ויקרא אל משה ... אדם כי יקריב מכם . Rashi alludes to the rhetorical question of the sages why the Torah here used the term אדם instead of איש or something similar. They conclude that since the sequence of the words is not אדם מכם יקריב קרבן, but אדם כי יקריב מכם, that the Torah refers to an offering volunteered by man, as distinct from one that man is obligated to bring. This is why the Torah also added the word כי, which indicates something that is subject to choice. Rashi also says that the type of offering the Torah speaks of is the עולת נדבה, an animal which is burned up completely, the owner or priest not eating any part thereof, an offering which is volunteered by its owner.

This still leaves open the question why the Torah chose the word אדם instead of איש. Granted that, had the Torah spoken about a mandatory עולה offering (which Gentiles are not allowed to bring), I would have thought that the designation אדם was chosen in order to emphasize that only Israelites are included because the title אדם does not apply to Gentiles. We further know from the use by the Torah of the term איש איש (Leviticus 22,18), in connection with קרבן נדבה, that our sages rule that such offerings by Gentiles are acceptable (Menachot 73). Because the Torah in our verse speaks about free-will offerings why would the word איש instead of אדם not have been appropriate?

Our sages answer this by saying that the term אדם was selected to remind us that just as Adam did not bring an offering from something that had been stolen, since he owned everything on earth, so any man must never bring an offering to G–d using something that was stolen. We need to understand this statement. It is simply not natural to refer to something one has not done as an act unless one had been at liberty to perform such an act. Since Adam had been unable to steal, how could the Torah use him as a model for telling us not to steal when making an offering to G–d? Adam could not claim credit for offering what was his since there was nothing that was not his!

Adam had been created and placed in Gan Eden in order לעבדה ולשמרה "to work and preserve it" (Genesis 2,15). The mystical dimension of the word לעבדה, is עבודה service of the Lord. He himself was meant to be the "service" or, as we expressed this later the "offering." He was a "living sacrifice." While alive in a body, he was supposed to be what the souls of the righteous are nowadays after they have left this earth and their bodies behind and when the archangel Michael offers their souls on the Celestial Altar. In an ideal world the attachment to G–d expressed by the word קרב would have existed during man's lifetime. Man is supposed to be close to this image of himself since man on this earth was created in the image of the אדם who sits on the "throne" in the Celestial Regions, the mystical dimension of אצילות. The domain of the אצילות is the domain from which unification with the אין סוף is possible. I have explained this process in my introduction to the chapter תולדות האדם.

Originally, man's body and soul were so close to one another that they could almost be considered one. This relationship paralleled the relationship between אדם העליון and G–d Himself in the Celestial Regions. Man was therefore considered a קרבן, and placed in גן עדן, the most refined place in the physical universe. He was meant to live indefinitely. When the Torah describes man as becoming נפש חיה, in Genesis 2,7, the meaning is that his soul comprised all other souls in the universe, as our sages have described this.

As a result Adam was the most perfect of all human beings, the place he lived was the most perfect in the world, and he was meant to live indefinitely. In the words of the Sefer Yetzirah he possessed three kinds of perfections: 1) that of עולם, i.e. he lived in a perfect universe, 2) that of שנה, i.e. unlimited time of existence, 3) that of נפש, i.e. he had a perfect soul-body alignment. Under such conditions he represented the closest one could come to G–d, i.e. the objective of the very concept of קרבן, offering, self-sacrifice. If he was described as קרוב לעצמו, "close to his own essence," this merely meant that man himself was the קרבן. He personified what the Torah encourages imperfect man to achieve when it speaks about: אדם כי יקריב מכם קרבן לה', because whereas the Torah nowadays can only speak about מכם, בכם, i.e. that part of man which comes close to G–d. At that time all of man was close to G–d.

The mystical dimension of "eating" which G–d commanded Adam to do in גן עדן when He said to him מכל עץ הגן אכול תאכל, "You shall surely eat from all the trees of the garden" (Genesis 2,16), is tied up with the concept of קרבן and was entirely a sacred activity. Man's "table" is in the nature of an altar for sacrifice.

Man's diminution after his seduction by the serpent ended only when the Jewish people received the Torah. At that time the Jewish people finally excreted any residue of the pollutant absorbed by him by way of the original serpent. Man (Jews) was then fit to resume his original stature. We find an allusion to this in the words: והר סיני עשן (Exodus 19,18). The word עשן is an acronym for the three "perfections" עולם, שנה, נפש, which we described as having been possessed by Adam prior to his sin.

Alas, Israel again lost this lofty status through its sin with the golden calf, and as a result the universe (man) once more returned to a state of imperfection never again to be totally rehabilitated until the advent of the Messiah.

Nonetheless, there was a partial rehabilitation through the construction of the Tabernacle called מקדש, Sanctuary, which served as an illustration of how the material and spiritual worlds are inter-related, as I have explained on פרשת תרומה and on פרשת ויקהל-פקודי. It was equivalent to a new act of creation, a rejuvenation of the universe as it were. In that rejuvenated universe Aaron took the place of Adam. Of Aaron the Torah writes specifically that he should be brought "close," i.e. that he should personify what Adam had personified prior to the latter's sin. (cf. Exodus 28,1 and the Midrash I have quoted in connection with that verse). In our physical universe Aaron's function as High Priest corresponds to the function of the High Priest in the Celestial Region who offers the souls of the righteous on an altar (Chagigah 12). We have illustrated this by quoting כי היום ה' נראה אליכם (Leviticus 9,4) and showing that the words נראה אליכם nhna comprise the same letters as אהרן , מיכאל. This is an allusion to Aaron's function here on earth being similar to that of the archangel Michael in Heaven. Aaron was to bring about the closest rapprochement possible between man and G–d Instead of offering the souls of the righteous, Aaron could only offer animal sacrifices i.e. from the domesticated beasts such as the cattle and the sheep. This was basically no different from what Adam himself had done after he had sinned, when he sacrificed the ox which is reputed to have had a single horn on its forehead (Shabbat 28). Noach offered animal sacrifices in expiation for a corrupt human society which had been punished. Abraham did likewise in order to obtain forgiveness for the sin of the generation of the Tower of Babel. It is written of him ויבן שם מזבח לה' ויקרא בשם ה', "He built there an altar for the Lord, and proclaimed the name of the Lord" (Genesis 12,8). Not only did Abraham offer animal sacrifices, but he even offered his only beloved son Isaac as a sacrifice.

