עקב ענוה יראת ה' עושר וכבוד וחיים, “the result of humility is fear of the Lord, wealth, honour and life.” (Prov.22,4)

Solomon informed us in this verse that the virtue of humility brings in its wake a number of other virtues. The plain meaning of the text is that the reward to be reaped in this life by people who practice the virtue of humility is four-fold. It consists of 1) fear of the Lord; 2) wealth; 3) honour; 4) long life. The virtue of humility is a virtue practiced with one’s body, a virtue practiced in man’s capacity as an active member of human society. [A hermit, though undemanding, does not practice this virtue. Ed.]. Practice of this virtue is demonstrated by the owner being reticent and patient, suffering what others would consider insults, etc., without protest. A person who is humble shows respect and honour to other creatures (humans), and speaks well of them and for their benefit. Having trained himself to acquire this virtue it is only a small step to acquiring fear of the Lord. This virtue is an intellectual virtue. A person who has acquired both the virtue of humility and fear of the Lord will automatically acquire wealth, as wealth is defined by our sages as the ability to be happy with what G’d has seen fit to grant one, without being envious of others who appear to have more (compare Avot 4,1). He will also reap honour; this is the meaning of Proverbs 29,23: “the humble in spirit will retain honour.” We have another verse on that subject in Proverbs 18,12 where Solomon writes: “humility goes before honour.” The author meant that the honour bestowed on a person was preceded by his demonstrating true humility. Finally, the words: “he will acquire life,” have to be under-stood. He who desires and longs for material wealth is obviously worried all the time he has not yet achieved his objective. When he does achieve part of his desire he is worried that he should not lose it. People who have these kinds of worries contribute to their lives becoming shorter as their worries undermine their health. He who enjoys what he has and is grateful for it will live longer as his peace of mind helps him maintain his physical well-being.

A Midrashic approach (Song of Songs Rabbah 1:1:9): the words עקב ענוה יראת ה' mean that whereas wisdom is considered the crown, humility is considered the heel of one’s shoe. On the one hand, we are told by David (Psalms 111,10) ראשית חכמה יראת ה', normally translated as “the beginning of all wisdom is fear of the Lord,” on the other hand, Solomon (his son) told us that עקב ענוה יראת ה', that the fear of the Lord is a product of humility. The author wanted to teach us by using the word עקב in connection with humility that this virtue is greater than wisdom as it is the product of fear of the Lord. A product is the result of something more primitive preceding it, hence it is more advanced, superior to the ingredients which contributed to it. It is well known that all virtues manifest themselves in opposite extremes. [If I understand the author correctly he means that one can be described as “the most humble,” or as “the least humble;” “the wisest” or “the one most lacking in wisdom,” etc. I suppose that the word “virtue” must then be divided between “positive” virtues and “negative” virtues. The correct translation of the word מדה used by the author then is not “virtue,” but “characteristic.” Ed.] However, in addition to possessing any such characteristic (virtue) in either of these extremes one may also possess it in a degree which is ממוצע, “average,” i.e. somewhere between the extremes we mentioned. The characteristic (virtue) of humility is such a virtue. The reason that this is so is that it is somewhere in between pride and self-abasement. As a general rule, man should strive to possess these characteristics which are at neither end of the extremes as everything that is extreme is usually something negative. (compare Maimonides Hilchot Deyot 2,2). Concerning this subject Solomon said (Proverbs 4,26) “survey the course your feet will take so that all your ways will be prosperous.” With this warning Solomon wanted to exhort man to pursue paths which lie between two extremes. The very word פלס which he used and which we translated as “survey” is derived from the noun peless, meaning “ balance,” as in the balance of a set of scales. It is in the centre. When keeping this advice in mind, a person will be able to plan his activities properly, giving due weight to all the pros and cons of a situation. Solomon made this crystal clear in the verse following where he said: “do not turn to the right or the left; remove your feet from evil.” The message is that he who veers neither to the right nor to the left of the true path will avoid evil. The exception to all this is the manner in which the virtue of humility is to be practiced (compare Maimonides HiIchot Deyot 2,3). When training oneself to acquire this virtue one must endeavour to practice it to the greatest extreme possible. In fact, the extreme of the virtue ענוה is called שפלות, “a kind of debasement practiced relative to one’s posture in the presence of one’s king.” Any attempt to practice the virtue of humility by applying the yardstick of sticking to the middle of the road might give rise to people thinking that one is somewhat overbearing, arrogant. Seeing that arrogance is the very worst of all negative virtues it is clear that one has to make every effort to steer clear of that characteristic. People guilty of arrogance put their afterlife at risk . Concerning this whole subject our sages in Avot 4,4 said: “be exceedingly humble in spirit.” The reason they repeated the word מאד, i.e. “very much,” was to teach the people to practice this virtue in the extreme, as opposed to the other virtues. The reason is also that this is the greatest virtue and it is one which is evident to people with whom one comes into contact. This is why David described himself as possessing לב נשבר ונדכה, “a contrite and crushed heart” (Psalms 51,19), in spite of the fact that he was a powerful king as well as a prophet. He was also the head of the seventy elders who were the Supreme Court of his generation. (this is based on Samuel II 23,8: where our sages (Moed Katan 16) interpret the words יושב בשבת תחכמוני, to mean that when David took his seat amongst the sages he did not sit on a cushion but on the ground. G’d said to him: “seeing you have humbled yourself you are like Me,” a play on the second part of the word תח-כמוני). Moses also, although the most outstanding of the prophets who ever lived, is described by G’d as the “most humble person” (Numbers 12,3). [This editor has always felt that the virtue of humility is reserved for outstanding people as these have something to be proud of. If the likes of us appear humble it only reflects the fact that we have nothing to boast about. This is hardly a positive virtue.] When the Torah also used the adjective מאד to describe the level of Moses’ humility, this was to tell us that he deliberately tried to practice this virtue in the extreme. Anyone who contents himself with practicing the virtue of humility just as he practices other virtues, i.e. following the middle path between arrogance and total self abasement, may quality for the description ענו, but not for the description ענו מאד. Seeing that Moses was so humble, he did not want to enter the Tabernacle until G’d had invited him to do so seeing the Tabernacle was still enveloped in a cloud housing G’d’s attribute כבוד. Even though Moses had been told by G’d that He would meet with him in that Tent and speak to him inside from above the kapporet, from “between the cherubs” (Exodus 25,22), he was afraid to enter; he was afraid to prophecy inside, to pray inside, or to offer sacrifices inside until G’d would give him express permission by calling him and inviting him inside. This invitation was tendered when the Torah writes: “He called to Moses and Hashem spoke to him from the Tent of Meeting, to say.”

