HHMI Newsgroup Archives

From:          "Yeshivat Har Etzion's Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash"
To:            yhe-intparsha@vbm-torah.org
Subject:       INTPARSHA -29: Parashat Acharei Mot


                     Yeshivat Har Etzion
         The Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash
        ********************************************
              Introduction to Parashat HaShavua

   Parashat Acharei Mot - More on the Sacrificial Service
                   By Rabbi Michael Hattin

Introduction

Last  lesson, at the opening to Sefer Vayikra, we  began  to
examine the view of the Rambam with respect to the topic  of
sacrifice.   Having  read quite a few of  the  parshiyot  of
Sefer  Vayikra  in  the interim, it should  now  be  readily
apparent that the sacrificial service is indeed at the  core
of  this Biblical Book, the so-called "Priestly Code".   For
over a thousand years, the sacrificial service was practiced
in  ancient  Israel  as  the loftiest  expression  of   man's
attempt to approach the Transcendent God. To be true to  our
heritage as well as to our intellect therefore demands of us
that  we  not  fall  prey  to a perfunctory  and   disdainful
dismissal  of  sacrifice as being primitive and  irrelevant.
Rather,  we must conduct a careful and systematic  study  of
its   tenets   in  order  to  arrive  at  a   more   profound
appreciation  of  its  message.  It  is  true  that   ritual,
ceremony, and extensive detail characterize this service and
it  is  quite  possible  to overlook the  broader  and   more
comprehensive underlying themes by becoming bogged  down  in
the  minutiae.   It  is  therefore especially  important   to
consider the words of the Rambam, whose self-stated goal  is
to  provide a far-reaching and sweeping explanation for  the
sacrificial service as a whole.

Recalcitrant  Human  Nature  and  the  Divine  Directive   to
Transcend It

Recall  that  Rambam's  starting  point  was  a   penetrating
insight  into  human  nature.  He surmised  that  the   Torah
recognizes that human nature tends towards a state of stasis
and  equilibrium  and  has difficulty adapting  to  changes,
especially when these are both extensive as well as  abrupt.
For true, meaningful, and long-lasting change to take place,
it  must occur incrementally over time.  The Primary Purpose
of  the Torah is to foster our relationship with God and  to
assist   us   in   establishing  a  cohesive   and   profound
relationship  with  the  Deity;  worship  and  devotion   are
obviously  important  parts  of  that  process.   Since   the
universal  form  of serving the gods among  all  peoples  in
ancient times was sacrifice, this was the service with which
the  ancient Israelites were well familiar.  Wanting to draw
the   people  away  from  idolatry  but  in  a   manner  that
recognized   the   frailties  of  human   nature    and   the
difficulties  involved  in remolding  it,  God  allowed  the
people  to continue a form of sacrifice, but in a much  more
limited fashion and subject to strict controls.

At  the  same  time, Rambam posits that the essence  of  the
human  personality is freedom of choice and the autonomy  to
exercise  a  moral will.  That being the case,  God  Himself
'must'  exercise a self-imposed limitation not to  intervene
in  human  nature in a manner that undermines or jeopardizes
that  freedom.   Thus, although capable of inspiring  us  to
adopt  the  purer and more refined methods of  service,  God
does  not do; instead, He provides us with the direction  to
achieve   that  goal  as  a  function  of  our    own   moral
independence.   We  are  therefore  left  in  the    somewhat
uncomfortable situation of following a set of commands  that
seemingly are devoid of intrinsic value and are only a means
to  an  end.  Rambam appears unperturbed by that  fact,  and
goes  on to provide the Biblical precedent of the Exodus  to
buttress his thesis.  There as well, God took the people  of
Israel out of Egypt and guided them towards the Land by  the
more  indirect route of the wilderness rather  than  by  the
more  immediate 'way of the sea'.  He knew that  the  former
slaves,  stripped of self-worth and dehumanized by centuries
of  state-sponsored oppression, would not take well  to  the
probability  of  conflict with the  coastal  peoples.   They
would immediately turn around and re-embrace the bondage  of
Egypt.   In  this case as well, the seemingly more  indirect
route  in  the  end turned out to be the more immediate  and
straightforward.