A total rehabilitation of mankind (Israel) occurred at the time of the giving of the Torah, prior to the second relapse when Israel worshiped the golden calf. The next rehabilitation that took place was the construction of the Tabernacle, a microscope of the perfect universe. The sacrifices, עבודה, are one of the pillars which ensure the continued existence of the universe. We see therefore how the word עשן, which we described as representing the three kinds of perfections Adam had possessed prior to his sin, became the symbol of rehabilitation after G–d legislated that man can come close to Him by presenting sacrifices whose smoke (עשן) rises up from the altar in the Tabernacle (Sanctuary). Evil influences in the world were unable to overcome or infect this smoke which comprised three sanctities, including the sanctity of the Tabernacle which was called מקדש. Whereas Adam enjoyed being in the choicest place of the world, גן עדן, Aaron now had both a Sanctuary and a Holy of Holies symbolizing the choicest place on earth.

The "perfection" of שנה, or the concept of time, i.e. unlimited time enjoyed by Adam before his sin, was symbolized in the Temple by the various sacrifices all of which were to be offered at certain times. An animal was not fit to be offered until it was eight days old; the daily public offerings -mornings and evenings- were tied to a time frame. The additional public offerings on the Sabbaths and the festivals were also tied to a time frame. Offerings by individuals, to help them purify themselves from ritual impurity, had to be offered after a certain amount of time had elapsed after their owners had become defiled. Offerings to help individuals expiate certain sins were linked to the time the respective sins they were meant to atone for had been committed.

Now to the third "perfection" enjoyed by Adam, that of the נפש, the soul. The priest offering the sacrifice enjoys a higher level of נפש. Any non-priest who arrogated to himself priestly functions was guilty of death by execution (Numbers 1,51). We note that the priest offered sacrifices at a place appointed by G–d at a time designated by G–d. This is the mystical dimension of the עשן.

When we look at certain individuals who lived prior to the time the Tabernacle was erected, we find that נח, אדם and אברהם respectively personified the concept of עשן, i.e. שנה,עולם , and נפש. Adam represented עולם, seeing he was the product for whose sake G–d had undertaken to create the universe. Noach personified the concept of שנה, seeing that during his lifetime the world underwent cataclysmic changes. He witnessed a world which functioned; he then witnessed a world that was destroyed; finally he witnessed a world rebuilt. Our patriarch Abraham, inasmuch as he personified absolute faith in G–d, comprised within himself all the spiritual powers connected with the soul. The Torah testifies that while still in Charan he and Sarah "made" souls, created people who possessed spiritual values, i.e. a soul (Genesis 12,5). Vayikra Rabbah 1,9 comments on Leviticus 1,1 ויקרא אל משה, "He called upon Moses," that whereas G–d called upon Moses, He did not call upon Adam. This seems peculiar in view of ויקרא ה' אלוקים אל האדם, in Genesis 3, 9! Obviously G–d did call upon Adam! We must answer by stating that it is not a disgrace for the king to speak to his tenant. The Midrash goes on: G–d spoke to Moses, i.e. וידבר ה' אליו, whereas he did not speak to Noach. How are we to understand this in view of Genesis 8,15: וידבר אלוקים אל נח! We must answer that it is no disgrace for a king to speak to his herder.

The Midrash continues: G–d called to Moses whereas G–d did not call to Abraham. How are we to understand this in view of Genesis 22,15: ויקרא מלאך ה' אל אברהם; Clearly G–d did call to Abraham. We must answer that it is no disgrace for the king to speak with his innkeeper. When G–d spoke to Moses He did not do as He did when He spoke to Abraham, but the angel first called to Abraham (to tell him G–d was about to speak to him). Rabbi Avin says that G–d said: "I am the caller and it is I who is speaking." We know this from Isaiah 48,15: אני אני דברתי אף קראתיו והביאותיו והצליח דרכו, "I, I have spoken, I called him; I have brought him and make him successful in his mission." Thus far the Midrash.

Let me explain the plain meaning of this section of the Midrash before concentrating on the allusions contained therein. One can ask why does the Midrash raise the problem of G–d also speaking to Adam, Noach and Abraham? Why should this bother us? Our verse in Leviticus did not state that Moses had an exclusive on being called upon by G–d? Furthermore, why did the Midrash quote a verse in which Abraham was addressed by G–d through an angel instead of bringing a verse from an earlier incident (Genesis 22,11) when the angel is specifically mentioned as calling from Heaven? Another difficulty is that the statements seem self-contradictory. First the Midrash says that G–d did not call upon Abraham, whereas immediately afterwards it qualifies the manner in which G–d called upon Abraham! If G–d never called upon Abraham, how can the Midrash qualify the nature of such a call?

In order to understand the Midrash we must keep in mind that the verses mentioned speak of four different levels of fondness expressed by G–d for Moses at the time the Tabernacle was completed when G–d's voice manifested itself in the אהל מועד, the Tent of Meeting. The first indication of fondness for Moses was in the very word ויקרא as opposed to ויקר, the expression used when G–d called upon Bileam (Numbers 23,4). The second expression is seen when the Torah adds: וידבר י-ה-ו-ה that Moses was being addressed by the Ineffable four-lettered Name of G–d. The repetition of לאמור, וידבר is an additional sign of the fondness of G–d for the person whom He addressed. Rashi felt impelled to provide an explanation for this unusual construction which did not occur during all the 38 years when the generation who had listened to the majority report of the spies were dying. Only after they had all died did G–d once more speak to Moses in this way (Deut. 2,16). A third sign of the fondness of G–d for Moses and Israel at this stage is the fact that the קריאה, the "call" or invitation, preceded the actual message. The Torah does not say (as is frequently the case) ויקרא ה' וידבר אל משה, but it starts with the introduction "ויקרא" to show that henceforth such a קריאה would precede the actual message. This was definitely a display of fondness. The fourth sign of fondness for Moses is the word אליו, to him, i.e. exclusively. Aaron was not included in this. If this demonstrated that Aaron, who occupied a very special and lofty position, was on a lower level of intimacy with G–d than Moses, the same certainly applied to other great people with whom G–d had conversed in earlier times.

Concerning the first manifestation of fondness for Moses, where the Midrash had asked why G–d did not use the term ויקר, we may answer that it is a word connected with קרי, impurity contracted through the emission of seminal fluid. If the word ויקרא reflects an added degree of fondness compared to ויקר, why did G–d employ it when speaking to Adam at a time when He asked him איכה i.e. accused him of disobedience. Surely, at a time when Adam had absorbed the pollutant of the serpent which is equivalent to טומאת קרי, such an expression of fondness would hardly have been in place!

Rashi already draws attention to the fact that both in Genesis when G–d asked Adam where he was, and when He asked Cain where his brother Abel was, as well as when He appeared to Bileam asking who the men were who had come from Balak, it was not because G–d did not know, but the introductory remarks only served G–d as a pretext to enter into a dialogue with these people. All of this reinforces the question as to why G–d should have employed an endearing term such as ויקרא. This is why the Midrash had to answer that there was no disgrace in speaking to one's tenant.

