of Leviticus. This is a tough book; it's mostly an instruction manual
for the priests. The bulk of this doesnt really seem to apply to us
today, since there is no Temple and therefore no priests and no
sacrifice. In Torah study we talked about how some believe that
Leviticus shouldn't even be taught, because it is mostly irrelevant.
I disagree. It is only irrelevant if you read it literally. There's a
lot to learn if you place it in a historical and/or spiritual context
and see how we have evolved in our faith and ritual since then.
When the Second Temple was destroyed, it became impossible to perform
sacrifices properly. We no longer had the proper tools or the proper
location. These elements were determined to be more significant than
the act itself. We could have just made new tools. We could have built
an altar somewhere else. But we didn't.
Instead, the Rabbis decided that prayer would substitute for the
sacrifices. We would pray three times a day, just as we had
sacrificed. We would pray prescribed prayers to ensure that they
served the same purpose as the sacrifices had.
How could this make sense? How could saying a few words ever have the
same value to HaShem as an animal sacrifice, a burnt offering? Prayer
doesn't give anything up. Prayer doesn't have an immediate and obvious
display of power; it doesn't engage the five senses or provoke a
visceral reaction the way a sacrifice did. They're apples and oranges.
Or are they? Maybe we're using the wrong words.
According to <I>The Five Books of Miriam</I>, "Sacrifice", from the
Latin for "to make sacred", is an imprecise translation of the Hebrew
word used here. "Korban" comes from the root "to draw near". It's a
very different idea. Unlike in the Christian understanding of the word
sacrifice, there is no quid pro quo associated with korban. It's not a
matter of giving something up in hopes of appeasing G-d so you can be
forgiven, it's about restoring spiritual equilibrium and correcting
the sense of distance that comes along with sin. Prayer can do that.
It might even be more effective for people today, since most would be
uncomfortable with ritual slaughter.
As I read more on Radical Torah, I found an interesting discussion on
commentaries by Maimonides, Nachmonides, and Nachmonides' "spiritual
successor".
Maimonides was a rationalist. He said that the korban was a means of
affirming monotheism. The goats and cows and other animals sacrificed
were clearly not gods. The summary I read suggested this was a way of
letting other nations know that their gods were weak, but I think it
would work well for helping the Israelites to understand this, too.
It also dovetails nicely with a commentary in my Friedman text, which
points out that after HaShem gave these instructions, there was only
one place on earth to perform sacrifices: at the altar in front of the
Mishkan, and later, at the Temple. This would help to underscore the
idea that sacrifice had to be replaced after the destruction of the
Temple.
Nachmanides was more of a mystic. He felt that the korban was an
imperfect way of offering oneself to HaShem and a means of keeping the
community sufficiently pure for the Divine Presence to continue
dwelling among them. In this interpretation, it is literally about
allowing HaShem to be close. This also makes sense, and describes a
function that prayer could also perform.
Rabbeinu Bahya was a successor to Nachmanides, also a mystic. He
suggested that the korban was a vehicle for the community's moral
growth, which would allow HaShem to remain close, the people to trust
and therefore be close to each other, and describe a function that
could also be performed by prayer.
It gets a bit better when you consider that Bahya's interpretation
suggests communal responsibility and accountability. Accountability is
also something we talked about in Torah study.
It becomes particularly clear upon a close reading of Leviticus 1:2.
"A person from among you who will make an offering to HaShem..."
The word used for "person" is <I>adam</I>, a word that is relatively
rare in the Torah. It means "man", but unlike the typical word,
<I>ish</I>, this one comes with a few images and a slightly different
meaning. <i>Adam</I> calls to mind, well, Adam, the first human being.
It also references <I>adamah</I>, the earth (for which Adam was
named). It implies a level of universality that <i>ish</I> never
could. This means human, not just male or Jew.
Since the <i>adam</I> is acting on behalf of "among you", a plural
form, he is representing all of us with his korban. He is responsible
for his community, which also suggests that the sin of one is the sin
of the whole. What we do reflects on our entire community, possibly
even on the entire human race. We must be careful. No amount of animal
sacrifice could change that responsibility we have for each other. If
anything, replacing the korban with prayer has simply made our faith
sustainable.
No comments:
Post a Comment