ויקרא אל משה, “He called to Moses, etc.” The word קריאה denotes honor, i.e. the manner in which G’d called out to Moses reflected His fondness of him. The expression is also used when the prophet describes the angels as calling out to each other such as Isaiah 6,3 (compare Rashi.) The very fact that G’d calls out to a prophet establishes the truth of three fundamental tenets of Judaism. They are: 1) the belief in the creation of the universe out of nothing by G’d the Creator. 2) The giving of the Torah to the Jewish people. 3) the belief in the resurrection of the dead. These three tenets of Judaism are connected to the beginning of time (as we know it), to a date within the accepted framework of “Time,” and, finally, an event which will occur at the conclusion of the accepted meaning of the concept of “Time.” Each one of these tenets has a decisive influence on the next one. Prophecy, i.e. the predictions made by a prophet testify to the existence of a G’d who supervises the universe. Such supervision (and control which is an implied part of the term “supervision”) proves that the universe had a beginning, did not precede the Supervisor.” [How could the “supervisor” control something he had not made himself and therefore been privy to its essence? Ed.] Seeing that the universe was created by a Creator who keeps supervising it, it makes sense that the Torah should be given to the people at some point in time in order for the Torah and its observance to guarantee that at the end of time the people could receive the reward for observing its precepts. A period of ultimate and undisturbed delight will be ushered in when the dead are resurrected. We find the expression קריאה being used in connection with each of these three tenets. The prophet Isaiah 48,12 writes: “listen to Me Yaakov and Israel whom I have called (מקראי) I am He- I am the first, and I am the last as well.” In this verse the prophet referred to three separate existences, i.e. “the present, the past, and the future.”

In this verse Isaiah referred to the giving of the Torah. It is quite evident that on that occasion G’d manifested Himself as being all these three “existences” mentioned by the prophet (compare Mechilta 20,2). This is why the prophet referred to מקראי, “the ones upon whom I have called,” i.e. the people at Mount Sinai. Both the names Yaakov and Israel were mentioned during that revelation when G’d’s instructions were preceded by the words ויקרא אליו ה' מן ההר לאמר כה תאמר לבית יעקב ותגיד לבני ישראל, “G’d called to him from the mountain saying: ‘thus you shall say to the house of Yaakov and tell (at length) to the Children of Israel’” (Exodus 19,3).In other words, G’d “called” to the people during the episode of giving them the Torah. The reference to the creation of the world ex nihilo is mentioned by Isaiah in the very next verse where he writes: אף ידי יסדה ארץ וימיני טפחה שמים אני קורא אליהם יעמדו יחדיו, “My own hand founded the earth, My right hand spread out the skies. I call unto them, let them stand up.” The prophet describes that all parts of the universe are connected to each other integrally by the fact that G’d has created them. Finally, the expression קריאה occurs in connection with the resurrection when David says in Psalms 50,1 and Psalms 50,4 אל אלו-הים ה' דבר ויקרא ארץ ממזרח שמש עד מבואו as well as יקרא אל השמים מעל ואל הארץ לדין עמו, “G’d the Lord spoke and summoned the world from east to west; and He summoned the heavens above, and the earth, for the trial of His people.” Our sages in Sanhedrin 91 commented on this that the words “He called on the heavens above” refer to the soul, whereas the words “and the earth, for trial of His people” refer to the body. David meant that they will have to give an accounting in preparation for the time of the resurrection. At any rate, you have seen from the above that the call by G’d to His prophet includes references to the three basic tenets of Judaism which we have mentioned earlier. This is the deeper reason why the third Book of the Torah commences with the word ויקרא. The creation of the universe had been the subject of the opening chapters of the first Book of the Torah; the giving of the Torah had occupied a central section of the Book of Exodus. The subject matter of resurrection is introduced-albeit obliquely- in the Book of Leviticus. The Book of ויקרא includes a reference to the third of these tenets. [The author will elaborate on this when explaining Leviticus 18,5 וחי בהם. Ed.]

