Vayikra

Par sh at V ay ikr a To Ele vate T he P hy sical Ra bbi Ari Kahn One of the main topics of Vayikra is the idea of Korban -offering. This concept may come as somewhat of a surprise, for if Judaism believes in an all-powerful, transcendent G-d, what is the purpose of the Korban? After all, why would G-d, who creates and sustains all, need our offerings? Clearly, the answer must be that G-d has no "need" for these offerings. If this is the case, why does the Torah command us to bring offerings, and in such detail? The Ramban (Nachmanides), in his Commentary to the Torah, deals with this question by first introducing the "unacceptable", rational approach offered by The Rambam (Maimonides) in his “Guide for the Perplexed”: The Jews, influenced by other cultures, had become accustomed to this type of ritualistic dependency. Rather than allowing pagan rites, the Torah made some basic adjustments, and called upon man to offer that which he desired. G-d, for his part, has no need for these offerings. We should note that in his legal work, the Mishne Torah, The Rambam states that the Korbanot are a chok, the type of law for which man does not know the reason. But, the Rambam adds, it is certainly “one of the foundations of the world.” Rav Chaim Solovietchik’s method of solving apparent contradictions among the writings of The Rambam is illuminating in this case: Rav Chaim taught that when there is a contradiction between the position of the Rambam is his legal work, “Mishne Torah”, and his philosophical work, “Guide to the Perplexed”, the former is considered the more authoritative, especially when, as in the case of the reason for Korbanot, a philosophical view is espoused in the Mishne Torah1. While the Rambam’s treatment of Korbanot in the “Guide to the Perplexed” does solve at least the basic question, it leaves an unpleasant taste. For if Korbanot were simply an accommodation to the relatively low level of the community at the time, why would the Torah deal with issue in such detail? Furthermore, why would these laws continue into the Second Temple period, when the Jews were no longer effected by pagan influences, having long since quit Egypt? Moreover, in the Mishne Torah2, The Rambam insists that sacrifices will be a part of the service in the Third Temple. In short, while answering the main problem, the Rambam causes new ones. The Ramban strongly attacks this approach, one of his main arguments being that sacrifice predates pagan influence--Cain’s offering being a perfect example. Furthermore, the Korban is described as pleasant to G-d. If the Korban is simply a concession to frail, spiritually- challenged human nature, why would G-d be pleased by such an offering? We might posit that G-d responds to the Korban as 1 2

Heard from Rabbi Yosef Solovietchik The Mishne Torah includes the laws which will be practiced in the future.

man’s way of seeking out a relationship with G-d and not to the Korban per se, but this seems to contradict the verses dealing with Korbanot, such as those referring to “rea’ch nichoach la’Hashem”3. Ramban’s polemic against The Rambam is reminiscent of his attack against commentaries associating the Mishkan with the Golden Calf, where Ramban argues that something as profound as the Mishkan must have a better rationale than merely a response on the part of G-d to the sinful behavior of the nation. Ironically, Ramban’s attack against The Rambam’s position only served to publicize it, effectively broadening the sphere of influence of the very opinion he wished to discredit. The Ramban’s own position is that the various actions involved in bringing a Korban relate to different aspects of man’s need for exoneration. The most descriptive aspect, the spilling of the blood, is intended to serve as a symbolic reminder that the man who has sinned has, in a sense, forfeited his own life. The Chafetz Chaim stressed that any sin is tantamount to heresy – rejection of Gd. In order for a person to sin, they must believe that G-d does not really exist, or, at the moment of sin, the person must believe that G-d is not aware of his action or does not care. Alternatively, a sinner may accept Divine existence and omniscience, but thinks he may be able to “bribe” G-d at a later point. For if a person considered that G-d is indeed always watching, always “cares”, and will always respond to every rebellious action and cannot be bribed, sin would be impossible. Thus we see that in order for man to sin he must espouse some type of heretical position, if only on a temporary basis. Any sinful action is, therefore, separation from G-d, and indeed from life itself. It is the mercy (rach’manut) of G-d which will allow a sinner to achieve forgiveness. In this approach, it is not G-d who “needs” the offering, but man who needs to be rehabilitated. The blood of the animal serves as a vivid reminder of man’s vulnerability and mortality. This "near death" experience is meant to be an impetus for spiritual growth, calling on man to sacrifice the animal within himself which allowed him to sin in the first place. The Korban, then, is a powerful cathartic experience, which takes man’s psychological makeup into consideration. After giving this explanation the Ramban writes: But the true (Kabbalistic) path has an elusive mystical reason for Korbanot... the name of G-d exclusively used in regard is not "E-l”.. nor “Elohim”...rather Y-H-V-H, the unique name, ..that no one should think that the Korban is in order to feed G-d" (Ramban Commentary to Vayikra 1:9) The Ramban reminds us that the name Y-H-V-H refers to the transcendent aspect of G-d; it is the name that indicates that G-d is beyond man’s understanding. Employing this name, to the exclusion of all other names of G-d, points up the 3

