פרשת ויקרא - סוד הקרבנות

(1) ‘VAYIKRA’ (AND HE CALLED). This book is the law of the priests and the Levites. In it G-d explains matters concerned with all the offerings and watching over the Tabernacle [that it should not become defiled]. This is because one book [i.e., the second book of the Torah] was dedicated to the Egyptian exile and the redemption therefrom, and He completed it with an account of the building of the Tent of Meeting and the Glory of G-d which filled the Tabernacle, therefore He now commanded Moses about the offerings and about watching over the Tabernacle, in order that the offerings effect atonement for [the children of] Israel, and that their sins should not bring about the removal of the Divine Glory. Thus He commanded the priests that come near unto the Eternal that they sanctify themselves, warning them against defilement of the Sanctuary and its hallowed offerings, and also that they are not to break through to come up unto the Eternal, just as He said, Speak unto Aaron thy brother, that he come not at all times into the holy place within the veil, before the ark-cover which is upon the ark, that he die not; for I appear in the cloud upon the ark-cover, which is similar to the warning [given at the Revelation] lest they break through unto the Eternal to gaze, and many of them perish. After that He set limits to the Tabernacle, even as He had marked off Mount Sinai when the Glory of the G-d of Israel was there.

Its entrails and legs shall be washed with water, and the priest shall turn the whole into smoke on the altar as a burnt offering, an offering by fire of pleasing odor to ה׳.

(1) A BURNT-OFFERING. “[He shall burn it] with the intention that it should be a burnt-offering [and not an offering of another category]. ‘ISHEIH’ (A FIRE-OFFERING). When he slaughters it he should slaughter it with the intention of [burning it by] fire, [as will be explained further on]. Wherever the word isheih occurs, it is an expression of fire. PLEASING — it is pleasing to Me that I have commanded and My will was done.” This is the language of Rashi. Now the Rabbi did not explain what is meant by “the intention of [burning it by] fire.” In the Gemara the Rabbis have said: “this is to exclude kabobo, which may not be done.” Now the commentators explained this to mean that he should slaughter it with the intention of placing it on flames burning the pile of wood upon the altar, and not of placing it upon dying coals which are in the process of being extinguished. To me it appears that the intention he needs to have is that the fire should burn it completely, and not that it should just be roasted there a little, the word kabobo being similar to the expression of the Rabbis in the chapter entitled “A stubborn and rebellious son: ” “k’basar kiba (like partly-roasted meat) which thieves eat.” In Tractate Erubin we also find: “v’nichbeiv (let him roast it) and eat it.” Now some books have a reading in Tractate Zebachim: “this is to exclude gabobo (straw), which may not be done.” Accordingly the meaning thereof is that he should have the intention to put it on a fire of wood, as it is written, on the wood that is on the fire, and he should not intend to put it upon a fire made of stubble and straw, similar to that which we have been taught [in a Mishnah]: “If a double-stove had been heated with stubble and gabobo.” Now this verse mentions a reason for the offerings, namely, that they are a fire-offering, of a pleasing odor unto the Eternal. The Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] wrote in the Moreh Nebuchim that the reason for the offerings is because the Egyptians and the Chaldeans in whose lands the children of Israel were strangers and sojourners, used always to worship the herd and the flock, the Egyptians worshipping the sheep and the Chaldeans worshipping the demons whom they imagined as assuming the form of goats. To this day men of India never slaughter the herd. It was for this reason that He commanded [Israel] to slaughter these three species [of cattle: the herd, the flock, and the goats], to the Revered Name, so that it be known that the very act which the idol-worshippers considered to be the utmost sin [i.e., slaughtering the above species], that same act should be done as an offering before the Creator, and through it Israel’s sins would be forgiven. For such is the way to cure people of false beliefs, which are the diseasees of the human soul, for all diseases and sicknesses are healed by medicines which are antithetical to them. These are the words [the Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon], and he expounded them at great length. But these words are mere expressions, healing casually a severe wound and a great difficulty, and making the table of the Eternal polluted, [as if the offerings were intended only] to remove false beliefs from the hearts of the wicked and fools of the world, when Scripture says that they are the food of the offering made by fire, for a pleasing odor. Moreover, [if the offerings were meant to eliminate] the foolish [ideas] of the Egyptians, their disease would not thereby be cured. On the contrary, it would increase the cause of sorrow, for since the intention of the above-mentioned wicked ones was to worship the constellations of the sheep and the ox, which according to their opinion possess certain powers [over human affairs], and which is why they abstain from eating them in deference to their power and strength, then if these species are slaughtered to the Revered Name, it is a mark of respect and honor to [these constellations]. These worshippers themselves were in the habit of so doing, as He has said, And they shall no more sacrifice their sacrifices unto the satyrs, and those who made the [golden] calf sacrificed to it. Now the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] mentions that the idol-worshippers used to sacrifice to the moon on the days of new-moon, and to the sun when it rose in a particular constellation known to them from their books. The disease of idolatry would surely have been far better cured if we were to eat [these animal-deities] to our full, which would be considered by them forbidden and repugnant, and something they would never do! Furthermore, when Noah came out of the ark with his three sons, there were as yet no Chaldeans or Egyptians in the world, yet he brought an offering, which was pleasing to G-d, as concerning it Scripture says, And the Eternal smelled the pleasing odor, and on account of it He said in His heart, ‘I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake.’ Abel likewise brought of the first-born of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Eternal had regard unto Abel and to his offering. Yet there was as yet not the slightest trace at all of idol-worship in the world! Balaam said, ‘I have prepared the seven altars, and I have offered up a bullock and a ram on every altar.’ His intent then was not to eradicate from [Balak’s mind] evil beliefs, nor was he commanded to bring the offerings. Instead, Balaam did so in order to approach G-d so that he would be reached by His communication. The Scriptural expression concerning the offerings is, My food which is presented unto Me for offerings made by fire, for a pleasing odor unto Me. Far be it that they should have no other purpose and intention except the elimination of idolatrous opinions from the minds of fools! It is far more fitting to accept the reason for the offerings which scholars say, namely that since man’s deeds are accomplished through thought, speech and action, therefore G-d commanded that when man sins and brings an offering, he should lay his hands upon it in contrast to the [evil] deed [committed]. He should confess his sin verbally in contrast to his [evil] speech, and he should burn the inwards and the kidneys [of the offering] in fire because they are the instruments of thought and desire in the human being. He should burn the legs [of the offering] since they correspond to the hands and feet of a person, which do all his work. He should sprinkle the blood upon the altar, which is analogous to the blood in his body. All these acts are performed in order that when they are done, a person should realize that he has sinned against his G-d with his body and his soul, and that “his” blood should really be spilled and “his” body burned, were it not for the loving-kindness of the Creator, Who took from him a substitute and a ransom, namely this offering, so that its blood should be in place of his blood, its life in place of his life, and that the chief limbs of the offering should be in place of the chief parts of his body. The portions [given from the sin-offering to the priests], are in order to support the teachers of the Torah, so that they pray on his behalf. The reason for the Daily public Offering is that it is impossible for the public [as a whole] to continually avoid sin. Now these are words which are worthy to be accepted, appealing to the heart as do words of Agadah. By way of the Truth, [the mystic teachings of the Cabala], there is a hidden secret contained in the offerings. You may be introduced to it by that which our Rabbis have said in the Sifre and at the end of Tractate Menachoth: “Shimon ben Azai said: Come and see what is written in the section of the offerings! It does not say with reference to them E-il (G-d), nor Elokecha (thy G-d), nor Elokim (G-d), nor Sha-dai (Almighty), nor Tze-baoth (G-d of ‘Hosts’), but only, Yod Hei — the Proper name of G-d [the Tetragrammaton — ‘Eternal’] — in order not to give an opponent [i.e., a believer in plurality] an occasion for a point of attack. Perhaps you might say that He is in need of food, Scripture therefore says, If I were hungry, I would not tell thee; for the world is Mine, and the fullness thereof. I have only commanded you to bring the offerings in order that My Will should be said and fulfilled.” In the beginning of Torath Kohanim we also find: “Rabbi Yosei says: Wherever an offering is mentioned by Scripture, the Tetragrammaton is used, in order not to give an opportunity for heretics to rebel” [by finding pluralistic allusions against the principle of Unity]. These are the words of the Rabbis of blessed memory. Now it is true that in the section of the Torah where the offerings are commanded it does not say E-il or Elokim (G-d). But we do find [elsewhere in Scripture] verses as follows: and thou shalt offer burnt-offerings thereon unto the Eternal ‘Elokecha’ (thy G-d); the bread of ‘Elokeihem’ (their G-d), they do offer; thou shalt sanctify him [the priest], for he offereth the bread of ‘Elokecha’ (thy G-d). In the psalm mentioned above it is written, Offer unto ‘Elokim’ (G-d) the offering of thanksgiving. It is further written: For our fathers have acted treacherously, and done that which was evil in the sight of the Eternal our G-d, and have forsaken Him … Also they have closed the doors of the porch, and put out the lamps, and have not burned incense nor offered burnt-offerings in the holy place unto ‘Elokei’ (the G-d of) Israel. But the whole subject is explained in the Torah [itself], as it is said, My offering, My bread ‘l’ishai’ (for My fire-offerings), and it is said, the food of ‘isheh’ (the fire offering), meaning that the offerings are the food of isheh, and from it they are for the ishim — the word isheh being an expression for “fire.” Now Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote that isheih is an adjectival noun, meaning “a fire-offering,” qualifying the word “all” [and the priest shall cause ‘all’ to ascend in fumes]; and in the case of the meal-offering where it says, and the priest shall cause to ascend in fumes the memorial-portion of it upon the altar, ‘isheih’ (a fire-offering), of a pleasing odor unto the Eternal, [the word isheih] is adjectival to the word kometz [“handful” — mentioned in the first part of the verse]. But this is not so. Rather, the word isheih is a noun like eish (fire), and olah isheih [mentioned in Verse 9 before us] is like olath eish (a