Know that actually the Torah should have written ויקרא ה' אל משה ויאמר אליו; the fact that the subject of who was speaking i.e. the Lord, was not mentioned indicates that although the Book of Leviticus is a Book in its own right, it is an integral part of what came before it; the entire Torah is one continuous document, a single structure. The word ויקרא is simply a reference to the attribute of כבוד which was last mentioned in Exodus 40,35 when the Torah wrote that this attribute filled the Tabernacle. The attribute which called to Moses was the “small” letter א in the word בהבראם In Genesis 2,4. In order to make this clear the letter א in the word ויקרא here is also written small. When the Torah continues with מאהל מועד, “from the Tent of Meeting,” our sages in Torat Kohanim 1-2,10 state that the voice of G’d reached only the walls of the Sanctuary and was not audible outside. In order that we should not think that this was due to the voice of G’d being weak, close to a whisper, the Torah wrote הקול with the letter ה in front to teach us that the voice was powerful but that G’d deliberately restricted the sound waves to the inside of the Tabernacle. We have other verses in Scriptures where the word קול ה' occurs, such as in Psalms 29,4-5 קול ה' בכח, קול ה' בהדר, קול ה' שובר ארזים “the sound of G’d’s voice is power; the sound of the Lord’s voice is majesty; the sound of the Lord’s voice breaks cedars, etc. etc.” The letter ה in our verse before the word קול, while referring to a voice which is familiar to us from other occasions, did not mean that the voice of G’d was especially overpowering such as at Mount Sinai, but it simply meant that it was neither weak nor eardrum-shattering. If this is so, why did the Torah write מאהל מועד, “from the Tent of Meeting,” if the voice was not actually heard beyond the walls of the Tabernacle? The fact is that we encounter something similar in Ezekiel 10,5 where the prophet writes: “and the sound of the wings of the cherubs was heard up to the outer courtyard as the voice of El Shaddai when He speaks.” Another verse in which the voice of G’d is mentioned is in Ezekiel 1,24: “Then I heard the sound of their wings like the sound of great waters, like the sound of Shaddai as they moved, the sound of the words like the sound of the company; when they halt they release their wings.” The meaning of these verses is that the prophet Ezekiel compared the heavenly voice to four different phenomena; 1) he compared it to large bodies of waters the sound of which is steady, continuous; 2) he compared it to the voice of Shaddai, a voice which is neither too loud nor too weak. 3) The words “to the sound of a company (of angels) when they halt they release their wings,” describes the variety of sounds. 4) “The sound of a camp,” describes the sounds of the trumpets when the people in the camp are being alerted to break camp, etc. The remarkable thing was that this voice did not penetrate beyond the walls of the Temple’s courtyard. The meaning of כקול אל שדי בדברו in Ezekiel 10,5 is: “similar to the voice of the G’d Shaddai when He was speaking,” It is a reference to the voice of G’d speaking during the revelation at Mount Sinai. That voice had been described as קול גדול ולא יסף, “a great sound which would not be repeated,” in Deut. 5,19, and as נפשי יצאה בדברו, “my soul departed when He spoke” in Song of Songs 5,6. At the time of the revelation G’d’s voice was inaudible beyond the confines of the camp of the Israelites, whereas here it was inaudible beyond the confines of the Tabernacle. The sound of the wings of the cherubs in Ezekiel’s vision were not audible beyond the walls of the courtyard of the Temple. When you study the beginning of the Book of Samuel where Samuel is described as being called and the High Priest Eli had not heard the voice which called Samuel, he answered him: “go back to sleep” as he had thought that Samuel had mistakenly though that he, Eli, had called him (Samuel I 3,4). Eli thought hat Samuel’s imagination had played a trick on him. When Samuel experienced a second call Eli realized that Samuel had not imagined the call, but Eli was still not certain whether Samuel had heard a human voice or a divine call. In either event, he, Eli, had not heard any voice. This is why he told Samuel again to lie down and to continue sleeping. Only when Samuel reported hearing a voice calling him a third time did Eli understand that this was a heavenly voice. In the interval Eli had made a point of listening closely, and when he noted that Samuel had heard a voice which he himself had not heard, he realised that an angel had called to Samuel. This is the meaning of “Eli understood that G’d called to the lad” (3,8). Just as we find that voices heard by the prophet addressed by G’d or His angel are not heard by those whom G’d does not address, the same is true of visions which prophets are shown. G’d may show something to a person whom He has selected for that purpose, whereas others standing at the same spot will not experience the vision at all. We have clear proof of this in Daniel 10,7 where Daniel reports a vision he saw (obviously while awake and in the company of others) which the people next to him did not experience. This explains why the plagues inflicted by G’d upon the Egyptians were not noticed by the Israelites as affecting them at all. This was particularly true of the plague of darkness where the Torah states that the Israelites could even see in the very houses in which the Egyptians felt a palpable darkness so that they were unable to move (Exodus 10,23). Rabbi Saadyah Gaon, in his Emunot Ve-deyot describes the matter in approx. these words: “it is clear that the sound (voice) which the prophet hears is a sort of new creation by the Lord. Whereas ordinary prophets heard this voice of G’d through an angel who was the intermediary, Moses heard it without needing recourse to an angel as his intermediary. In other words, Moses himself took the place of the angel. This is what the Torah meant when it wrote that G’d spoke to Moses “face to face.” This is also what the Torah meant when it reported about Moses אשר ידעו ה', “with whom G’d was on intimate terms.” To remind us of this for all times, the Torah wrote (Deut. 34,10) that “never again did there arise a prophet of the unique qualities of Moses.” Moses was in a class by himself as prophets go through three distinctive features: 1) his prophetic insights were received without intermediary. 2) He was able to respond to prophetic visions immediately, without trepidation, without feeling physically weakened by the mere fact that he had experienced a call from G’d or a vision. Even great prophets such as Isaiah and Ezekiel describe that they were overwhelmed by their visions (Isaiah 6,1, and Ezekiel 1,28). Moses could immediately involve G’d in a dialogue as we know from Exodus 18,19: “Moses would speak and G’d would respond.” 3) Moses saw his prophetic visions by means of a single מחיצה, “screen, or filter, ”whereas other prophets’ visions had been filtered through no fewer than 9 such screens (based on Vayikra Rabbah 1,14). The fact that Moses did not need multiple “screens” or “mirrors” making such visions into riddles is spelled out in Numbers 12,8. On the other hand, Ezekiel and Daniel, for instance, needed 9 such “filters.” (They are quoted as using these words “such as the vision which I have seen no fewer than nine times for the same vision.” (Ezekiel 43,3). The word “vision” is in the plural on one occasion). The same is true in Daniel 10,5, 10,7-8. What Ezekiel and Daniel saw as מחיצות, barriers or filters, is described in the Torah by the word חידות in the verse from Numbers 12 which we quoted earlier. Thus far Rabbi Saadyah gaon.