Concerning the second term of endearment, we must understand what additional proof of endearment Moses experienced here when G–d said to him after the Tabernacle became functional: וידבר לאמור? Do we not have a similar expression even when G–d spoke to Noach where there was no reason for G–d to employ a special term of endearment? The Midrash therefore had to answer that there was no shame attached when a king spoke to his herder.

We also find that the preamble of קריאה was used prior to the actual message in the case of the angel speaking to Abraham. What special proof of fondness does this expression indicate here in Leviticus where the Torah does not even link this form of address to some form of express compliment to Moses in contradistinction to the compliment paid to Abraham in Genesis 22,15 where the use of the word ויקרא is followed by an acknowledgment of why Abraham qualified for this special fondness G–d displayed for him? In that instance G–d explains that He swore an oath acknowledging Abraham's outstanding act of obedience.

Concerning the fourth expression of endearment listed, the use of the word אליו, this too had been used in connection with Abraham (Genesis 22,11), and one cannot answer that it did not represent an expression of fondness since it was not coupled with וידבר לאמור. The absence of the extra word לאמור in Genesis 22,1, is more than compensated for by the repeated use of Abraham's very name! The answer is that Abraham had to personally prepare himself spiritually in order to receive a communication from G–d. Moses did not need such spiritual preparation. He was ready at all times to perform his task as a prophet. We know this from Numbers 9,8 where some of the people asked Moses why people who had been ritually impure through no fault of their own could not perform the Passover sacrifice at the appointed time. Moses told the people: "Stand by and let me hear what G–d will command concerning situations such as yours!" There was no need for Moses to prepare himself to speak to G–d. We now understand the abbreviated form of the קריאה reported at the opening of the book of Leviticus, i.e. why the Torah did not even bother to identify the caller, and immediately wrote: "He called." Had the introduction "G–d called" been used by the Torah, there would not have been room for error, no one could have argued that it was the angel Mattatron who had addressed Moses and invited him to ready himself spiritually, that it was not G–d Who had addressed him directly. Why then did the Torah take a chance and omit defining who called Moses? We are forced to conclude that the Torah used this form of introduction to demonstrate how fond G–d was of Moses, that G–d was both the caller and the speaker, as distinct from Abraham where the fourth endearing term אליו is used in G–d's address (Genesis 22,11). This is the plain meaning of the paragraph in the Midrash.

In order to penetrate the mystical dimension of what is contained in the Midrash; we need first to elaborate some more about the reasons for the sacrifices, even though we are aware that we can at best hope to scratch the surface of this subject. If such spiritual giants as Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai and his colleagues did not succeed in revealing more than a small part of the secrets contained in this legislation what can someone like myself hope to achieve in this field? Nonetheless, we are all duty bound to contribute what we can in accordance with the degree of spirit that we have been endowed with.

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.

Our sages added that the animal first has to be thrown to the ground forcefully as a symbol of man having thrown down his own person, thereby confessing that he himself is guilty of death by stoning. When the animal is slaughtered this is equivalent to the owner killing himself suggesting that he is guilty of the two death penalties: death by the sword and by hanging. (There is a momentary feeling of choking experienced by the animal before the knife slices through its throat). When the animal is burned on the altar, this symbolizes the fourth kind of death penalty, death by burning. The owner of the animal recites a confession and G–d accepts it. The priest must also see to it that at the time when he sprinkles the animal's blood on the altar the man or woman for whom he performs this service should observe what he is doing. The priest is not himself allowed to look directly at a woman while he performs service in the precincts of the Temple; the copper laver used in the Temple was made of the mirrors the Jewish women used in Egypt when they prettied themselves for their husbands; when the priest offers a sin-offering owned by a woman he looks at this copper laver and sees her reflection in it. This has been explained by the Rekanati. The rule we learn from all that we have described above is that the person who offers the sacrifice should regard himself as being sacrificed. He is then fulfilling (2,1): ונפש כי תקריב קרבן מנחה "When a person sacrifices (himself) as a gift-offering".

From what I have explained you will understand that by means of the (animal) sacrifice man's "lower" will is elevated and thereby able to approach G–d's "higher" will. G–d's will in turn is also able to relate more closely to man's "lower" will. It is incumbent on the lowly to subdue his will by means of the sacrifice, so that man's soul, נפש, will identify with the נפש of the animal he offers up. When he does this the Torah will consider his sacrifice as if he had sacrificed his own נפש, his own life. When the priest offers the sacrifice, his נפש "sticks" to the נפש on the Celestial Altar in the first instance, and then proceeds to still higher regions. When that process is complete the priest is called מלאך. This is what Malachi 2,7 has in mind when he describes the function of the priest as מלאך ה' צבאות הוא.

The reason the קרבן מנחה is called מנחה is because the root of the word is הנחה, such as the הנחה, amnesty (tax reduction) king Ahasverus proclaimed for the provinces when he made a feast in honor of his marriage to Esther (Esther 2,18). The word is used similar to Zachariah 6,8: הניחו את רוחי, "They have gratified My spirit." Thus far the Rekanati.

Abraham ibn Ezra writes that the animal offerings are in the nature of a תמורה. As is well known, we are not allowed to swap animals that have been designated as sacrifices for other animals, be they inferior or even superior (Leviticus chapter 27). An animal which has once been designated as holy to G–d does not revert to become חולין, profane.

The mystical dimension of all this is that the sacrifice is designated for G–d in His capacity as the Ineffable Name, not for any of the non-essential attributes of His. It is in the nature of what the prophet Isaiah 43,4 said: ואתן אדם תחתיך, that G–d will forego the offer of any other human beings to serve Him in lieu of the Jewish people. Our sages have revealed the reason for all this in Menachot 110a where they quote Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai as saying that it is remarkable that the name for G–d used in the entire קרבנות legislation in פרשת ויקרא is invariably the four- lettered Ineffable Name of G–d. We do not find such names as אלוקים, אל, צבאות, but only the four-lettered Ineffable Name regardless of the type of sacrifice the Torah discusses. Nachmanides discusses the implication of this statement at length.

The Zohar (Sullam edition Vayikra page 13 as well as page 33), describes at length how the letters in the Ineffable Name unite by means of the קרבן. When the name of G–d becomes "whole" in this fashion, then the purpose of the קרבן to become ריח ניחוח, a sweet-smelling fragrance has been achieved. The King in the Celestial Regions can then find satisfaction, so to speak. This is what Solomon had in mind in Song of Songs 5,1 when he said: אריתי מרי עם בשמי אכלתי יערי עם דבשי שתיתי ייני עם חלבי, "I gathered My myrrh with My spice from your princely incense; I accepted your unbidden as well as your bidden offerings to Me; I drank your libations pure as milk." The various items described in that verse are understood as symbolising either different emanations and/or people such as David, etc., who symbolised the attributes which these emanations represent. A comparison is cited with a king who has prepared his own meal without having prepared a meal for his servants. G–d is portrayed as waiting with His own meal until Israel has had its meal. The dual ריח ניחוח, suggests that G–d "eats" after Israel has been able to eat. Whereas the first half of the verse which speaks of אכלתי יערי עם דבשי, speaks of G–d's meal, the latter half אכלו רעים speaks of the meal of the Jewish people.