burnt-offering of fire), of a pleasing odor unto the Eternal, and so are all similar expressions, their meaning being like lechem isheh (the food of the fire-offering). The reason, however, why He did not say eish but said isheih [comprised of the letters: alef, shin, hei] is [to allude to] the plain meaning thereof, as it hath been shown thee in the mount at the Giving of the Torah, which refers to the offering in the attribute of justice. The slaughtering [of the offering] must be to the Name of the Eternal alone, meaning that [he who slaughters it] must have no intention to do so to anything else in the world, save unto the Name of the Eternal only, this being the meaning of the expression ‘olah hu … isheh hu’ (it is a burnt-offering … a fire-offering)… That is why the verse says, For the ‘ishei’ (fire-offerings) of the Eternal, the bread of their G-d, they offer, and they shall be holy, for the offering of their G-d is unto the ‘ishei of the Eternal; and therefore the Rabbis have said that in [the sections of the Torah giving] the commands for the offerings, it does not mention E-il or Elokim (G-d), but a fire-offering unto the Eternal, a pleasing odor unto the Eternal, for the intention must be unto the Eternal alone, and he who performs the acts of offering it up should have no other intent or thought save only to the Proper Name [i.e., the Tetragrammaton]. This is the sense of the saying of the Sages: “Scripture has ordered all these Services to be devoted to the Proper Name.” And in the Torath Kohanim it is said: “Unto the Eternal — unto Him Who created the world.” It is this which the psalm states: Offer unto G-d the offering of thanksgiving, and pay thy vows unto the Most High; For the Eternal is the Most High, Fearful, a Great King over all the earth. The vow [to bring the offering] may also only be taken unto the Proper Name. It is this which the psalm states, G-d, thy G-d, am I. I will not reprove thee for thy offerings, just as He said, I am the Eternal thy G-d. This is the sense of the whole psalm wherein it says, ‘E-il Elokim Hashem’ (G-d, G-d, the Eternal) hath spoken, and called the earth etc., using the full Divine Name in reference to the world, and mentioning therein the offerings. It is with reference to this too that it is said [speaking of the offerings], They shall come up with acceptance on Mine altar, and I will glorify My glorious house, meaning to say that the offerings shall be brought for acceptance, which is upon His altar, and He will then glorify His glorious house when they go up for a pleasing odor, the word nicho’ach (pleasing) being derived from the expressions: ‘nachah’ (there rests) the spirit of Elijah on Elisha; ‘vatanach’ (and there rested) the spirit upon them. Likewise all terms of korban (offering) [from the root ‘karav’, near] are expressions of approaching, and unity. Therefore, it says, Nor did they offer burnt-offerings in the holy place unto the G-d of Israel, for the burnt-offering in the holy place is to the G-d of Israel. The angel taught Manoah the concept of the offerings when he said, Though thou detain me, I will not eat of thy bread, meaning that if Manoah were to make him food he would not accept it from him, as it would be unfit and an offering which is an abomination to G-d. But if thou wilt make ready a burnt-offering, unto G-d alone thou must offer it. Then will it be for acceptance as the fire-offerings of the Eternal, as indeed the angel of the Eternal ascended in the flame of the altar. Thus is the subject [of the offerings] explained and clarified. May the good Lord pardon!

והקטיר הכהן את הכל המזבחה, עולה אשה ריח ניחוח לה, “and the priest shall cause all of it to burn up on the altar, it is a burnt-offering, an offering by fire of pleasing odor to the Lord.” According to the plain meaning of the text the entire purpose of the legislation concerning animal-sacrifices is for man’s benefit. G’d takes a delight in His most perfect creation, i.e. man, for whose sake the entire universe has been created. The purpose of the species is to be so governed by its intellect that it will remain free from sin just like the angels in heaven (who have no evil urge. Ed.) If, perchance, man does commit a sin, due to the evil urge which has been planted within man, it is appropriate that he repent and recognise his inadequacy vis-a-vis his Creator whose will he transgressed. Such a sinner must turn inward recognising that the sin he committed affected both his body and his spirit. Seeing that everything man does involves three components, the physical deed, the planning, and his power of speech, i.e. communicating his thoughts, the Torah commanded man to bring a sacrifice to atone for his sin and to place his hands (weight) on the sacrificial animal in order to atone for the physical action involved in the sin committed. He has to confess the sin with words in order to make up for having misused the power of speech given to him when he committed a sin. He has to burn up the inner organs of the animal including the kidneys, seat of his thoughts, in order to make up for the faulty thinking which resulted in his committing a sin. In this manner the atonement will involve three stages just as commission of the sin involved three separate parts of his personality. Strictly speaking, the sinner’s own blood should have been sprinkled on the altar in order for him to obtain forgiveness; however, by performing the rites set out by the Torah, G’d, in His generosity, accounts this for the sinner as if his own blood had been sprinkled on the altar. Man is to think of these procedures in those terms when his sin-offering is being burned up. By rights, most people are guilty of the four death-penalties decreed by the Torah for a variety of sins, i.e. stoning, death by burning, death by asphyxiation, and death by the sword. When the priest takes the animal and forces it to the ground in preparation for slaughter this symbolizes the penalty of death by stoning. It is as if the sinner had agreed that he himself is