You will have to appreciate now that the nine filters mentioned by Rabbi Saadyah gaon are not nine different emanations through which these prophetic visions are filtered to the average prophet. Except for Moses, every prophet received his visions only via the tenth (lowest) of the ten emanations. The so-called אספקלריאות, “window-panes,” therefore are merely different levels of prophecy. Ezekiel already referred to this when he said (Ezekiel 1,4) “I looked, and lo a stormy wind came sweeping out of the north- a huge cloud and flashing fire, surrounded by a radiance; and in the centre of it, in the centre of the fire, a gleam as of amber. In the centre of it were also the figures of four creatures.” In verse 26 of the same chapter, the prophet describes that above the expanse over their heads was the semblance of a throne as well as a human-like figure. Altogether the prophet described 9 different “semblances.” רוח סערה, ענן גדול, אש מתלקחת, נוגה, חשמל, אופנים, חיותת רקיע, ראשי החיות, דמות כסא. We have here 9 separate “visions” which form the details of what the prophet had first described as מראות אלוהים, as “visions of G’d,” in verse one of the first chapter of his book. Having concluded these nine “visions” he reports about seeing something resembling מראה אדם, “the appearance of a man.” Moses’ prophetic visions did not have to be filtered through all these stages in order to result in a message to the people whom the prophet is meant to address. All the foregoing gives you an idea of the difference between the quality of Moses’ prophetic insights and those of any other prophet after him. There are scholars who understand the “nine visions” enumerated by Ezekiel as allegorical descriptions of ever higher emanations, these emanations being paraphrased as the various planets, each one closer to the celestial centre. The ninth (highest) is perceived as the one that surrounds the attribute of G’d we know as כבוד. The powerful radiations of ever purer forms of light which the prophet saw appeared to him in the form of the respective four chayot. According to these scholars the meaning of our sages’ statement in the Midrash dealing with the story of the creation that there are chayot in our terrestrial world, i.e. holy beings on earth described by the prophet as chayot hakodesh, ophanim and kisseh hakavod, means that this is the meaning of Isaiah saying in Isaiah 66,1 that “the whole of earth is G’d’s footstool.” What they had in mind specifically was the surface of the moon. [The author continues further in this vein. As I am not certain of his meaning, I have omitted translating those lines. Ed.]

A Midrashic approach (Tanchuma Vayikra 1-2): The words “He called to Moses,” teach you the meaning of Proverbs 25,6-7: “do not be boastful in the presence of a king, do not stand in the place of great men; for it is better to be told: ‘come up here,’ than to be shamed in the presence of the great.’” Even Moses did not ascend until he had been specifically asked to do so. Our verse also reflects the practical meaning of Proverbs 29,23: “a man’s pride will humiliate him, but the humble in spirit will retain honour.” Anyone who pursues an office because of the authority over others which this will give him, will find that the very authority he was so keen on will escape him. On the other hand, people who try to escape the burden of having authority over others will find that this very opportunity will pursue them. One of the best known examples in Jewish history of humble people who tried to avoid having to wear the mantle of authority was King Saul who “hid amongst the vessels” (Samuel I 10,22) in order not to have to become king. He could not be found until the High Priest consulted his breastplate asking G’d’s help to locate him. The meaning of “the authority runs after him” was proven when in verse 24 of the same chapter in Samuel, the prophet is quoted as asking the people: “have you seen the one whom G’d has chosen (as king)?” On the other hand, Avimelech, son of Gideon was so anxious to establish himself as ruler that his quest escaped him as we know from Judges 9,1: “Avimelech son of Jerubaal (Gideon) went to his mother’s brothers in Shechem and spoke to them and to the whole clan of his mother’s family. He put this question to all the citizens of Shechem: ‘which is better for you, to be ruled by seventy men — all the sons of Jerubaal — or to be ruled by one man?” Some time later after he had murdered his brothers (verse 24) “G’d sent a spirit of discord between Avimelech and the citizens of Shechem, and they broke faith with Avimelech, etc.” Moses tried to escape the position of leadership of the Jewish people saying to G’d: “I am not a man of words, etc.” (Exodus 4,10). He even asked G’d to appoint another (Exodus 4,13). In the end, the position of authority pursued him as we see from our verse where the Torah reports that “G’d called to him.” When David (Psalms 8,6) describes man as “You (G’d) have made him little less than divine, and adorned him with glory and majesty,” he had in mind Moses to whom such adjectives could be applied. [Although generally, commentators use this verse to describe Adam before the fall, our author’s interpretation is more plausible as no one had ever seen Adam in his glory. Ed.]

דבר אל בני ישראל, “speak to the Children of Israel, etc.” He told him to tell the Israelites about the rules of the burnt-offering in general terms. ואמרת אליהם, “and say to them, etc.” This refers to the details of this legislation. Moses was to inform the people of specific procedures in preparing the burnt-offering, such as removing the skin and cutting the animal into certain parts after slaughtering it and before burning it on the altar. He told them that the slaughtering had to take place north of the altar and the wood pile. He told them who was entitled to slaughter the animal and which kind of wood was permitted to be used to construct the pile keeping fire going around the clock on the altar. In all instances where the Torah uses the sequence דבר ואמרת, the meaning is that Moses was to tell the people the commandment in general terms followed by teaching them the details of the legislation. Examples are to be found in Numbers 15,38 where the Torah introduces the subject of the ציצית, fringes, and then proceeds to give some details about this commandment. The details, which are spelled out in the oral Torah include rules about the number of threads, the way they are to be attached, how many are to be of blue wool, etc., etc. All this is alluded to in the introductory words “and say to them.” Details of the commandments are hardly ever spelled out in the written Torah.

אדם כי יקריב מכם, “when a man amongst you wants to bring an offering, etc.” According to the grammar of our verse it could be inferred that a human sacrifice is theoretically permissible. If G’d had wanted to rule out such a possibility the Torah should have written אדם מכם שיקריב קרבן, “a man amongst you who wants to offer a sacrifice.” [We have already precluded the suggestion made by the author when we translated the text as we did. Ed.] A closer look at the text will convince even the doubter that such a translation (and meaning) would have been quite impossible. The meaning of the verse is: “if someone amongst yourselves feels the urge to sacrifice himself to the Lord, you are to do this by means of offering a domestic animal such as a specimen from the cattle or the flock. You are not to take a human being as a sacrifice to the Lord.” In the event that anyone entertained a doubt about this, this is spelled out beyond the possibility of any doubt in Jeremiah 19,5: where the prophet chastises the people for offering human sacrifices including their children to the Baal, something G’d says: “I have never commanded, never decreed, and which never came to My mind.” In view of all that we have said, the Torah was careful to commence the legislation with the word אדם כי יקריב, “a man who will offer an offering,” as opposed to; “becoming the victim of a sacrifice.” Grammarians (such as Ibn Ezra) have viewed the meter of the verse as follows: “אדם מכם שיקריב,“ ”a man amongst you who offers a sacrifice.” We would have a parallel verse in Isaiah 26,11: אף אש צריך תאכלם, “fire will also consume Your adversaries.” Here too one might have imagined that the subject was “Your adversaries” rather than G’d. The correct translation reverses the relative position of the words אש and צריך. Another example of a similar construction is found in Hoseah 8,2 לי יזעקו אלו-הי ידענוך ישראל, the correct meaning of which is “Israel cries out to Me: ‘O my G’d we are devoted to You.’” The translation assumes that the prophet had meant: לי יזעקו ישראל אלו-הי ידענוך, the prophet refers to the impudence of the Jewish people, who, though unrepentant, claim that they were devoted to the Lord. A similar inverted verse is found in Exodus 22,8 אשר יאמר כי הוא זה, “concerning which one party says ‘this is it.’” Instead of writing כי זה הוא, the Torah in its wisdom chose to write כי הוא זה. There are numerous other examples in Scripture of what appear to be inverted constructions.