The Zohar also explains that the last part of the metaphors in the verse refers to the 4 חיות Ezekiel saw in his vision of the מרכבה, and Rekanati page 109 comments on that. He says that every concept can be described by means of some metaphor, example. The relation of the metaphor to the concept it represents is like that of the shadow to the object that casts it, from which it is inseparable. The life-force, רוח of the beast which serves as the offering is derived from the שור, ox, of the four חיות in Ezekiel's vision. When the animal rises in the form of smoke after being offered on the altar it re-unites with its source in the מרכבה, G–d's celestial chariot. The life-force of the bird which serves as an offering similarly re-unites with the חיה called eagle in Ezekiel's vision of the מרכבה. The פני אדם, a third category of the four חיות which form part of Ezekiel's vision, derives "nourishment" i.e. is re-united when man on earth initiates the bringing of sacrifices involving his own נפש ונשמה. Each category of the מרכבה, the carrier of G–d's throne in Ezekiel's vision, unites with its respective counterpart on earth. Only afterwards are they able to accept a gift from the "King." Prior to such development no one has the right to enjoy the "king's" meal. This is what our sages (Berachot 14a) had in mind when they said that one must not engage in one's own mundane activities before one has offered prayer to G–d. The fourth חיה, the image of the lion in Ezekiel's vision, does not confer of its strength to others but is only a passive recipient. When Israel was at its optimum spiritual level, they lay on the altar. This is an allusion to the lion which does not have to rouse itself.

I have dealt at some length with these matters in my treatise on תענית in the section of the offerings. You will also find more about the mystical dimensions of the קרבנות in my chapter שער השמים on the daily תמיד offerings as well as in my treatise dealing with איזהו מקומן.

We find a similar approach to the mystical dimensions of the sacrifices, each one according to its specific purpose, in a book called שבעה היכלות. The sacrifices, or their smoke, are represented as rising heavenwards, there to re-unite with spiritual forces in the Celestial Sanctuary from which they originated.

Remember that there are sacrifices parts of which may be consumed by the altar, the priest, and the owner. Examples of such sacrifices are the so-called peace offerings, שלמים. Other sacrifices may be eaten only by the priests in addition to the parts offered on the altar; examples of these offerings are different sin offerings called חטאות ואשמות. Their blood is sprinkled on the altar, and the אימורים are burned up to atone for the sin committed by their owners. The קרבן עולה, on the other hand is offered up whole on the altar, no part of it is eaten, even not by the priest. No one was allowed to derive bodily gratification from the עולה, because it atoned for sinful thoughts rather than for sinful actions. The sin had remained in the realm of the נפש, the intangible part of man. It had not touched his flesh. It is therefore appropriate that the entire animal which represents this sin should be converted to something intangible, i.e. רוח. When we keep this in mind we understand the statement of our sages (Yuma 29a) that הרהורי עבירה קשים מעבירה, "the contemplation of the sin is more serious than the actual execution of the sinful deed." Some sacrifices had to be brought from male animals only and others again from female only. The Zohar explains that the sacrifice of a male animal signifies an affinity between Heaven and earth which originated in the Celestial Regions, whereas the sacrifice of a female animal signifies an affinity between our region and the Celestial Regions which originated on earth.

The Rekanati (page 111) on Leviticus 4,2: דבר אל בני ישראל לאמור נפש כי תחטא בשגגה מכל מצות ה' אשר לא תעשינה, "Speak to the Children of Israel; if a person commits an unintentional sin involving any of the negative commandments,etc," comments that we must realise that anyone committing a transgression of any of G–d's commandments is called a sinner, חוטא, to the extent that the particular commandment depended on him to fulfil it. Since negative commandments fall under the heading of שמירה, have to be observed by not violating them, a transgressor has to bring a sacrifice to atone for his sin in a manner appropriate to the nature of his error. It is fitting therefore that the animal chosen for such a sin offering be a female sheep or a female goat. [The sinner should have remained passive like a female, whereas he actively violated the commandment. Ed.] The reason that the sin offering called אשם must be a male animal is explained by Rekanati as follows: The sin offering called חטאת applies in respect of sins which would have carried the penalty כרת, a form of premature death possibly involving one's descendants, i.e. a return of one's נפש, life-force, to G–d who had granted it in the first place. The sin offering called אשם is not brought for sins which, if committed intentionally, would have resulted in the כרת type of death. It therefore may be viewed as closer to the עולה offering which is converted to ריח ניחוח, a sweet smelling fragrance for G–d. It rises to a higher region in Heaven. The bull of the כהן המשיח and the bull of the High Court in atonement for errors of judgment committed, both sin offerings, are brought only to פתח אהל מועד (4,4), only the blood to be sprinkled on the altar within the Sanctuary.

Most of the animal is to be burned outside the encampment of the Jewish people על שפך הדשן, "on an ash heap." Rashi explains the wording used in 4,12. I have already explained the reason for this: it seems that the bulk of the male goat offered as a sin-offering by a king or temporal authority who had sinned in error was also burned up on this ash heap outside the encampment, or, when the Temple stood in Jerusalem, outside the city. The mystical dimension of offering up male goats has to do with the removal of the spirit of impurity. The sages of the Zohar claim that that was the only reason.

The opinion of Rekanati, however, seems to be that the reason that the king had to offer a male goat if he had sinned unintentionally is, that it is the king's function to dispense justice, to fight the wars approved by G–d. In other words: the sword is the instrument of his power. Someone who has mistakenly become guilty of an idolatrous act also has to expiate by means of a sin offering consisting of a male goat. It is the function of the צדיק to battle for truth, to fight the fight on behalf of G–d in a spiritual manner just as it is the function of the king to uphold G–d's law by physical means. Both the function of the צדיק and that of the king is to be active. Both have to atone for errors by means of a male goat, the male being the symbol for being active.

The reason the blood had to be sprinkled on the altar "seven times before the Lord," as the Torah states in 4,6, is connected to the deeper meaning of the number seven. The addition of the words: "before the Lord," may indicate that it addresses itself to G–d's anger, i.e. the face of the dividing curtain. Thus far the Rekanati.

As a general rule we may stipulate that the sacrifice is intended to the whole, i.e. unified name of the Lord, the four-lettered Name. It is offered on the altar so that its remains will rise to the Celestial Altar as alluded to in Isaiah 60,7: יעלו לרצון על מזבחי ובית תפארתי אפאר "They shall be welcome offerings on MY altar and I will add glory to My glorious House."