deserving of this penalty. When the animal is slaughtered and its neck is severed it is as if the sinner had confessed that he himself was guilty of such a penalty. Severing of the windpipe of the slaughtered animal is equivalent to performing the death penalty by asphyxiation, whereas burning up of the fat parts, etc., is equivalent to the owner/sinner admitting that he himself was guilty of that penalty. Tanchuma Shelach 14 explains the concept of animal sacrifice in a similar way when writing about Genesis 22,13 where the Torah reports Avraham as sacrificing the ram as a burnt-offering in lieu of his son.” The word תחת used by the Torah, which we translated as “in lieu of,” is the cause of the Midrash saying that whenever Avraham prepared a part of that animal either its blood or its fat-parts, etc., he first recited a prayer beginning with the words: “may it be Your will O Lord that the sacrificial service I am about to perform should be considered as if it had been performed on my son. The animal’s blood should be considered as Yitzchak’s blood, its body which is being burned as if Yitzchak’s body had been burned.” G’d accepts the sinner’s offering in place of the sinner and grants him atonement. This is an expression of G’d’s great love for His creatures. This explanation of the purpose of sacrifice is one that satisfied one’s heart even though it appears to limit the value of animal sacrifice to sin or guilt-offerings. The fact that the Torah calls such a sacrifice as “a fire-offering of sweet odour for the Lord,” reflects the love with which G’d relates to a repentant sinner. [These sacrifices and the atonement that follows are restricted to unintentionally committed sins. Ed.] A Midrashic approach (Tanchuma Pinchas 12). Assaph writes in Psalms 50,12: “if I were hungry I would not tell you, for Mine is the world and all it holds.” In verse 9 in the same psalm we read: ‘I will not take (claim) from your estate a single bull, no he-goats from your pen, for Mine is every animal of the forest, the beasts on a thousand mountains.” Rabbi Simon said thirteen different attributes of G’d’s mercy have been recorded seeing the Torah writes: “the Lord passed in front of him (Moses) etc.” (Exodus 34,6). Is there then anyone who can be called merciful if he entrusts His own food-supply to the cruel (i.e. man)? The idea that G’d would let man decide how much food and what kind of food to feed G’d is so totally ridiculous as not being worth discussing! This is the meaning of Palms 50,12, i.e. we are to read it as a question highlighting the absurdity of G’d making man the arbiter of how much He should consume! Rabbi Yehudah son of Simon said that G’d told man that He had put 10 categories of domesticated (non-carnivorous) beasts at his disposal, 3 of which were easily accessible to him i.e. oxen (cattle) sheep and goats (Deut. 14,4). The other 7 categories are: the hart, the deer, the yachmur, the akko, the dishon, the teo, and the zamir. Seeing they are difficult for you to access I have not demanded that you offer to Me the pure animals which are free-roaming. The only ones which I have asked you to use as sacrificial animals are the ones that feed on your trough, i.e. have ben domesticated by you, the ones you do not have to hunt. This is the meaning of the verse: “If I am hungry I would not tell you.” Rabbi Yitzchack drew attention to the verse in Numbers 28,2 את קרבני לחמי, “My sacrifice, My bread, etc.” Can one then speak of G’d “eating” or “drinking?” You should learn a lesson from what we know about the ministering angels. David writes in Psalms 104,4: “His messengers are fiery flames.” To the question what sustains the ministering angels, i.e. what kind of food to they subsist on, the answer given is that they are sustained by the זיו השכינה, “the brightness and splendour of the Shechinah, as we know from Proverbs 16,15 באור פני מלך חיים, “in the light of the king’s face there is life.” Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: “we can learn all this directly from what the Torah told us about Moses. We have been told in Exodus 34,28 that while Moses was on Mount Sinai he neither ate bread nor drank water. If Moses, while only on a mission for G’d did not need physical food, how much less does G’d Himself need such food? This is the meaning of “if I were hungry, I would not tell you (to supply Me.).” A rational approach: the matter of animal sacrifice and why it is useful may be understood in terms of the origin of the sin. Whether a sin is committed only in the mind or is actually carried out, the source of such sin is some spirit of impurity which has infected man’s soul. If man desires atonement for his sin it is essential that he expel this spirit of impurity first. If he succeeds in doing this he will be cleansed from his guilt. This is why in the case of a sin-offering it is incumbent upon him to offer the animal which symbolises such impurity, i.e. the goat or he-goat. When the animal is consumed the impure spirit of the sinner is consumed at the same time. and is burnt up on the altar. This is what the Talmud Yuma 21 had in mind when it spoke of “fire consuming fire,” i.e. the fire of the altar consumes the fire, (evil urge) which was burning in man when he committed the sin. This quality of the fire on the altar is so important that the Torah commanded that this fire never be allowed to go out (Leviticus 6,5 and 6,6). In the third section of Moreh Nevuchim chapter 32, item 47 Maimonides writes concerning the reason behind the animal sacrifice legislation that the Torah wanted to uproot pagan practices amongst the Jewish people and that by sublimating the animal sacrifice ritual this could be achieved. The most important part of the legislation was that instead of sacrifices of living creatures being offered to idolatrous forces in temples dedicated to forces of nature, the Jew would learn to dedicate all he had to dedicate to the one and only G’d. The idolaters had imagined that by what they were doing they could reinforce