Tanchuma Tzav 1 comments on this verse that the reason that the Torah chose the word אדם [rather than איש as is usual, Ed.] is to teach that just as when Adam offered a sacrifice he used an animal which was his, was not illegally acquired (seeing he owned all of the earth), so any offering to G’d must be legally owned by the person offering it else it is not only not pleasing to the Lord but displeasing. Isaiah 61,8 spells this out more precisely when he quotes G’d as שונא גזל בעולה, “I hate robbery with a burnt-offering.”

קרבן לה, “an offering to the Lord.” Whenever the expression קרבן לי-ה-ו-ה is written, the name of the Lord used is the Tetragrammaton to make certain we do not offer heathens an excuse to rebel against G’d and the word קרבן precedes the word לה' so as to preclude the idea that first one would offer a sacrifice to one of the attributes of G’d, i.e. the attribute of Mercy, in order to subsequently offer a second offering to the attribute of Justice believing it to be an independent power (compare Sifra Vayikra 2,5). Our sages in Sifra Vayikra 2,4 conclude from the wording of the Torah here that when a person sanctifies, i.e. donates an animal as a sacrifice, he is not to say לה' עולה, or לה' מנחה, “for the Lord a burnt-offering”, or “for the Lord a meal-offering,” but he is to use the formula עולה לה', or מנחה לה' “a burnt-offering for the Lord,” or “a meal-offering for the Lord,” as the case may be. Actually they arrived at this ruling using simple logic. If a person who is about to present G’d with an offering is warned not to utter the Lord’s name in vain [before specifying what it is all about, in the event he never gets to complete the sentence, Ed.] then how much more so must one be careful not to use the name of the Lord in vain or even frivolously when one does not do so in connection with sanctifying something for the Lord.

מן הבהמה, “from the domestic animals.” The word בהמה is restrictive and excludes free-roaming animals known as חיות from being suitable as offerings on G’d’s altar. One of the reasons for this is that whereas the domesticated animals are victims by definition, the majority of the free-roaming animals are the hunters, the pursuers, the ones which victimise their prey (Tanchuma Emor 9). The rule that free-roaming animals are not fit for the altar prompted our sages (Shabbat 88) to say: “it is better to belong to the category of people suffering insults than to be part of the group of people insulting others.” No bird suffers more pursuit than the turtle-doves and the pigeons, yet the Torah has included these birds amongst those fit for the altar. It is therefore established that both amongst the mammals and the fowl the Torah stipulated that only species which are prone to suffer persecution are permitted as sacrifices on the altar of the Lord. Our sages brought also scriptural proof for their statement when they quoted Judges 5,31 ואוהביו כצאת השמש בגבורתו, “but may those who love Him be as the sun’s rising might.” The thrust of this whole verse (conclusion of Devorah’s song of thanksgiving and victory) is that she referred to the ones who had suffered insults as the ones beloved of G’d and compared them to the sun. The sun was the first creation of the Lord to endure insult when (according to Chulin 60) the moon complained that it could not share prominence with it. [The sun is not on record as responding to this complaint. Ed.] Seeing that the light of the sun is so superior to that of the moon, -considered its reward for suffering in silence- these suffering animals too were elevated in being allowed to give their lives on the altar of the Lord, making what would have been an inevitable death anyway a meaningful death.

It is incumbent upon man to learn from this legislation concerning who is chosen as fit to be a sacrifice. It is interesting that whereas Yitzchak sent Esau to hunt game, Rivkah sent Yaakov to the sheep to select a domesticated animal as food for her husband. These animals share the characteristic of תמימות, being flawless in character, with Yaakov whom the Torah described as תמים, flawless. This characteristic is described by Onkelos as שלים, “peaceful, harmonious,” in Genesis 25,28 where the Torah describes the difference between Esau and Yaakov. This תמימות, flawlessness, is the hallmark of Torah which is described as תורת ה' תמימה, “the Torah of the Lord is flawless,” and its paths are described as harmonious, שלום, (Proverbs 3,17).” The word שלום as a proper name for the Jewish people occurs in Song of Songs 7,1 where Solomon calls on Israel saying שובה שובה השולמית, “turn back, turn back O Shulamit!” The reason Israel has been accorded this title is that the eventual everlasting peace will be ushered in in the land of Israel. For the above-mentioned reasons G’d selected the domesticated pure mammals as suitable for His altar whereas He rejected the free-roaming beasts, even the ones which are permissible for us to eat such as deer, etc. Esau was considered as far removed from the sun (the horoscope of the sun) being a hairy man, a man who made his home in the desert, as already characterized by his father Yitzchak who described him as יודע ציד איש שדה, “familiar with hunting, a man of the field” (Genesis 25,27). He showed a preference for the free-roaming animals that live in uncivilized areas, signifying destruction and desolation. Such an environment is the opposite of the environment which bespeaks peace and harmony. This is also the reason the Torah forbade that stones which had been treated with iron (metal) tools should form part of the altar as such tools are reminiscent of the sword, of causing death instead of ushering in peace, the purpose of the altar. (compare author’s comments on Exodus 20,22). The sword became the inheritance of Esau and his descendants. This is the mystical dimension of Exodus 20,22: “for you have swung your sword over it and desecrated it.” [The author has a different count for the number of verses in the Ten Commandments due to the tone-signs which are used when reading the text, so that in his commentary Exodus 20,22 is referred to as 20,25. Ed.] Seeing that it is the function of the altar to help man live longer whereas the function of the sword is to shorten the life span of those who come in contact with it, it is only logical that such an instrument or one which symbolises it should not be used in constructing the altar. Our sages also derive from the words מן הבהמה, מן הבקר, ומן הצאן, “from the domesticated animals such as cattle or flocks,” that the word בהמה excludes any animal which has been mated with a human being; the word מן הבקר is meant to exclude any cow or ox which has been used in idolatrous rites; the words מן הצאן exclude even animals which have been designated for idolatrous service though none such has as yet been performed with them. The extra letter ו in the words ומן הצאן, excludes animals which have gored a human being to death but against which there is not enough evidence to carry out the penalty of stoning prescribed by the Torah (compare Sifra 2).