Sacrifice Versus Prayer

Rambam  detects  support  for  his  idea  by  examining   the
differences that exist between the sacrificial service as it
is sanctioned in the Torah, and the service of prayer.  Both
are  expressions of attempting to commune with God and  both
ideally  assert our desire to become closer with the Creator
(Note  that  the  Biblical  word for  sacrifice  is   KoRBan,
deriving   from  the  root  KRV  that  means   closeness   or
proximity).  Nevertheless, the service of sacrifice operates
according  to  strict  and  demanding  controls,  while   the
service of prayer is unfettered by any restrictions.   Thus,
"even  though the sacrifices are now to be offered only  for
the  sake of God, they are no longer to be performed as they
were at the outset (according to the idolatrous system).  It
is  no  longer permissible to sacrifice at any place and  at
any  time,  to construct a temple according to one's  fancy,
and to allow anyone who so desires to officiate and to offer
up.  All this became forbidden.  Rather, a single shrine was
designated  and  to offer outside of it was henceforward  to
constitute a transgression.  The priests were to be only the
descendents  of a certain lineage.  The purpose  of  all  of
this was to lessen and to limit this form of worship, and to
confine  it only to those modes which God's wisdom  did  not
decree  be  abandoned completely" (Guide to  the  Perplexed,
Section 3, Chapter 32).

In  other  words,  Rambam explains, the  very  details  that
strike us as unwieldy and incomprehensible, actually are the
vehicles  for  elevating  the  service  of  sacrifice.   They
constitute  the means of limiting this form of  worship  and
imposing the controls upon it that allow for the possibility
of  moving it away from idolatry and redirecting it  towards
the service of God.  Conversely, it is precisely because the
sacrificial service is associated with idolatrous  practices
that  these  controls are necessary in the first place,  for
sacrifice  according to the Rambam is not an intrinsic  goal
in  itself  but  only  a means to an  end,  and  a   somewhat
indirect means at that.

In  contrast, prayer can be performed "at any place  and  by
anyone" because this more refined form of worship is by  its
very  nature closer to the purpose of drawing one nearer  to
God.   Sacrifice,  says Rambam, was only sanctioned  in  the
first  place  because the ancient Israelites could  scarcely
imagine   a  world  without  it.   Not  being   intrinsically
valuable or ideal, it's sole redeeming feature was  that  it
could serve as the means of slowly but surely deflecting the
people away from idolatry towards God.  Prayer, on the other
hand,  is much closer to the "Primary Purpose, and necessary
for  its achievement".  One can reach God without sacrifice,
says  the  Rambam, but one cannot reach God without  prayer.
Therefore,  prayer  is not limited to the  confines  of  the
Temple or to the service of the Cohanim.

The Source of Rambam's Approach

It  is  important to point out that the sources of  Rambam's
revolutionary approach are to be found in the Torah  itself,
in this week's Parasha. "God spoke to Moshe saying: Speak to
Aharon  and  to his children and to all of Bnei Yisrael  and
say  to  them that God has commanded the following.  If  any
person from the House of Yisrael slaughters an ox, sheep  or
goat in the camp or outside of it, and does not bring it  to
the  entrance  of  the Tent of Meeting  to  offer  it   as  a
sacrifice  to  God,  that person will  be  considered  as   a
shedder  of blood and will be cut off from among his people.
This  is  in  order  that Bnei Yisrael  should  bring   their
sacrifices, that they now offer in the open field, to God at
the  entrance of the Tent of Meeting to the Cohen,  so  that
they  may be offered instead as peace offerings to God.  The
Cohen  shall throw the blood upon the altar of  God  at  the
entrance of the Tent of Meeting and offer the fat as a sweet
savor   to  GOD   THE  PEOPLE  SHALL  NO   LONGER  OFFER 
THEIR SACRIFICES  TO  THE DEMONS, AFTER WHICH  THEY 
STRAY.   This shall be an everlasting decree for all generations"
(Vayikra 17:1-8).