the power of their respective horoscopes by offering their sacrifices to them and that in turn their horoscopes would bestow their largess upon them or at least protect them against harmful influences. When the Egyptians worshipped the image of a sheep they did so in the knowledge that the horoscope of the sheep was of great influence in the celestial regions. They felt that the blessings bestowed on earth by means of flocks originated with that zodiac sign. It was generally perceived that essential food products such as milk, butter, etc., were all the “gift” of zodiac signs in the celestial regions. If the Egyptians did not want to be shepherds (compare Genesis 46,34), this was because they felt that acting as if they owned their “gods” was an insult to these gods who they perceived of as being the providers of their essential foodstuffs. What applied to the Egyptians and their sheep applied to the Chaldaens and their attitude to cattle. They perceived the zodiac sign of the ox to be the source responsible for their food-supply. As a result they forbade that cattle be slaughtered, and abstained from eating beef. Indians still cling to such beliefs today and do not slaughter cows, (hence the expression “holy cow.”) This is why G’d commanded that just these species be sacrificed to G’d. This is why the Torah commenced the section dealing with animal sacrifice by referring to a person’s desire to offer מן הבקר ומן הצאן, “from the cattle or the flock” (1,2). The Torah wanted to let us know that these species were considered as so important in determining the fates of the heathens of those days. Henceforth, these very species would be featured in obtaining forgiveness for the trespasses committed by the Jewish people unintentionally. Faulty philosophies, i.e. religious beliefs, can be forgiven only when one reverses course. By dedicating the very thing one used to dedicate to idolatrous causes to a sacred cause approved by G’d, or better still, commanded by G’d, atonement for one’s former errors becomes possible. Diseases of the body are healed, i.e. reversed, when the balance of the body is restored by the person suffering from the disease reversing course, i.e. negating intake of what brought on the disease, etc. The same is true for spiritual imbalances which resulted in idolatrous philosophies. The Torah’s principal concern is the combating of false philosophies, false perceptions of who rules the universe and who has created it. This is why such sacrifices became “a fire-offering of pleasant odour to the Lord.” When the people unite in order to serve the Lord instead of idols, they thereby strengthen the unity of G’d. Idolatry, by definition, is the opposite of unity, in particular of the concept of the unity of G’d. This is the approach of Maimonides and his followers to the subject of animal sacrifice. However much one might be tempted to accept Maimonides’ theory, the fact remains that righteous people long before the Torah had been given were in the habit of offering animal sacrifices not to idols- but to the one and only G’d. All of this preceded the times when idolatrous practices were introduced. Adam offered animal sacrifices (Chulin 60); Hevel, his son, also offered sheep, i.e. animal sacrifices (Genesis 4,4). Noach and his sons offered numerous animal sacrifices as thanksgiving after the deluge from which they had been saved (Genesis 8,21). G’d is on record as responding to these sacrifices by describing them as ריח ניחוח, “pleasant smelling odour.” All this occurred long before there were any Egyptians or Chaldaens. The whole subject of animal sacrifice dating back as it does to the first man is a subject replete with mystical significance. It contains hidden elements of the interrelations between different parts of G’d’s creation. We have touched upon this in the introduction to our commentary to the Torah under the heading “the fourth method.” All those who do understand these matters are duty-bound to conceal their knowledge and not publicise it indiscriminately. This knowledge may only be revealed for the sake of the Creator’s honour to selected individuals, exceptionally pious persons. David already indicated in Psalms 19,11 that the words of G’d which are sweeter than honey are for the ones who have displayed thorough understanding. Anyone lacking such attributes will find these mysteries of the Torah as exceedingly remote. These words are considered as עתיקים, dating back to primeval times (based on Chronicles I 4,22); they are like deep waters which cannot be explored by just anybody. A kabbalistic approach sees in the word קרבן itself an allusion to G’d’s Unity. The word suggests that all of G’d’s various attributes are very close to one another just as His names are very close to each other, all part of One Unity. Anyone offering a sacrifice thereby reinforces this fabric of G’d’s Unity. This is the mystical dimension of the words והקטיר הכהן את הכל המזבחה, “that the priest will ensure that the All will be going up in flames on the altar.” The additional letter ה at the end of the word המזבחה does not wish to confuse us but is meant to explain a concept. That letter represents the final letter ה in the tetragram and as such it symbolises the attribute which “receives.” It is therefore also called מזבח. From this altar ideas rise higher and higher until in the course of their “rising” they become progressively more purified, end up as מחשבה טהורה, pure thoughts. We find similar constructions both in Chronicles II 29,27 where King Chiskiyah instructed the priests to offer burnt-offerings not למזבח but להמזבח, the extra letter ה alluding to the same concept as in our verse. Another example of this concept is found in Psalms 20,4 where David speaks about the ashes of the gift-offerings being received by G’d; he says ידשנה instead of ידשן, the extra letter ה conveying the same idea as the letter ה at the end of the word המזבחה in our verse. [In his chapter on כנויים, the meanings of well-known words or terms, the author of Pardes