ועל כל קרבנך תקריב מלח . Salt represents the Covenant with your G–d, for salt is water which has become solid through being heated by fire. It alludes to the emanation מלכות. Although אסתר המלכה, Queen Esther, [a symbol of the emanation מלכות Ed.] had the חוט של חסד, thread of loving kindness (from the emanation חסד which represents the "upper” waters) extended to her, the fact remains that דינא דמלכותא דינא, that the preponderant emanation she was subject to was the emanation of דין, justice. The waters of this emanation are "salted" due to the power of the fire which has "burned" those waters. Salt as a symbol of the Covenant is the mystical dimension based on the emanation יסוד, which is in itself the אות הברית, symbol of the Covenant, as is well known to Kabbalists. שאור ודבש, yeast and honey, represent the כחות חיצוניות, negative forces in the universe, because yeast causes fermentation, whereas honey "sweetens” the חימוץ, i.e. strengthens the negative forces [because it makes sin appear palatable, enjoyable. Ed.]. Inasmuch as these two ingredients represent rebellion against G–d's commandments, they must not form part of any offering dedicated to G–d. The purpose of קרבן is to bring about a rapprochement between man and G–d. Yeast and honey are instruments which help to estrange man from G–d. It is clear that they cannot be part of any offering.

Many philosophers have conceptual difficulties with understanding how animal sacrifices can achieve a rapprochement between Israel and G–d. In his Kuzari, Rabbi Yehudah Halevi has tried to explain this to the doubters. He explained that the affinity which already existed between G–d and the people of Israel is sustained by means of the sacrifices offered up on the altar in the Temple. It is similar to the affinity which exists between the spiritual life-force נפש and the body. Life, i.e. the continued existence of the soul within the body, is made possible through the intake of food by the body, which in turn sustains the soul, preserves the soul's attachment to the body. Just as we are unable to understand how the process of tangible food translates into its assimilation by an intangible spiritual force such as the soul, although we observe the result, so we also do not understand how and why the שכינה needs our sacrifices in order that the mutual close relationship between us and G–d may be maintained. The fact remains, however, that our affinity to G–d is maintained through the animal sacrifices. Thus far the Kuzari.

Rabbi Yitzchak Arama, author of the Akeidat Yitzchak deals with this problem in chapter 57 of his book, after taking the Kuzari to task for presenting us with a parable in which the משל is not at all like the נמשל. The human body needs physical food for survival, something which is not true of the Jewish people i.e. an abstract concept. Rabbi Arama concludes that, of course, the שכינה does not "need" the sacrifices. He believes that it is the motivation that prompts one to eat food which determines if such food can be converted into "soul-food." If we eat in order to be able to serve G–d better as the result of the food we consume, the spiritual level of the individual Jew, (or even the Jewish nation in the case of communal sacrifices), is enhanced. As a result our affinity with the שכינה is strengthened. He refers to chapter six in his book in which he explains that the highest level our soul achieves is not the level at which it was when we were born, but rather that the level of "soul," intangible spiritual force- we possess is either נפש, רוח or נשמה, depending on how much effort we put into developing our personality. The Torah has said concerning this in Genesis 2,7: ויהי האדם לנפש חיה, "Man started out with only the נפש part of his soul as long as he had not developed his personality."

The kind of food needed to sustain a soul of a level over and above the minimum level נפש, is different from the kind of food needed to sustain a body. When Moses spent three times forty days on Mount Sinai without physical food or drink, he certainly sustained his נשמה by spiritual nourishment instead.

Rabbi Arama further refers to his commentary on the phenomenon of Moses going without food or drink [chapter 32] in which he states that the more refined the food, the more it can serve as soul-food. This is the meaning of the concept of ריח ניחוח, the almost totally intangible part of food. "Man does not live on bread alone, but on all that emanates from the mouth of the Lord" (Deut. 8,3) i.e. one can live on spiritual nourishment. This is the reason that a meal during which no words of Torah are spoken is considered an abomination (Avot 3,3).

It is this aspect of the food which determines our affinity with G–d as a nation, not the aspect of the "nutritional" value of the animal sacrifices presented on the altar. Should these considerations not be present and not motivate the animal sacrifices presented by the priest on behalf of the Jewish people, the Heavenly Table, i.e. the altar, may be considered as uprooted. Thus far the words of Rabbi Yitzchak Arama.

Whereas I fully agree with the views expressed in the Akeidat Yitzchak, one needs to support his words with something "tasty," just as salt is needed to make the food tasty. The Arizal has explained the way in which the affinity of the soul to the body is maintained in a beautiful manner. This is what he says: "There is nothing which does not contain some element of sanctity. Our sages have already stated that there is not a blade of grass in our world which does not have a mazal in the "higher" world instructing it to grow (Bereshit Rabbah 10,7); this Celestial force exerts great influence on the development of the blade of grass. This influence is spiritual in nature and is translated into the physical by the blade of grass behaving in accordance with the laws of nature. Something similar applies to everything we eat and drink. On the one hand the food and drink we consume is something physical, on the other hand it contains some concealed spiritual element. This relationship is similar to the relationship of גוף ונפש, body and soul. When man, a combination of body and soul, eats and drinks, his body benefits from the physical element of the food or drink consumed, while his soul is strengthened by its spiritual element. This is the reason that body and soul remain attached to each other. Concerning this phenomenon the Torah says in Deut 8,3 that man does not live on bread alone in order to teach us that it is not only the "visible" part of the bread that contains sustenance for man. On the contrary, bread also contains מוצא פי ה', an invisible expression of G–d's spirit which contributes to keeping man, i.e. his soul, alive." Thus far the Ari zal.

I wish to add that what applies to individual man and the relationship between his body and soul also applies to the concept of the Jewish nation and its relationship with G–d through the presentation of the קרבנות. We know that whatever exists in our world is the result of concepts and ideas that exist in the Celestial Spheres which have devolved through a number of stages called ספירות until they - became part of the physical universe. The phenomena in our world are divided into basic groups called דומם, inert matter, צומח, vegetation, i.e. growing but immobile matter, חי living creatures, and finally the מדבר, articulate living creatures, i.e. man. These four categories of phenomena on earth symbolize the four basic elements. Inert matter, the lowest of the creatures, symbolizes the element עפר, dust, earth. Vegetable matter symbolizes the element מים, water, for when rain descends on earth it irrigates and promotes the growth of plants. Animals and birds symbolize the element רוח, air, something without which no living creature can exist. Man, whose distinction is his soul, symbolizes the fourth element אש, fire, or spiritual light; we know from Proverbs 20,27, that נר ה' נשמת אדם,"the soul of man is the light of the Lord."