See B’reishit 8:21, Vayikra 1:13,17. 2:2,9. 3:5. 6:8,14. 23:13,18, Bamidbar 15: 3,7,9,13,14. 28:8 ,13,24. 29:8, 13,36.

incongruity of the idea of “G-d’s needs”. The name Elo-him, on the other hand, refers to G-d as Judge and creator, concepts which humans can grasp. Had this name of G-d been used in connection with Korbanot, one might have been tempted to imagine that a “bribe” is possible. But, when we contemplate that the Korbanot are commanded by Y-H-V-H, we realize that no bribes can be offered. The following passage in the Talmud is the source of the Ramban’s teaching: It was taught: R. Simeon b. ‘Azzai said. Come and see what is written in the chapter of the sacrifices. Neither el nor elohim is found there, but only the Lord (Y-H-V-H), so as not to give sectarians any occasion to rebel. (Menachot 110a) Additionally, the “singular name” indicates the trait of existing outside of time. This may help us understand how forgiveness takes place: If a man sinned yesterday, and repented today, how can his present attitude undo that which he did yesterday? If we understand that G-d exists outside of time-- indeed, G-d creates time-- and we try to reestablish a relationship with G-d, then time becomes less of a factor. When man connects with the Transcendent G-d, “yesterday” becomes a limited human perspective that no longer confines him. This is the mystery of Teshuva, and of forgiveness. Man does "Teshuva"; he returns to G-d, and G-d forgives him. This explains why the word "Korban" is derived from the root “krv“, “ to come close.” The Korban is the act that allows man to come close to G-d. Teshuva is not only a return to G-d, it is also a return to oneself, to the potential within man, the image of G-d within each and every one of us. When man does Teshuva, he returns to the core of godliness within himself, that “tzelem Elo-him” which is his essence. The importance of the Korban lies in the rehabilitation of man, which is its intended result. Judaism is a religion that sees value in the life of animals. Animal sacrifice is not an expression of disregard for animals. Rather, it is a statement of the importance of human life: If the price to be paid for the rehabilitation of a person is the life of an animal, then it is not a high price. The key is in man’s rehabilitation, in his finding the image of G-d within him. As G-d is compassionate, so must man be compassionate. People, however, have a tendency toward paganism, and instead of undergoing real, profound change, man often prefers to "pay the price" financially, without effecting internal change. In the words of the Prophet Hoshea, "Chesed chafatzti, v’lo zevach." For I desired Chesed-kindness, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of G-d more than burnt offerings. (Hoshea 6:6) The term, which in utilized by the Prophet is “zevach” – slaughtering. This is far afield from the exalted “korban” which, as we have seen, has its root in “krv”, which means to come close. When one kills an animal without an elevated purpose, one has performed “slaughter”. This, the Prophet tells us, is a far cry from the Divine imperative.

This point is clearly evidenced by a tragic story told in the Talmud, of two Kohanim who raced to perform the Divine service. Our Rabbis taught: It once happened that two priests were equal as they ran to mount the ramp and when one of them came first within four cubits of the altar, the other took a knife and thrust it into his heart. R. Zadok stood on the steps of the Hall and said: Our brethren of the house of Israel, hear ye! Behold it says: If one be found slain in the land... then thy elders and judges shall come forth . . . On whose behalf shall we offer the heifer whose neck is to be broken, on behalf of the city or on behalf of the Temple Courts? All the people burst out weeping. The father of the young man came and found him still in convulsions. He said: ‘May he be an atonement for you. My son is still in convulsions and the knife has not become unclean.’ [His remark] comes to teach you that the cleanness of their vessels was of greater concern to them even than the shedding of blood. Thus is it also said: ‘Moreover Manasseh shed innocent blood very much, till he had filled Jerusalem from one end to the other.’(Yoma 23a) When one kohen preceded his friend, the latter plunged a knife into his colleague’s chest. He may as well have stabbed the Temple itself, for this story clearly describes misuse and total misunderstanding of religious life. The Temple was to serve as the symbol of religious life, not as a replacement for ethical life. In response to this type of behavior, the Temple came crashing down. Because man strays from himself and from G-d the Korbanot were necessary to refocus, to remind man of his mortality on the one hand and his mission on the other. The Korbanot were intended as a means toward an end, a path toward finding one's own “tzelem Elo-him”. The Korbanot were meant to be the key which would allow faltering man to regain focus, in an attempt to mend the world, and not some sort of magical ritual needed to placate an angry G-d. Judaism, with its universal concerns, called on Korbanot as a way to take the profound religious experiences associated with the Temple into the lives of individuals. Judaism is holistic, with “religious” concerns, resonating in both the “spiritual” and “secular” domains. The experience of the Korban in the Temple was intended to have a "spill-over" effect, impacting every aspect of our lives. At the point when people compartmentalized religious concerns, placing ritual above social and moral issues, the Temple became a hindrance rather than a place of salvation, and destruction was inevitable.