Rimonim defines the word קרבן as another word for the Shechinah seeing that the function of the Shechinah is to gather together all the “threads” and emanations so that after being gathered together they form a unity, i.e. demonstrate that they did not exist as independent ideas, entities, but all originate in the same whole. This may make the author’s words easier to understand. Ed.] In our verse the Torah describes the result of the sacrificial rites being performed as עולה, אשה ריח ניחוח. The word עולה describes the smoke from the burned up parts of the animal rising heavenwards as far as the region represented by the letter ה in the word המזבחה which we just mentioned. Having reached that level, this very letter ה (i.e. what it represents) helps that offering to rise ever higher into the celestial regions. Once the smoke has ceased rising, the meat turns into fire; this is why the Torah added the description אשה, “a fire-offering” to the word עולה, “a burnt-offering,” which rises into celestial regions. Once the fire has burned itself out also, the whole becomes רוח spiritualised in the form of ריח, something that can neither be seen anymore, felt anymore, but can only be perceived by our sense of smell. This spirit is to “pull” the goodwill and the outpouring of it to earth via the attribute of Mercy. The whole expression ריח ניחוח לה׳ may be perceived as related to the word נחה, “came to rest, settled.” We find that in the discussion between the prophet Elijah with his disciple Elisha who had balked at accepting the mantle of prophecy from Elijah unless the latter endowed him with twice as much רוח, spirit, as that possessed by his master Elijah, that the Book of Kings (II 2,15 relates that Elisha’s wish was granted and that this spirit came to rest on him. In a similar way the objective of the עולה--אשה--ריח ניחוח is to result in the desired divine qualities being bestowed on those who offer the sacrifice (and the whole people in the case of a public offering). In Torat Kohanim Sifra Vayikra 1,59 the words עולה--אשה--ריח ניחוח are explained as follows: עולה לשם עולה, אשה לשם אשים,לשם ריח ניחוח, לשם נחת רוח לה׳, לשם מי שעשה את העולם. The meaning of this cryptic sentence is that the word עולה means that the person offering this sacrifice must intend that it reach the tenth emanation; however this does not mean it should be directed at, i.e. dedicated to that emanation. It means that from that region onwards the thoughts which prompted the offering will become capable of achieving their objective; from that region the offering will enter holy celestial domains. The words אשה לשם אשים mean that the offering be addressed to both the “weaker” and the “stronger” attribute of Justice. The meaning is parallel to the Midrash which comments on the words קרבני לחמי “did you think I need the sacrifice as My food?” The meaning is that it should serve to assuage the “injured feelings” of the attribute of Justice; the sinner had offended that attribute by committing the sin which the sacrifice is to atone for. This is all part of G’d saying לאשי, “for My fires,” you bring it to these attributes of Mine. The emanation כבוד will receive the offering from the attribute פחד. We find a parallel statement in the Midrash Zutta on Song of Songs 1,15 on the words הנך יפה רעיתי, where the author interprets the word רעיתי as equivalent to פרנסתי, “My livelihood.” According to the Midrash, G’d said to Israel: “what you are presenting to Me in the form of fire-offerings I view as if it were intended to be My food, My livelihood.” This explains the addition of the letter ה at the end of the word, as normally the word “fire” is written as אש without the letter ה at the end. The letter ה in אשה is basically as superfluous as the letter ה in Psalms 8,8 צנה ואלפים כלם, “sheep and oxen all of them.” The word אשה meaning “woman” is alluded to by the Midrash in Song of Songs which perceives the Jewish people as being G’d’s “provider” by means of their sacrifices. The Midrash reads the word isheh as if the vowel under the letter ש had been a kametz, i.e. making the word into ishah, woman, provider for her husband. Another reason why the word is not spelled merely as אש is so as to draw our attention to the “fifth” emanation (from the tenth down) the emanation of גבורה also known as האש הגדולה, the “great (consuming) fire, the fiery attribute of Justice.” Compare Deut. 5,22 where the expression האש הגדולה occurs. When the Torat Kohanim wrote the words ריח לשם ריח הניחוח, it meant that the Torah wants the person offering the sacrifice to concentrate on the heavenly source (seat of pure thoughts) from where all of G’d’s goodness is lavished on earth and G’d’s creatures. It is from that region that these intentions are drawn towards the attribute of Mercy and come to rest on there. [I believe that to sum up it is simpler to say that a sinner must first assuage the attribute of Justice before he can put the attribute of Mercy at ease. One cannot sin and by trying to bypass the attribute of Justice whom one has offended rely on the attribute of Mercy to deal with the attribute of Justice on our behalf instead of addressing it directly. Ed.] Our verse concludes with the word לה׳ in order to indicate that in the final analysis the goal of the sin-offering is the attribute of Mercy, as unless that attribute were involved in interceding on our behalf no one could stand up to the attribute of Justice by himself. Torat Kohanim phrased this as “to the One who created the universe,” as without the existence of and active intervention by the attribute of Mercy the world such as we know it would not endure seeing man is so sinful. We know that already when G’d created the universe using the attribute of Justice, He decided to “co-opt” the attribute of Mercy in order to ensure that the universe would endure and not self-destruct (Bereshit Rabbah 12,15, see Rashi on Genesis 1,1). Every single one of G’d’s attributes is a “beneficiary” of the sacrifices offered to G’d. This “benefit” expresses itself in different parts of G’d’s attributes drawing closer together. This is the reason why when the Torah speaks about offerings and instructs us to bring sacrifices we so often find the expression להקריב, “to bring close.” The reference is not only to the donor achieving closeness with G’d but to the various attributes of G’d to draw closer to His essence. This is the reason it is called קרבן, something which results in drawing near. It is important to appreciate the deeper meaning of the halachah expounded in Yuma 21 that although heavenly fire would consume the sacrifices on the altar, it is incumbent on the priest to also contribute man-made fire. When the two kinds of fire intermingle this is a reminder that through the act of sacrifice man can establish close bonds with the attribute of Justice. Just as the two fires become one so the will of G’d (attribute of Justice) and the will of man will become one when man has demonstrated his desire to come close to G’d and to do so by following the rules laid down by G’d. Just as the rising smoke from activities performed by man on earth comes close to G’d, so, as a result of reciprocity by G’d, His largesse will filter down to us here on earth. The important thing is to utilise the proper conduits provided for all this by the Torah. When we do so we are perceived as if lighting candles. The author illustrates the sequence of what occurs as follows: when one places two candles one on top of another, man lights the lower candle by means of his sacrifice. As the smoke from the sacrifice rises, the upper candle will be lit by the warmth of the flame contained in the smoke of the lower candle. It is also important to reflect on why the burnt-offering, עולה, always had to be a male animal, whereas the sin-offering always had to be a female animal, and the peace-offering could be either male or female. The reason is connected to the destination of the burnt-offering, עולה, which is beyond a realm in the celestial regions where male and female emanations or attributes are separated. The domains to which the עולה offering is addressed does not know the distinction of פועל ומקבל, an active and a passive, receiving agent. The peace-offering on the other hand, could be ether male or female seeing that it was addressed to the קו האמצעי, the line in the diagram of the emanations which re-unites the male and the female forces. This is also why the very term שלמים reminds us of its purpose to be משלים, to perfect, to unite that which had been apart, had been separated. I have already mentioned this on Genesis 46,1. It follows that in connection with the peace-offering the Torah writes: אם זכר אם נקבה, “be it male or female.” The reason the sin-offering must be a female animal is that it addresses the attribute שמור, a word which refers to negative commandments, commandments which are violated by not guarding, not observing them, i.e. by ignoring the commandment שמור. No activity is required to fulfill a negative commandment. One does so by remaining passive, i.e. female. An activity is required to violate it. The reverse is true of positive commandments. One has to perform an activity in order to keep a positive commandment. Remaining passive vis-a-vis a positive commandment is tantamount to violating it. This leaves us with the problem why the guilt-offering called אשם which is to atone for violating certain negative commandments had to be a male animal rather than a female. According to the logic we presented it should also be an animal of the female category. [The author’s comments on this, assuming that the אשם atones for sins for which the penalty is karet is untenable as only the חטאת atones for such sins. I have decided not to speculate and amend the author’s words but to omit them. Ed.] The sinner who has to bring an אשם in order to exonerate himself has to direct his sacrifice to a higher celestial region than people guilty of a חטאת sin-offering. Hence this sacrifice has to be a male animal. The saying of the sages in Berachot 34 that “the place where repentant sinners stand is one where even perfectly righteous people (those who never sinned) cannot stand,” is meant for the kind of people who rehabilitate themselves by means of the אשם offering.

“And its innards and its legs he shall wash with water; the priest shall burn everything on the altar, as a burnt offering, a fire offering of a pleasing aroma to the Lord” (Leviticus 1:9). “And the innards and the legs he shall wash with water and the priest shall present everything and burn it on the altar; it is a burnt offering, a fire offering of a pleasing aroma to the Lord” (Leviticus 1:13). Regarding the bull it says: “[Its innards] and its legs he shall wash with water; [the priest] shall burn.” Regarding the ram it says: “The innards and the legs he shall wash with water and [the priest] shall present.” What is the difference between ram and bull? The bull is lacking lengthwise and widthwise; the ram is not lacking lengthwise and widthwise. The Sages said: ‘We derive presentation of the bull from the ram and presentation of the ram from the bull.’ He [Elijah] said to them: ‘My Rabbis, I am dust under your feet, but may I say a different matter before you?’ They said to him: ‘Speak.’ He said to them: ‘Twelve princes stood at the dedication of the altar. This one had a burnt offering and that one had a burnt offering. This one had a sin offering and that one had a sin offering. . This one had a peace offering and that one had a peace offering. There, presentation is written regarding the bull and the ram, but here, presentation is written regarding the ram but is not stated regarding the bull. This is so that a person will not say to himself, I will go and perform dreadful acts and inappropriate acts, and I will bring a bull that has much flesh, I will offer it upon the altar, and I will turn to Him for mercy and He will accept me in repentance. That is why presentation is written regarding a ram and presentation is not written regarding a bull.’

