VaYikra 5718
1. In Moreh Nevuchim 3:32, RaMBaM discusses the general tendency of human beings to become routinized in their actions to the point where sudden change is very difficult for them. If a change is to be introduced, it must be done so gradually. Since the world had become accustomed to worship via sacrifices, it would have been impossible to suddenly command the Jewish people to engage in a completely abstract form of worship. However, there is an implicit assumption that over time, the desire for sacrifices will wane, and then a “purer” form of worship will be accepted. See R. Jonathan Sacks’ discussion of the evolution of slavery from the Jewish point of view in http://www.ou.org/torah/
In Moreh Nevuchim 3: 46, RaMBaM specifically discusses how the sacrifices that were offered via domesticated animals constituted a direct attack on the forms of idolatry that were prevalent in Egypt where these very animals were deified.
2. The Midrash cited at the beginning of the Gilayon would appear to precisely support RaMBaM’s approach in the sense that although “Neveilot and Tereifot” are highly undesirable from the king’s point of view, he will allow these foods to be present in his home so that his son will be able to engage in his desires but within a controlled environment, and that eventually we will find himself losing interest in such foods. The Nimshal is clear.
In Abrabanel’s attempt to support RaMBaM from this very Midrashic source, it is interesting to note the difference in text:
Midrash appearing at the beginning of the Gilayon:
3. In the Moreh 3:32, RaMBaM had said that people had to be gradually brought around to higher forms of worship. With regard to the issue of Basar Ta’ava (meat that would not be part of a sacrifice that was allowed to be eaten once the land of Israel was settled, and it became impractical to always go to a central Tabernacle or Temple when a person wished to consume meat), while the ideal might have been to only eat that was originally part of a sacrifice in order to insure that the slaughtering was not done for the sake of some idolatrous belief, nevertheless, to insist on such a rule not only while travelling in the desert where the Tabernacle was at the center of all encampments, but even after settling in Israel where the Jewish people would be far more spread apart, was simply impractical and therefore some leeway had to be provided to allow for the fulfillment of personal needs, even if the context is not the most spiritual.
4. RaMBaN posits that RaMBaM’s problem with sacrifices due to their close resemblance to idolatry is not so easily solved by simply saying that it is necessary to make concessions to human nature. If something is truly wrong, you can’t concede anything. E.g., if we were to presume that it is part of human nature to gossip, do we allow some gossip to be permitted? Some thievery to be allowed? Some murder to go unprosecuted? If we are ready to make extreme statements in these areas, why isn’t the same true about the trappings of idolatry? Furthermore, such a position forces the concept that what is allowed in the end is really not Desired by HaShem, making the entire sacrificial cult something that is less than optimal in God’s Eyes. People will come to lose respect for sacrifices and it is difficult to understand why HaShem would Require such rituals to be performed if there is no positive spiritual aspect to their observance.
5. The fact that the sacrifices are described as giving rise to a “ריח הניחוח” (Beraishit 8:21; Shemot 29:25, 41; VaYikra 2:12; 3:16; 4:31; 8:21, 28; VaYikra 17:6; BaMidbar 15:24; 18:17; 28:6, 27; etc. as far as HaShem is concerned suggests that He is Pleased with the practice, rather than Trying to discourage it.
6. RaMBaN further states that since there was no one to emulate when Kayin and Hevel offered their sacrifices, this is an indication that inherently, sacrifices should not be assumed to represent an action that in essence is similar to the materialism inherent in idolatry. And even if Noach lived at a time when prior to the Flood, idolatry had been rampant, it does not follow that when Noach offers sacrifices, HaShem Decides that man has positive potential and He Swears that He will never again Bring a flood to destroy humanity. Consequently, it has to be concluded that these actions were genuine religious expressions by human beings looking to symbolically indicate their desire to connect to the Divine.
7. RaMBaM could answer RaMBaN’s attack by saying that while relatively speaking, these were primitive attempts on the parts of Hevel and Noach to connect to God, nevertheless there are better ways to do this. If HaShem was Seeking an indication that the intentions of these individuals were good, He Found such an indication. However in terms of delineating what the ideal type of Divine Worship might be, conclusions should not be drawn from Hevel or Noach.
8. Since according to RaMBaN, the thoughts of man are as much a part of his sin as his words and actions, therefore some aspect of sacrifice has to reflect this seat of thinking. He therefore posits that this is the reason for the immolation on the altar of in the innards and the kidneys, for these areas are from where thoughts emanate.
9. According to RaMBaN, the symbolism of sacrifice focuses upon the human elements that comprise sin—soul, thought, speech, action—and that therefore require atonement. R. Hoffmann looks upon the sacrifice as representing the awareness that all life is in God’s Hands, and that we should devote our entire beings to God’s Service.