We know that these four elements have their roots in successive layers of the Celestial Regions. At a higher level they are known as the four encampments of the שכינה which are supported by the archangels מיכאל, גבריאל, אוריאל and רפאל. The archangel מיכאל is the source of the waters in the "higher" regions, the spiritual waters; גבריאל is the source of the heavenly אש, spiritual fire; אוריאל is the source of אויר, air, whereas רפאל is the source of the spiritual equivalent to עפר, dust. These four foundations in turn are the result of downward evolution of still higher spiritual concepts, the ones represented by the four חיות in Ezekiel's vision of the מרכבה, the lion, the ox, man, and the eagle. These four images in turn have evolved from four concealed "legs" of the Celestial Chariot, מרכבה, which rests in the region of אצילות, until – at the top of the pyramid – we have the four letters of the Ineffable Name, the ultimate root of the four basic elements found in our world. The letter י represents the element מים, the letter ה represents אש, the letter ו represents the element רוח, whereas the last letter ה represents the element עפר. All this is familiar to scholars of Kabbalistic texts. Each of the levels we mentioned in turn has tens of thousands of sub-levels until we reach the ultimate level at which point it becomes clear כי ה' הוא האלוקים בשמים ממעל ועל הארץ מתחת אין עוד, "that the Lord G–d is in the Heavens above and on the earth below and that there is no one else." This means that there is absolutely no existence which He is not somehow part of, which is independent of Him (Deut. 4,39).

The קרבנות, sacrificial offerings, are composed of all four types of creatures on earth. The salt represents the דומם, inert matter. The Torah commands that it must be part of every sacrifice (2,13). The מנחות, gift offerings as well as the נסכים, libations, with their predominantly flour or wine content, represent the צומח, the growing but immobile vegetable matter. The living creatures are represented by offerings of cattle, sheep, goats, doves and pigeons respectively. The fourth category of creature, articulate man, is represented in every sacrifice by the person offering same when he thinks about the meaning of what he is doing and rouses himself to become closer to G–d through vicariously offering G–d his very life-force, נפש. The reason the Torah (2,1) speaks about ונפש כי תקריב, "a life-force sacrificing," is that on occasion, by means of גלגול, G–d summons a soul or several souls to serve as sacrifices to expiate for some unatoned sin of the past. This is further alluded to in the words אדם כי יקריב מכם, This demonstrates that by sacrificing himself in our world man can establish a closer relationship with G–d in the spiritual world. The medium of achieving this is the קרבן.

Let us return to the three tasks of the sacrifice. They are: 1) to achieve atonement, 2) to serve as an exchange for our own lives, and 3) to establish the affinity with the Ineffable four-lettered Name of G–d. Keeping these three objectives in mind, the verse אדם כי יקריב מכם must be viewed as telling us that in order to obtain forgiveness the sinner who offers the sacrifice must humble both his body and his soul by performing a deed which symbolizes that he is aware that he is guilty of one of the four categories of death penalty administered by a Jewish High Court. When he does so his קרבן is considered לה', G–d's.

If he fails to do so and only goes through the motions, the offering of the animal is not considered a קרבן, a means to come closer to G–d. Under such conditions we consider this merely קרבן האדם, and this is why the Torah continues in our verse מן הבהמה, מן הבקר ומן הצאן תקריבו את קרבנכם, meaning unless the aforementioned attitude is present the sacrifice does not qualify for the description קרבן לה'. When Psalms 51,19 speaks about זבחי אלוקים רוח נשברה, לב נשבר אלוקים לא תבזה , that "true sacrifice to G–d is a contrite spirit; G–d, You will not despise a contrite and crushed heart," the reference is to a period when we do not have a Temple in which to offer a sacrifice. Considering that the entire function of animal sacrifice was to evoke a crushed heart in man, when such a crushed heart is present G–d will relate to the penitent sinner as if he had offered the sacrifice he would have had to offer had there been a Temple. This is how Rabbi Yitzchak Arama explains this verse in Psalms.

The second function of the קרבן, that of being an exchange for one's own life, is a moral lesson which man has to apply to himself in two ways: 1) G–d admonishes those whom He loves. The afflictions man undergoes [and the way in which he accepts them, Ed.] are what ultimately secure him his entry into the Hereafter. When he has undergone these afflictions he, himself, has been elevated to the level of being the קרבן. This is the other meaning of the words: אדם כי יקריב מכם (הוא) קרבן לה'. 2) Sometimes the element of תמורה, exchange, is an exchange for something that is part of the system of nature. We know that phenomena which exist in this universe are subject to exchange from (Isaiah 43,4) ואתנה אדם תחתך, "I give אדם, men, in exchange for you. When the Torah says: מן הבהמה מן הבקר ומן הצאן תקריבו את קרבנכם, this means "your sacrifice which was the one suitable for you, which corresponds to your position in the universe." Cattle, sheep, etc. will serve as an exchange for your life. This principle is valid even when the sacrificial offerings can no longer be presented due to the absence of the Temple. G–d, in His mercy, is the Guardian of those who love Him and He finds for Himself an exchange to take your place in order to afford you an opportunity to achieve atonement. This occurs when man attempts to draw close to his G–d.

Keeping this in mind, we can reconcile two apparently totally contradictory opinions among our sages. Some sages claim that the fortunes of the Jewish people are not subject to מזל, horoscopic influences, whereas other sages state that horoscopic influences do have a bearing on our fate (Shabbat 156a). Israel is subject to horoscopic influences. Sometimes G–d interferes and substitutes someone else for Israel. This "substitute" then experiences what would have been the destiny of Israel had G–d not interfered.

The third and mystical function of the קרבן is that it facilitates the union between man and the Ineffable Name of G–d. Concerning this function the Torah says: אדם כי יקריב מכם (הוא) קרבן ל-י-ה-ו-ה. Israel is the sacrifice called אדם. When G–d had said in Genesis 1,26: נעשה אדם בצלמנו, "Let Us make man in Our image", He created man in this world while at the same time establishing the likeness of man on the throne in the Celestial Regions. It is significant that the numerical value of the word אדם (45) corresponds to the numerical value of the Ineffable Name when spelled as a word, i.e. יוד-הא-ואו-הא. This is the allusion that man is close to G–d, i.e. is a קרבן. Such affinity is achieved by means of בקר and צאן which we sacrifice down here on earth. When the Torah continues: תקריבו את קרבנכם, this is the instruction to awaken within ourselves the consciousness of the highest achievements we are capable of in our affinity with G–d. Nowadays, when we find ourselves in exile, the sages introduced the daily prayer services as a substitute for the public offerings in the Temple. Prayers are also capable of establishing this unity between ourselves and the Ineffable Name.