Thus,  the  Torah here indicates that the people  of  Israel
were wont to offer sacrifices to other gods, and this had in
fact  been  their practice in Egypt as well  (see  also  the
commentary of Ramban on verse 7).  God desired to  draw  the
people  away  from their service of idolatry, and  therefore
decreed that sacrifice be to be brought only at the Mishkan.
The text stresses that the offering be brought 'to God' four
times, that it be presented at the 'entrance of the Tent  of
Meeting'  three times, and that the Cohen be the  officiator
twice.   This makes Rambam's claim of the Torah  seeking  to
limit  and to restrict the sacrificial service, in  response
to  its  idolatrous underpinnings, quite compelling but  not
absolute.  This is because the Torah does not state that the
sanction for sacrifices was solely to extirpate idolatry and
that  the  sacrificial service had no intrinsic  value,  but
only  that  Bnei  Yisrael  had a predilection  for  offering
sacrifices to the demons that had to be redirected to God.


The Rabbinic Parable

Significantly,  though, a Rabbinic source adduced  by  later
commentaries  in support of the Rambam, appears  to  provide
the necessary evidence.  "Rabbi Pinchas said in the name  of
Rabbi  Levi: the matter can be compared to a King's son  who
had coarse tastes and was habituated to eating the flesh  of
carrion and improperly slaughtered meat.  The King said: let
this son eat at my table at all times, and this will curtail
his habit.  Similarly, the people of Israel were addicted to
idolatry  in Egypt and would offer their sacrifices  to  the
demons, as the verse states 'that the people shall no longer
offer  their sacrifices to the demons'.they would also offer
their  sacrifices on the high places in violation, and would
suffer  punishment.  Therefore, God said: let  them  instead
offer  their sacrifices at all times at the Tent of  Meeting
and they will THEREBY BE SEPARATED FROM IDOLATRY AND
SAVED." (Vayikra Rabba, 22:8).

This  Midrashic  source  provides clear  evidence  at  least
according  to  this opinion that the Divine  motivation  for
sanctioning sacrifice was as a means of drawing  the  people
of  Israel away from idolatry.  The addicted prince (Israel)
whose  coarse nature (spiritual immaturity) desired unsavory
foods  (sacrifice to idols) is to be 'cured'  of  his  habit
(ingrained  practices) not through a severe  decree  of  the
King  (God)  forbidding  his son to consume  any  meat  (any
sacrificial service) at all, but rather by providing the son
with an open invitation to eat at the King's table (the Tent
of  Meeting)  at  all  times.  This approach  constitutes   a
calculated redirecting of the son's habit towards acceptable
conduct  and serves as the means of strengthening  the  bond
between the King and his wayward child.


The Sacrificial Service in the Eyes of the Prophets

Finally, Rambam utilizes his approach to explain the  heated
polemic  against the sacrificial service found in the  words
of   the  Prophets.   These  individuals,  who   were  active
throughout Biblical history, expended much of their  efforts
criticizing  immorality,  egocentricism,  self-worship,  and
insincerity.   Their  pointed critique  of  the  sacrificial
service  is to be found in the words of Shemuel/Samuel  even
before  the  inception  of the Temple rites,  and  continues
unabated  until the time of Yirmiyahu/Jeremiah who witnessed
its   destruction  some  five  hundred  years  later.     The
following   sources,  comprehensive  but   not    exhaustive,
provides a fair indication of the depth of their indignation
at  what they saw as a service that was full of pomp, ritual
and  ceremony,  but  bereft of content, meaning  or  sincere
devotion:  Samuel I:15:22; Hosea 6:6; Isaiah  1:10-18;  Amos
5:21-25; Micah 6:6-8; Jeremiah 7:3-15, 21-28.