1. In Moreh Nevuchim 3:32, RaMBaM discusses the general tendency of human beings to become routinized in their actions to the point where sudden change is very difficult for them. If a change is to be introduced, it must be done so gradually. Since the world had become accustomed to worship via sacrifices, it would have been impossible to suddenly command the Jewish people to engage in a completely abstract form of worship. However, there is an implicit assumption that over time, the desire for sacrifices will wane, and then a “purer” form of worship will be accepted. See R. Jonathan Sacks’ discussion of the evolution of slavery from the Jewish point of view in http://www.ou.org/torah/
In Moreh Nevuchim 3: 46, RaMBaM specifically discusses how the sacrifices that were offered via domesticated animals constituted a direct attack on the forms of idolatry that were prevalent in Egypt where these very animals were deified.
2. The Midrash cited at the beginning of the Gilayon would appear to precisely support RaMBaM’s approach in the sense that although “Neveilot and Tereifot” are highly undesirable from the king’s point of view, he will allow these foods to be present in his home so that his son will be able to engage in his desires but within a controlled environment, and that eventually we will find himself losing interest in such foods. The Nimshal is clear.
In Abrabanel’s attempt to support RaMBaM from this very Midrashic source, it is interesting to note the difference in text:
Midrash appearing at the beginning of the Gilayon:
- This will always be on my table, and on his own he will distance himself.
- Midrash cited by Abrabanel:
- Let him eat them on my table continually and one his own he will distance himself.
3. In the Moreh 3:32, RaMBaM had said that people had to be gradually brought around to higher forms of worship. With regard to the issue of Basar Ta’ava (meat that would not be part of a sacrifice that was allowed to be eaten once the land of Israel was settled, and it became impractical to always go to a central Tabernacle or Temple when a person wished to consume meat), while the ideal might have been to only eat that was originally part of a sacrifice in order to insure that the slaughtering was not done for the sake of some idolatrous belief, nevertheless, to insist on such a rule not only while travelling in the desert where the Tabernacle was at the center of all encampments, but even after settling in Israel where the Jewish people would be far more spread apart, was simply impractical and therefore some leeway had to be provided to allow for the fulfillment of personal needs, even if the context is not the most spiritual.
4. RaMBaN posits that RaMBaM’s problem with sacrifices due to their close resemblance to idolatry is not so easily solved by simply saying that it is necessary to make concessions to human nature. If something is truly wrong, you can’t concede anything. E.g., if we were to presume that it is part of human nature to gossip, do we allow some gossip to be permitted? Some thievery to be allowed? Some murder to go unprosecuted? If we are ready to make extreme statements in these areas, why isn’t the same true about the trappings of idolatry? Furthermore, such a position forces the concept that what is allowed in the end is really not Desired by HaShem, making the entire sacrificial cult something that is less than optimal in God’s Eyes. People will come to lose respect for sacrifices and it is difficult to understand why HaShem would Require such rituals to be performed if there is no positive spiritual aspect to their observance.
5. The fact that the sacrifices are described as giving rise to a “ריח הניחוח” (Beraishit 8:21; Shemot 29:25, 41; VaYikra 2:12; 3:16; 4:31; 8:21, 28; VaYikra 17:6; BaMidbar 15:24; 18:17; 28:6, 27; etc. as far as HaShem is concerned suggests that He is Pleased with the practice, rather than Trying to discourage it.
6. RaMBaN further states that since there was no one to emulate when Kayin and Hevel offered their sacrifices, this is an indication that inherently, sacrifices should not be assumed to represent an action that in essence is similar to the materialism inherent in idolatry. And even if Noach lived at a time when prior to the Flood, idolatry had been rampant, it does not follow that when Noach offers sacrifices, HaShem Decides that man has positive potential and He Swears that He will never again Bring a flood to destroy humanity. Consequently, it has to be concluded that these actions were genuine religious expressions by human beings looking to symbolically indicate their desire to connect to the Divine.
7. RaMBaM could answer RaMBaN’s attack by saying that while relatively speaking, these were primitive attempts on the parts of Hevel and Noach to connect to God, nevertheless there are better ways to do this. If HaShem was Seeking an indication that the intentions of these individuals were good, He Found such an indication. However in terms of delineating what the ideal type of Divine Worship might be, conclusions should not be drawn from Hevel or Noach.
8. Since according to RaMBaN, the thoughts of man are as much a part of his sin as his words and actions, therefore some aspect of sacrifice has to reflect this seat of thinking. He therefore posits that this is the reason for the immolation on the altar of in the innards and the kidneys, for these areas are from where thoughts emanate.
9. According to RaMBaN, the symbolism of sacrifice focuses upon the human elements that comprise sin—soul, thought, speech, action—and that therefore require atonement. R. Hoffmann looks upon the sacrifice as representing the awareness that all life is in God’s Hands, and that we should devote our entire beings to God’s Service.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment