Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mi Yodeya is a question and answer site for those who base their lives on Jewish law and tradition and anyone interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Why is the erech (Vayikra 27:1–8) of a woman less than that of a man? And why does erech depend on age? Sources, please.

share|improve this question
add comment

2 Answers 2

up vote 8 down vote accepted

Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch's approach, if I recall correctly, is that the number 3 represents the family (father+mother+child), and an additional 2 represents the community. Men are obligated to be involved in both, whereas women are only obligated in the former.

Hence:

  • mature female = 10 [= completion] x (3 [=family]) = 30 shekels
  • mature male = 10 [= completion] x ( 3 [=family] + 2 [=community]) = 50 shekels

  • toddler girl, proportional fraction of adult duties = 3 shekels

  • toddler boy, proportional fraction of adult duties = 3 + 2 = 5 shekels

  • young female, working towards completion (10) in the family realm = 10 shekels

  • young male, working towards completion (10) in both family and public realms (x2) = 20 shekels

  • retired female, back to her prior state of responsibilities = 10 shekels

  • retired male, given a reduced role of communal responsibilities = 10 (family) + 1/2 * 10 (community) = 15 shekels

The Gemara does observe that retirement age proportionately devaluates a man more than a woman, hence the Talmudic saying:

An older lady in the house is a treasure; an older man in the house is a waste of space.

Which sounds similar to the way one lady described having her retired husband home (I believe this is attributed to the Cosby show):

It's like having a grand piano sitting in your kitchen. It looks good, but it's always getting in the way!

share|improve this answer
add comment

I don't have a source to site, but historically speaking, since the ancient world revolved entirely around how to continue living, i.e. earning enough money to feed yourself and your family, and since women didn't need to provide income for the family like the men had to, therefore the monetary value of a working man was worth more than that of women, children and the old. He had more working potential.

share|improve this answer
    
True, this probably would be connected to the average price of a slave of that age and gender. –  Avi May 19 '11 at 13:06
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.