In  particular, Rambam singles out a statement of Yirmiyahu,
which  at  first glance seems incomprehensible.  "Thus  says
the  God  of  Hosts,  the  Lord of Israel:  add  your   burnt
offerings to your other sacrifices and eat the flesh.  For I
did  not speak to your ancestors nor command them concerning
burnt  offerings or sacrifices on the day that I  took  them
out of Egypt.  Rather, this is what I commanded them saying:
'hearken to My voice so that I will be your God and you will
be  My  people.  Follow in the way that I commanded  you  in
order that it might be good for you.'" (Yirmiyahu 7:21-23).

As  Rambam remarks "how can Yirmiyahu say in God's name that
He   did  not  command  us  concerning  burnt   offerings  or
sacrifices, seeing that so many mitzvot of the Torah concern
precisely  these matters?  Rather, the Prophet  was  telling
the  people that the Primary Purpose was for them  to  serve
God  and not other beings, so that  'I will be your God  and
you  will  be My people'.  The commands concerning sacrifice
and  the  approach to God's house were only for the sake  of
achieving this goal.  It was for this very reason that these
forms of worship were transferred towards God, precisely for
the  sake  of  wiping  out idolatry and  to  strengthen   the
foundation  of  God's Oneness.  Yirmiyahu tells  the  people
that  they  have  abrogated this purpose by  doubting  God's
existence   and   serving  idols,  while    maintaining   the
sacrificial service of the Temple!  The Primary Purpose  had
thus  been  forgotten  by the people as  they  continued  to
pursue a sacrificial service that was never meant to  be  an
end in itself!"

For  the  Rambam, the very fact that the sacrificial service
was  not  an  end in itself constituted the  source  of  its
undoing.    It   was  not  possible  for  the   Prophets   to
countenance  its ceremonial fulfillment by the people  while
overlooking their rampant nullification of its purpose.   As
we continue to pray for the Temple's rebuilding, we would do
well  to keep Rambam's explanation in mind.  A 'service'  of
God that is devoid of a desire to come close to His presence
and to follow His laws, is a tragic disregard of the Primary
Purpose  that  must constitute the core of our  relationship
with Him.

Shabbat Shalom


YESHIVAT HAR ETZION
ISRAEL KOSCHITZKY VIRTUAL BEIT MIDRASH
ALON SHEVUT, GUSH ETZION 90433

Copyright (c) 1999 Yeshivat Har Etzion
All Rights Reserved

**************************************************************************

Torah/Commentary:  Parashat Acharei Mot -- (Leviticus 16:1-18:30)

Commentary on the Weekly Torah Reading for 24 Nisan, 5760

by Rabbi Shlomo Riskin

Chief Rabbi of Efrat;

EFRAT, LIBERATED JUDEA, Yom Chamishi (Fifth Day - "Thursday"), 22 Nisan,
5760.  A recent Broadway show was entitled "Whose Life is it
Anyway?"  Conventional wisdom would certainly have it that our lives belong
to us and that we have ultimate authority over what we do or do not do with
and to our bodies.  Judaism however may very well have a very different
perspective.

We read in this week's Torah portion, "And you shall observe my statutes
and my laws which people shall perform and shall live by them, I am the
Lord"  [Leviticus 18:5].

Our Sages extract from the words "and shall live by them" that we must use
Torah as a means to a more sanctified life, but not as a reason for
martyrdom.  The Talmud teaches that if an individual is ordered by a
Jew-hating ("anti-Semitic") government to desecrate the Sabbath or to be
murdered, he must desecrate the Sabbath and live.  It is considered better
that he desecrate one Sabbath and be able to keep many more during a long
productive life than that he give up his life for a Torah Law.
 
However, the verse we've just cited which seems to be a resounding
declaration for life over law serves as the introduction to a long list of
forbidden sexual relationships and acts of sexual immorality -- along with
idolatry and murder -- which are the "exception to the rule".  These are
transgressions of which we are commanded to surrender our lives rather than
commit.