אם עולה קרבנו מן הבקר, “if his burnt-offering is from the cattle, etc.” The burnt-offering is the first of all the offerings mentioned and discussed in some detail. According to the plain meaning of the text this is logical as before one sins in deed one generally sins in thought. It was therefore appropriate to mention this burnt-offering which atones not for sins committed but for sins of omission such as positive commandments, i.e. sins committed only in one’s mind. The order in which the Torah lists these animals commences with the bull, פר, followed by צאן, smaller animals such as sheep and goats, followed by birds. The bull is the animal which is appropriate for a wealthy man who seeks some kind of atonement seeing that it costs more. Wealthy people often rely on their wealth, itself a sin of arrogance. In order to counter the arrogance involved in relying on one’s material wealth the Torah expects the wealthy man to offer a costly animal. People of moderate means are expected to offer sheep or goats as burnt-offerings, whereas the poor is allowed to offer a pigeon, an inexpensive bird as a burnt-offering. In this way people of different means will each use something commensurate with their financial status as appropriate to atone for their sins of omission.

A kabbalistic approach: The עולה type of offering is mentioned first as it corresponds to the emanation of בינה. The sequence of the types of offerings mentioned parallels the emanations in descending order, so that the peace-offering is immediately below the burnt-offering, followed by the offering when the High Priest has become guilty of a sin, i.e., a sin-offering. These three stages correspond to the first three attributes of the thirteen attributes in Parshat Ki Tissa. [At this point the author quotes a non-existent verse meant to support this idea. I cannot understand this. Ed.]

וסמך ידו על ראש העולה, “he is to place his bodily weight on the head of the animal serving as the burnt-offering.” It is well known that this procedure has to be carried out with both hands as this is what Torat Kohanim says in connection with Leviticus 16,21: “and Aaron is to place both his hands on the head of the scape-goat.” This verse is used as applicable for all animal offerings requiring this procedure. Thus far Torat Kohanim. When the Torah writes in this instance that וסמך ידו, “he shall place his hand (sing.),” this is meant to exclude the messenger, intermediary. Although we have a general rule that a person’s messenger enjoys the same legal status as the person on whose behalf he acts, this is an exception. The owner of the animal cannot delegate the requirement to place his own hands on the animal. The placing of the hands on the animal by the owner was performed only in the part of the Tabernacle called Azarah, the courtyard. It was immediately followed by the slaughter of the animal. It was mandatory to place one’s entire weight on the animal using both one’s hands; this is why the Torah wrote: “on the head of the animal,” i.e. not on its neck or any other part.

ושחט את בן הבקר, ”he will slaughter the bull, etc.” We have a tradition (Sifra Vayikra 4,2) that slaughtering the sacrificial animal by a non priest (layman) was in order. This is the reason the Torah wrote the word: “he will slaughter,” without being precise as to who will perform this procedure. In other words, “anyone.” Whenever the Torah defines procedures in the plural, such as “they will sprinkle,” “they will burn, etc.,” it invariably refers to priests who have been mentioned previously in that context. If such a plural is followed by a singular such as in verse 6, והפשיט את העולה, “he will skin the burnt-offering;” this means that whoever had performed the last procedure will continue with the present procedure. [The author has to show that the use of the singular does not always mean that a non priest could perform such a procedure. Ed]. The reason that the Torah uses the word בן בקר all of a sudden instead of the word פר used to describe a bull previously, is that the age of the animal, i.e. not over 2 years old is meant here. The term עגל, calf, is used for animals up to one year old, whereas the term פר indicates that the animal is in its third year. Whenever the Torah speaks of כבש or כבשים, one year old sheep (male) are meant, whereas the two year old male sheep are called איל. Rabbi Meir (in Rosh Hashanah 10) claimed that when the Torah speaks of עגל without adding that it is one year old, what is meant is a one-year old calf. When the Torah speaks of בן בקר a two year old bull is meant. When the Torah speaks of פר without specifying further, a three year old bull is meant. In Torat Kohanim (Sifra Vayikra 3,6) we are taught that the reason an עגל is a one year old calf is that the Torah speaks in Leviticus 9,3 of “a one year old calf and a one year old sheep.” The reason we know that the term בן בקר applies to a two year old bull is also because the Torah writes in 9,2 עגל בן בקר לחטאת ואיל לעולה תמימים, “a two year old male calf as sin-offering, and a ram as burnt-offering, they are to be flawless.” Just as the calf mentioned there is two years old so the ram is two years old. Just as both have to be flawless, so both have to be of the same age (approx.). Thus far Torat Kohanim. However, speaking of male goats, when it is referred to as שעיר without adjective it is under one year old. Once it is a year old it is referred to as שעיר עזים.

ונתנו בני אהרן הכהנים אש על המזבח, “the sons of Aaron, the priest are to place fire on the altar.” Our sages in Yuma 53 state that the only sin which brought about the death of the sons of Aaron was the fact that they made a religious/ritual ruling on their own authority when they should have consulted their elders Moses and/or Aaron. What did they read in the Torah which caused them to make this statement? They referred to our verse. The sons of Aaron took this verse as proof that although heavenly fire was expected to descend from heaven to consume the offerings on the altar, it was still a commandment to also contribute man-made fire.