By reciting the relevant sections of the daily public offerings in our prayer book, generally observing the commandments, reciting all the benedictions and keeping ourselves free from character blemishes just as the sacrificial animals had to be free from physical blemishes, we ourselves can qualify as being the קרבן for G–d. We will have fulfilled the requirements on all three levels, thought, speech and deed. The movements of our lips when reciting the פרשת הקרבנות is considered the "deed" part of our efforts only if one feels saddened that one cannot actually offer the sacrifice itself. Under such conditions G–d accepts the intention as the equivalent to the deed. While the Temple was still standing prayer was not acceptable as a substitute for the actual sacrifice. Whenever we are able to fulfill a commandment by actually performing it, there is no way we can substitute.

When one can pay "lip-service" – as in the case of the substitution of prayer for the sacrifice – one's lips move normally and do not display a sign that their owner grieves over the fact that he has to content himself with such "lip-service." Nowadays, when in exile, our "lip-service" is accompanied by our lips becoming painfully distorted when we really grieve over our inability to fulfil our duty in the optimal manner. To contrast this experience with the way we shall feel after the Temple will be restored, David says in Psalms 126,2: אז ימלא שחוק פינו ולשוננו רנה, "Then our mouths shall be filled with laughter and our tongues with songs of joy."

The foregoing enables us to understand the Zohar who comments on Leviticus 1,1: "He spoke to him out of the Tent of Meeting," that G–d spoke from the interior, or depth of the Tabernacle, informing Moses that the Children of Israel would be prepared to sin and how the Temple would be destroyed as a result. This is why the Torah writes here ויקרא, without identifying who called. When the destruction of the Temple is referred to in Isaiah 22,12, the prophet quotes G–d as: ויקרא ה' אלוקים צבאות ביום ההוא לבכי ולמספד, "On that day The Lord G–d of Hosts summoned to weeping and lamenting." [The context of this prophecy was a day on which Yehudah mistakenly believed itself secure, able to withstand any onslaught by its enemies. Ed.]

When considering the Zohar's comment we understand that that it is based on two fine points in our verse in Leviticus. 1) We would have expected the Torah to write: ויקרא מאהל מועד; 2) We would have expected the Torah to state: ויקרא ה' באהל מועד. The latter would have been appropriate especially in view of Rashi's comment that the voice of G–d was not audible outside the Sanctuary, but was as if cut off by the walls of the Sanctuary. If we understand the Torah according to the Zohar's interpretation the wording is absolutely justified. G–d spoke with Moses on account of the destiny of the Sanctuary which would ultimately be destroyed.

This still leaves us with the problem that we have a tradition that G–d does not allow moments of joy to be disturbed by revealing sad tidings (Rashi on Genesis 6,6). Why then would G–d cause Moses mental anguish on such a day when the Tabernacle was being inaugurated?

I believe we can answer this when we consider that we also have the problem of the word לאמור in the verse we are dealing with. In view of verse 2 commencing with the word דבר, speak, the word לאמור, to say, seems totally out of place at the end of verse 1! When we follow the Zohar it becomes clear that G–d displayed His love for Israel by revealing to Moses that even at a time when there would not be a Sanctuary the sacrifices -which are the mechanism for atonement- would be replaced by a remedy alluded to in the word לאמור, the appropriate lip-service, i.e. prayer during such periods. G–d reassured Moses that there would not be reason for despair even if there were no Temple because of Israel's sins. The whole verse then means that "He spoke to him from the 'depth' of the Tent of Meeting, i.e. alluding to a time when there would not be a Tent of Meeting, revealing that the remedy for such a situation would be lip-service." What this lip-service was to consist of is introduced by the word דבר in verse 2, i.e. "speak or recite the liturgy entailing the sacrificial service."

Let us return to our principal subject, the three reasons for animal sacrifice. We have stated that one reason is that the sacrifices are the instruments of achieving atonement. The sacrifices which perform this function are the חטאת, עולה, ואשם. The second reason we need sacrifices is to be able to take advantage of the phenomenon of תמורה, to enable G–d on occasion to override the horoscopic influences we are subject to by substituting some other creature in our place. The sacrifice which is most likely to accomplish this is the קרבן תודה, offering of thanksgiving. We are taught (Berachot 54b) that there are four categories of people who have to offer such a type of offering because they have been saved from dangers by G–d through personal intervention, i.e. through the phenomenon we have described as תמורה. I have explained elsewhere that the mystical dimension of a miraculous escape is due to the phenomenon known as תמורה וחליפין. The third function which we hope that sacrifices perform for us is achieved through the daily public offerings, the תמידים as well as the מוספים on the Sabbaths, the Holy Days, and the New Moon. These days possess inherent sanctity.

This is what the statement we quoted from the Midrash that Adam, Noach and Abraham respectively offered sacrifices is all about. Adam's sacrifice was a sin offering, designed to obtain atonement. G–d responded by saying that there was no disgrace involved if He spoke to His tenant. We have a Midrash in Shemot Rabbah section 42 in which Rabbi Berechyah is quoted as saying in the name of Rabbi Levi that we may compare the situation to that of the owner of a vineyard who entrusted its care to a tenant farmer. Whenever the wine produced from the annual harvest was good, he would credit the vineyard; when the harvest turned out unsatisfactorily the owner would blame this on the tenant farmer. We have copied this Midrash in our commentary on פרשת כי תשא where G–d called the Jewish people Moses' people as soon as they made the golden calf, whereas prior to this the Jewish people were described as His own people. We know that the World to Come is called חמר טוב, good wine, since this is where the יין המשומר, the wine which has been preserved in its original grapes since the days of גן עדן will be served to the righteous. Everything which is described as good originates with G–d. Unfortunately, as a result of his freedom, man chose an inferior wine when Eve squeezed a cluster of grapes to extract its juice. As a result Adam was called אריס, a tenant farmer. Later on he had to bring a sin offering to rehabilitate himself.

Noach's sacrifice was in the nature of a thanksgiving offering. He thanked G–d for his miraculous escape from the deluge, i.e. he had survived a descent into the sea. I have already explained that the thanksgiving offering is in the nature of a תמורה. G–d, by interfering personally in man's fate, selected an alternate creature to experience the fate that was in store for the person saved. In this way G–d neutralised horoscopic influences. The various animals offered on the altar normally, serve as the substitute for the person G–d saved. This is the reason that Noach was called נקדוד, herder in the Midrash.

G–d looked upon Abraham as the innkeeper of the Sanctuary, so to speak. When we read in Genesis 17,22: "G–d rose from above Abraham," this is a clear indication that Abraham served as the מרכבה, the carrier of the שכינה. I have explained already that the letters in the name אברהם are an allusion to the various מרכבות. Abraham had personally fulfilled the injunction of the Torah אדם כי יקריב מכם קרבן לה' when he offered up his only beloved son Isaac. This amounted to אדם התחתון, man in the lower regions, establishing a close affinity with אדם העליון, man in the Celestial Regions in the mystical dimension of ואת הדבקים בה'. Isaac was the perfect עולה offering for G–d.

