.torah.org/learning/halashon/rchapter5.html?print=1
[5] Soncino Zohar, Shemot, Section II, p. 121.
[6] Ibn Ezra as cited in Michael Carasik, ibid.
[7] Rashi as cited in Michael Carasik, ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] D. T. Lancaster, Torah Club Volume Four (B’sorat HaMashiach), First Fruits of Zion, Littleton, CO, 2002, p. 53.
[10] Ibid, p. 125.