Their reasoning was correct but it was not their prerogative to make such a ruling. Rav Saadyah Gaon writes concerning this matter that Nadav and Avihu erred when they thought that our verse means that man-made fire was to be placed on the altar “from the outside.” The word ונתנו in our verse is equivalent to ובערו, “they shall burn.” The word ונתנו is used in that sense in Isaiah 37,19: ונתון את אלוהיהם באש, “they have committed their gods to the flames.” Rav Saadyah uses this example of the error committed by Nadav and Avihu to stress how careful one has to be when trying to derive halachic rulings from the written text of the Torah. If people of the stature of Nadav and Avihu could make such a fatal error in understanding the text of the Torah, how much more likely is it that scholars of lesser distinction can make such errors! Had they troubled themselves to confirm with their teachers Moses or Aaron that their interpretation was correct they would not have brought death upon themselves. The mishap which resulted from the error of the sons of Aaron accounts for the fact that Jewish scholars are so careful in repeating the lessons they have learned from their teachers by using the same words. This principle has been made into a rule in Ediyot 1,3: “a person is obligated to repeat what his Rabbi said by using the same words.” If such care is in place when one merely repeats the words of one’s teacher, how much more so is it incumbent upon each one of us not to misquote a single word from the written Torah! If someone nevertheless changes the wording of the Torah the prophet Jeremiah 23,36 said concerning such people that “they pervert the words of the living G’d.” Concerning this whole subject Jeremiah 23,33-36 writes: “when this people, or a prophet or a priest, asks you: ‘what is the message of the Lord?’ You shall answer them “what is the message? I will cast you off — declares the Lord. As for the prophet or priest or layman who shall say ‘the message of the Lord,’ I shall punish that person and his house. You shall speak to each other, everyone to his fellow, ‘what has the Lord answered? Or “what has the Lord spoken?’ But do not mention ‘the message’ of the Lord anymore.” Does a man regard his own word as “a message?” According to Rav Saadyah Gaon the meaning of Jeremiah is that none of his listeners are allowed to put their own interpretation on the prophet’s words or to paraphrase his words. The only person allowed to interpret the word of G’d is the prophet to whom it was addressed. If the people would take it upon themselves to re-interpret G’d’s message they would become guilty of perverting G’d’s words. In verse 36 the prophet Jeremiah used three words extolling G’d; he spoke of Him as “the living G’d,” as “the Lord G’d of Hosts,” and as “our G’d.” The first description of G’d by the prophet as “the living G’d” was a reference to G’d revealing Himself at Mount Sinai. At that time the people had heard His voice, proof that He was alive. Moses had challenged the people in Deut. 4,33 when he asked them if ever a nation had become privy to such an experience as hearing the living G’d? When Jeremiah referred to G’d as “the Lord G’d of Hosts,” he had in mind the second pillar of Judaism, the belief in prophets to whom G’d had transmitted specific messages (compare Zecharyah 7,12). Jeremiah’s referring to G’d also as “our G’d,” אלו-הינו, was a reference to the G’d of the patriarchs. The expression had been used in Joshua 24,17 where Joshua in his parting address to the Jewish people reminds them of their history and implores them to never forget how that attribute of G’d took them out of Egypt and looked after them every step of the way. The terms employed by Jeremiah for describing G’d are proof of how important it is to use the same terms that one’s teacher had used. Rav Saadyah Gaon understands the word ונתנו in our verse as equivalent to the Arabic for “they shall burn,” just as in Leviticus 6,5: “and Aaron shall kindle wood on it every morning.”

את הנתחים ואת הראש, ”the various pieces including the head, etc.” The head had not been part of the animal which had been skinned as it had already been severed from the rest of the animal at the time of slaughter. This is why the Torah had to mention the head especially (Sifra 4, 6,3). In that case, why did the Torah have to mention the פדר, “fat-parts,” separately also? This was to tell us that the head together with the fat-parts were to be burned after the area where the head had been slaughtered had been covered with the fat-parts. The expression פדר, which means “at-parts,”is a translation of the word פרד, i.e. the same letters in reverse order. This is an allusion to the fact that these fat-parts separate (פדר) between the lower and upper intestines. The whole procedure was to make it as dignified as possible seeing the area where the head had been severed had become bloody and dirty. Even nowadays, when people barbecue animals on the spit, they cover the head separately as mentioned by Nachmanides.

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.

על ירך המזבח צפונה, “on the side of the altar, at the northern side.” Our sages (Baba Batra 25) say that the world is like a small house and the north wind can turn only inside its confines. It is just like a three-legged stool which cannot stand properly and requires a fourth leg (Berachot 32). The sacrifices may be viewed as if they supplied the fourth leg for the stool called the universe. This is also the meaning of Psalms 48,3 that ירכתי צפון קרית מלך רב, Mount Zion, summit of Zaphon, city of a great king.” [without Mount Zion the world would not be able to function properly. Ed.] When the Mishnah in Zevachim 47 asks “where is the correct site to slaughter the sacrificial animals?” The answer given is that the most sacred sacrifices had to be slaughtered on the north side of the altar. Surely it is preposterous to assume that the editor of that Mishnah did not know something as elementary as this, i.e. that these animals had to be slaughtered in the holy precincts of the Temple! However, the inquiry concerned in which direction of the precincts of the Temple (on which side) did this slaughtering have to take place? The scholar editing the Mishnah answers that it had to take place on the north side (if the animals were of the type called קדשי קדשים, the most sacred ones). The Mishnah cites our verse here where the north side is made mandatory for the slaughtering of the עולה offering, one of those called קדשי קדשים as proof.. When the Mishnah continues that the blood of the עולה has to be sprinkled על בין הבדים, “between and above the staves,” the meaning is that the officiating priest has to stand between the staves of the Holy Ark while sprinkling both above and below the thickness of the kapporet. In other words, the blood had to be sprinkled in the direction where the Shechinah was located between the outstretched wings of the cherubs. This corresponds to what is written in Song of Songs 1,13 בין שדי ילין, literally: (“he will sleep between my breasts”). However, the words בין שדי derive their profound meaning from the individual letters of the expression. The letters ש-ד refer to the שני בדים, two staves by means of which the Ark was carried. The whole expression is to be viewed as an allegorical comparison of the intimacy which existed between G’d and the Jewish people.