“He shall split it by its wings, but shall not separate” (Leviticus 1:17). Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The common man, if he smells the odor of wings, he is disgusted, and you say: “The priest shall burn everything on the altar” (Leviticus 1:9)? Why to that extent? It is, rather, so that the altar will be adorned with the offering of a poor person. King Agrippa sought to sacrifice one thousand burnt offerings on one day. He sent and said to the High Priest, ‘let no man other than me bring [an offering] today.’ A certain poor person came with two turtledoves in his hand. He said to the priest: ‘Sacrifice these.’ He said to him: ‘The king commanded me and said to me: Let no man other than me bring [an offering] today.’ He said to him: ‘My lord High Priest, each day I trap four [birds] and I sacrifice two and support myself from two. If you do not sacrifice them, you are cutting off my sustenance.’ He took them and sacrificed them. Agrippa had a vision in a dream: The offering of a poor person preceded you. He sent and said to the High Priest: ‘Did I not command you: Let no man other than me bring [ an offering] today?’ He said to him: ‘My lord the king, a certain poor person came with two turtledoves in his hand. He said to me: Sacrifice these. I said to him: The king commanded me and said to me: Let no man other than me bring [an offering] today. He said to me: My lord High Priest, each day I trap four [birds] and I sacrifice two and support myself from two. If you do not sacrifice them, you are cutting off my sustenance. Should I not have sacrificed them?’ He said to him: ‘Everything that you did, you did well.’ There was an incident involving a certain bull that they were leading [to bring] as an offering but it would not allow itself to be led. A poor person came and in his hand there was a bundle of endives. He held it out [to the bull], which ate it. The bull vomited and expelled a needle and allowed itself to be led [and brought] as an offering. The owner of the bull had a vision in a dream: The offering of the poor person preceded you. There was an incident involving a certain woman who brought a handful of fine flour, and the priest was disparaging her. He said: ‘Look at what they sacrifice. What is there to eat, what is there to sacrifice?’ The priest had a vision in a dream: Do not disparage her. It is as though she is sacrificing her soul. These matters can be derived a fortiori: If regarding one who does not sacrifice a soul, the term soul is written, for one who does sacrifice a soul, all the more so it is as though he is sacrificing his soul.

And I found with Ramban, may his memory be blessed, [an explanation] on the [level] of the simple meaning, similar to this reason. As he wrote (Ramban on Leviticus 1:9) in the name of others, and this is his language: Since the deeds of people are determined by thought, speech and action, God, may He be blessed, commanded that when he sins, he brings a sacrifice and place his hands upon him corresponding to the deed, and confess with his mouth corresponding to the speech, and burn the innards and the kidneys, as they are the instruments of thought and desire. And the limbs [of the sacrifice] correspond to the hands and feet of a person that does all of his work. And he sprinkles the blood on the altar corresponding to the blood of his soul, so that a person think in doing all of this that he sinned to God with his body and his soul, and it is fit for him that his blood be spilled and his body burnt; were it not for the kindness of the Creator, Who took an exchange and ransom from him [in] the sacrifice — that its blood be instead of his blood and its soul be instead of his soul. And the central limbs correspond to his central limbs. And the portions with which to sustain the teachers of Torah [are so] that they will pray for him. And the daily sacrifice is because there is no saving the community from always sinning. And these words are tenable [and] grab the heart, like the words of classic homiletic teachings (Shabbat 87a). To here [are his words]. And he wrote at more length about the matter and wrote, “And in the way of truth (mysticism), the sacrifices contain a hidden secret, etc.,” as he wrote in his commentary on Parashat Vayikra.

I will select only the very best of all the material that I have seen in the various commentators, and build further on the insights they have already revealed to us. One of the reasons for animal sacrifice which is discussed by Nachmanides on Leviticus 1,9 is as follows: "It would have been more appropriate if the fools who thought that the animal sacrifice legislation was only an accommodation to the people who were in the habit of offering sacrifices to pagan deities would have paid attention to the reason that Maimonides gave for this. He described the people among whom the Jews lived as deifying the animals in question. The Jewish people had to learn by slaughtering precisely those animals that they were not deities. In India cows are not slaughtered to this day. Man's actions comprise three elements, thought, speech and execution. G–d commanded that when man has sinned and offers an animal sacrifice as a sin-offering, he must place his hands (weight) on the animal as a symbol of the sinful act he has committed. He must recite a confession as a symbol of the words that preceded the sinful act for which he is attempting to atone. He has to burn the animal in fire, i.e. the entrails, including the kidneys which are the organs within which sinful thoughts originate. He has to burn the feet -which in turn symbolize hands and legs- the organs that facilitate the carrying out of most sinful intents. He has to sprinkle the blood of the animal on the altar, the blood representing his life-form, נפש. By performing all these actions, the sinner will concentrate on the enormity of the error he committed against his G–d with both his body and his soul, and he will realize ??? his own life that should have expiated for his sin, ??? to him by G–d that he is able to substitute the life of the animal for his own. The מנות, meat portions, which are consumed by the priests, are intended to give physical strength to the Torah scholars who in turn will pray on behalf of the sinner who offered the animal. The daily public offerings, on the other hand, are in the nature of a preventive action, seeing that the multitude will not always be saved from committing sins. These words are appealing to one's mind if one understands them allegorically." Thus far Nachmanides.