If this is true why does the command that we "live by" our laws introduce
specifically those laws for which we must be willing to die?

The real interpretation of the verse in question is that an individual who
is truly G-d - fearing must be willing to live in accordance with G-d's law
and not in accordance with his own desires or decisions.  It is G-d's laws
which must become the prescription for our lives.  It is G-d who tells us
how to deal with our bodies and when we may or may not sacrifice our lives.

In a very real sense, Judaism would insist that our life belongs to G-d,
not to us.  It was G-d, the Author of life, who gave us our lives and our
bodies and insists on defining what we may or may not do with them.

This is perhaps one of the critical differences between the mentality of
Western culture and our own
Jewish traditions.  From the perspective of Western culture sexual
activities are completely outside of the province of ethics and morality.
Two consenting adults can do anything they wish with their bodies and with
each other's body.  Even married partners who agree to the kind of open
marriage which permits sexual promiscuity would not at all be frowned upon
by liberal defenders of individual autonomy.

The Biblical command where we are to live by our laws and statutes tells us
that our bodies belong to G-d
and our sexual mores must be expressed in accordance with G-d's will.  It
is G-d's body not ours.

The issue of human autonomy versus Divine rights is one of the basic issues
of medical ethics.  Liberal America insists that every mother has the
intrinsic right to abort a child because the fetus is part of her body and
no one can tell her what she can or cannot do with her own physical being.
Similarly, if, for religious reasons, a particular  individual refuses to
accept a blood transfusion or a necessary operation,
it is his inalienable right to make this decision.

The only question that is presently before the courts is whether an
individual has the right to make such a decision for his sick child.  In
other words, one's self and one's body includes one's fetus which is lodged
in one's body.  Whether or not it also includes a born child who was
already separated from its mother's body is a mute question which must be
decided by the judiciary.

Jewish tradition has a very different approach.  The biblical command that
our lives be circumscribed and decided by the parameters of Jewish law and
the special permission granted doctors to heal (Exodus 21:19) point to the
fact that if medical opinion demands that a leg be amputated in order for
the patient to live, the patient does not have the right to refuse the
operation.

Recently there was a woman in Israel who refused to have her gangrenous leg
removed because she argued that the future world is the eternal world and
she didn't want to be resurrected with only one leg.  The Chief Rabbi of
Israel came to her bedside and convinced her that Jewish law insists that
she have the operation. 

The Bible itself forbids suicide because.  As the human being is created in
G-d's image, no one has the
right to take his own life  [Genesis 9:5,6].

Maimonides rules that every human being -- his body and his life -- are
owned by G-d (Laws of Murder1,4).  A major 16th century commentator on
Maimonides, Rabbenu David Ben Zimra, thereby explains the fact that
although an individual is always believed when he claims he owes someone
else a sum of money or a physical object, an individual is never believed
when he claims that he owes his life because he has committed a capital
crime.  Our physical possessions belong to us and therefore we can
willingly give them up.  Our lives and our bodies belong to G-d and we do
not have ultimate control (Radbaz on Maimonides Laws of Sanhedrin 18:6).

Rav Yosef Zevin, one of the great halakhic authorities of Israel during the
first decades of the State, emphasized the point we have just discussed in
a fascinating article entitled, "The Case of Shylock".

Rav Zevin convincingly argues that Jewish Law would clearly have forbidden
Shylock from demanding a pound of Antonius' flesh in payment of a debt even
if Antonius had agreed to that condition (see Shakespeare's "Merchant of
Venice").  Antonius' body belonged neither to Shylock nor even to himself.
His body belonged to G-d.

Shabbat Shalom from Efrat,


Rabbi Shlomo Riskin

************************************************************************

Return to Newsgroup Archives Main Page

Return to our Main Webpage


©2011 Hebraic Heritage Ministries International. Designed by Web Design by JB.