We are told in Pirke d'Rabbi Eliezer chapter 3 that four directions (of the compass) were created in the world. Light originates from the east; beneficial dew as well as beneficial rains originate in the south, whereas snow, hail, cold and heat and normal rain originate in the west. Whereas G’d had “created” i.e. initiated the north also, He did not assign to it any specific function. G’d reputedly said that anyone who claimed to be a deity should prove his ability by assigning a useful function to the north, i.e. the corner of the universe that He had left incomplete.

A kabbalistic approach: the word צפונה is a reference to the attribute of גבורה, i.e. it is meant to be perfected still. [In order for man to perfect himself, such as to atone for his sins, he needs to turn northwards. Ed.] This is what is meant in Zevachim 53 that the officiating priest ascended the ramp called כבש, i.e. that the entire structure (the world) was called כבש. [The priest’s actions were perceived as steps in bringing completion and perfection to our terrestrial universe by means of ceremonies and rituals performed as part of the sacrificial rites. The Kabbalah sees in the walk around the altar by the priest and in the direction in which he walks such symbolic significance. Ed.] Avraham’s journey through the Holy Land described in Genesis 12,9 mentioning also a southward journey is considered a parallel to the priest’s manner of walking on the altar when performing his service in the Temple. The priest awakens the attribute of חסד, love, in G’d. This is why he has to start out in the south (like Avraham proceeding southwards. This means that Avraham embarked on his mission for mankind from a southerly direction.) Having aroused G’d’s love he turns to the east the seat of תפארת, the emanation harmony from where the attribute of Mercy emerges. From there he turns northwards in order to make his peace also with the attribute of גבורה, the attribute of Justice. From the north he turns westwards the site of the emanation מלכות, the emanation representing the עולם העשיה, our terrestrial part of the universe. This is the deeper meaning of the statement by our sages in Baba Batra 25 that the Shechinah resides in the west. Having completed this circle, he addresses himself to the world of the angels, the disembodied creatures. As a result of the priest’s performing this procedure the terrestrial world will enjoy G’d’s blessing. Having reached the westernmost part of his walk, the priest returns to the south, the place from which he started out at the base of the כבש.

מן התורים או מן בני היונה, “from the turtledoves or the pigeons.” According to the plain meaning of the text the Torah first mentions the fully grown birds of the species, i.e. the turtledoves, as they mate and represent דבקות, the attachment of the Jewish people to its partner, i.e. G’d. It is a remarkable fact that when a female turtledove has lost its mate it will never mate again. Similarly, Israel, having once established an intimate relationship with G’d will never exchange Him for any other deity. This is the reason why under-age doves are not considered as fit to serve as an offering. On the other hand, mature pigeons are not fit to serve as an offering as they have developed a sense of jealousy, having mated, and therefore represent the opposite of דבקות, attachment. Jealousy is the cause of separation, friction etc.; it is not a characteristic we wish to draw attention to when offering a sacrifice to G’d. When pigeons are offered, the halachah insists that they be young ones which have not yet mated. The reason that the Torah did not permit chickens to serve as sacrifices although they are pure birds and serve as our food, is because they mate indiscriminately, unlike the turtledoves and pigeons. Neither roosters nor hens keep faith with their partners.

A kabbalistic approach: Turtledoves originate in water. The mature ones have been selected to serve as sacrifices to demonstrate the need for the attribute of חסד in all aspects of life on earth. The pigeon’s origin is fire. Concerning the יונה, pigeon, David writes in Psalms 68,14 ואברותיה בירקרק חרוץ, “its pinions in fine gold,” the golden colour around the neck of mature pigeons represent the negative characteristic of man pursuing gold as a material asset. Gold’s colour simulates the colour of fire. The repetition of the letters רק in ירקרק alludes to the severity of the Judgment. On account of such considerations mature pigeons, may not serve as a sacrifice. Young pigeons are acceptable as they have not yet displayed features that remind us of negative characteristics when found in man.

והסיר את מראתו בנוצתה, “he shall remove its crop with its feathers.” The word מראה refers to the remnants of food particles retained in the crop; the priest took the crop complete with the skin covering it as well as its feathers and threw them to the place reserved for refuse of the altar. The crop by itself was not large enough to make it worthwhile to wash and clean out and subsequently to burn it up on the altar as was done with the intestines of the four-legged animals after they had been cleaned out. Moreover, it is the nature of birds to wander all over and secure their food supply, i.e. to subsist on stolen food, as opposed to the domesticated four-legged animals. To offer the crop while it still contained stolen food was not ethical. Our sages in Vayikra Rabbah 3,4 phrased it thus: ”concerning the domestic beast which receives its food supply from the trough of its owner the Torah instructs that the innards be washed and subsequently be burned up (verse 13); the bird which feeds on stolen property has its crop (substitute for innards) thrown away as stolen things are not acceptable as an offering to G’d.”

The whole matter teaches us an important moral lesson regarding the subject of theft and robbery. Just as G’d wants no part of the part of the body of the bird which receives the stolen food, so G’d wants no part of man who is guilty of anything similar until he has made full restoration. The prophet revealed to us the severity of this sin when he said (Jeremiah 17,11) “he who amasses wealth by unjust means, in the middle of his life it will leave him (stolen goods), and in the end he will be proved a fool.” “The end” of which the prophet speaks refers to the world to come where such a person will find out that what he did was counterproductive as he will fall from the proximity of G’d’s throne of glory. David already explained elsewhere (Psalms 24,3-4) that the ones who may expect to ascend the mountain of the Lord and the place of His holiness are “those who have clean hands, i.e. whose hands have not been stained with unjustly acquired wealth.”

ושסע אותו בכנפיו , “he shall split it with its feathers.” The word בכנפיו, “with its feathers,” means that the priest does not have to pluck the feathers. The word בכנפיו means “literally with its feathers.” Although I could hardly have imagined something more revolting than to have to smell the feathers of burned wings, why then did the Torah legislate that the priest is to ‘bring near,’ i.e. to offer up such an evil-smelling offering? It was in order for the altar to be graced with the offering of a poor man and to make same look more substantial. [the bird offering was an accommodation to people who could not afford a more costly offering. Plucking the bird’s feathers would have made it look even less substantive. Ed.]