The Midrash continued that the words אל משה specifically exclude Aaron from this call of G–d from the Tent of Meeting. I have explained earlier in this chapter how both Abraham and Aaron served as rehabilitation for Adam We will understand this with the help of two introductory remarks. 1) One consideration to keep in mind is that Aaron was chosen in lieu of Adam who had become estranged from G–d. Aaron became High Priest. Abraham too served as תקון, rehabilitative substitute for Adam, as I have explained in detail in my commentary on פרשת חיי שרה on page 129. Once Aaron entered the priesthood he left the domain of זרות, being an "outsider," to become holy and sanctified by the anointing oil and the vestments reserved for the priesthood, the vestments which symbolize the כתנות אור, the garments of light, in lieu of the garments of skin worn by Adam after the sin as explained on פרשת תצוה.

The second introductory remark concerns what I wrote in that portion, i.e. that Moses performed the priestly functions during the first seven days of the Tabernacle wearing a white tunic. Moses had been "light" ever since the day he was born and his parents' home was filled with light at his birth. He had never been a זר, "outsider," unlike his brother Aaron. He was therefore on a much higher spiritual plane than Aaron. The Midrash therefore was quite justified in pointing out that the Torah's words: "G–d called to Moses," are to alert us to the fact that only Moses qualified for this call, not even Abraham or Aaron had ever qualified to such a call.

Let us now demonstrate how Aaron served as the instrument of Adam's rehabilitation. We have already mentioned that the whole purpose of creation was Man, and that when Adam sinned he corrupted not only himself but the whole planet. At the revelation at Mount Sinai the process of rehabilitation had advanced to a point where the whole planet, including Man, was ready to resume the spiritual and physical level which had existed in גן עדן. The episode of the golden calf ruined this rehabilitation; ever since the progress towards Man's complete rehabilitation has been very halting and irregular. The establishment of the Tabernacle was a major part of whatever rehabilitation has occurred since. The reason that the Tabernacle was such a major factor in the process of rehabilitation is that it represented a world "reborn." It was meant to be a microcosm of the cosmos. Within this "reborn" world Aaron occupied the place that Adam had occupied on our planet when he was first created. Sacred vestments were made for both Aaron and his sons to take the place of the regular garments made of skin worn by Adam after his sin. Adam had been forced to wear those garments in exchange for the garments made of light which he had been equipped with at the time he was created.

The purpose of these garments was to be לשם ולתפארת, "for dignity and adornment," as stated by the Torah in Exodus 28,2. Genesis 2,28 reports: "Adam and Eve were nude; they did not experience a sense of shame." The serpent became jealous when it saw their nudity. This is the mystical dimension of all the forbidden sexual unions. The serpent had infected humans with a pollutant. The priests were warned by the Torah not to climb the altar by means of steps so as not to reveal even part of their bodies in the process (Exodus 20,23). It is a natural tendency of man to want to climb steps, to become G–d-like, the vision held out to Eve by the serpent in Genesis 3,4. This tendency became outlawed, i.e. ערוה. Adam later was מושך בערלתו tried to conceal the fact that he was circumcised, as stated by our sages in Sanhedrin 38b. The seven days of inauguration of the Tabernacle before Aaron took over in his capacity as High Priest were symbolic of the seven days of creation. On the eighth day Moses called upon Aaron; on that day he was crowned with ten crowns (Rashi on Leviticus 9,1). He was considered as if he had been created anew on that day. On that date Adam was resurrected, so to speak, because Aaron fulfilled the commandment of "sacrificing his own personality," i.e. אדם כי יקריב מכם קרבן, performing an act which reversed the direction Adam had taken, when, instead of cementing his close relations with G–d, he had distanced himself from G–d by eating from the tree of knowledge and bringing death into the world. Nonetheless death henceforth would occur when someone, who was close to G–d (i.e. a priest) would fail to observe all the strictures on the performance of the service in the Tabernacle G–d had placed on the priests, just as death was the consequence of non-observance of G–d's law in the macrocosm, so now death would be the penalty for failing to observe G–d's law within the Tabernacle, the microcosm. At the creation G–d had warned with the words מות תמות; now two sons of Aaron died because they had approached G–d in a forbidden manner, as will be explained in due course.

The Talmud reports in Chagigah 14b that four outstanding scholars entered the "orchard," i.e. they investigated secrets, mystical dimensions of Torah study not given to everyone to understand. Only one of these four sages, Rabbi Akiva, returned from this investigation without any harm. Four people preceded these four Talmudic scholars in their desire to probe these mysteries. They were: Adam, Noach, Abraham and the sons of Aaron (who are considered as one, as a team). They all entered this "orchard" or vineyard.

Adam squeezed out a cluster of grapes and became a heretic at that very moment, as our Rabbis have stated in Sanhedrin 38b. Our sages have expressed this as והיה נעשה אחר, "he turned into someone else." Noach planted a vineyard (Genesis 9,20) and when drunk became spiritually hurt, lost his sanity. Abraham planted an orchard and emerged unscathed. This is the mystical dimension of being the מרכבה, the carrier of the שכינה. The two sons of Aaron, Nadav and Avihu, also had a glimpse of these mysteries but they died in the process. The Talmud described the experiences of the four scholars as being identical with the four people who had tried to probe these mysteries before them. As far as the death of the two sons of Aaron is concerned, it occurred because they had penetrated so deeply into these mystical matters, i.e. they came so close to the purely spiritual dimensions of G–d that their bodies could not keep up the pace. It is significant that the Torah speaks about their coming close to G–d i.e. בקרבתם, not about בהקריבם, their bringing close, i.e. sacrificing something else (Leviticus 16,1). This means that their very death was their coming close to G–d. They had brought themselves to such closeness. They sanctified G–d by their very death because they had achieved an exceptionally high spiritual level. Moses explained this to his brother Aaron in 10,3: בקרובי אקדש ועל פני כל העם אכבד, "Through those near Me I will show Myself holy, and gain glory before all the people." G–d Himself testified to the stature of these two sons of Aaron and to the fact that He felt honoured by their attempt to draw close to Him. These two sons of Aaron rehabilitated their forebear Adam. We have a tradition going back to the Arizal that these two sons of Aaron were the re-incarnation of the soul, נפש, of Adam. These re-incarnations can occur on three levels, נפש, רוח, or נשמה respectively. Nadav and Avihu were re-incarnates of the נפש of Adam as is hinted at in Numbers 9,6: ויהי אנשים אשר היו טמאים לנפש אדם, "There were two men who were impure due to the soul of Adam." Rabbi Akiva believed that the men referred to were Mishael and Eltzafan who carried the bodies of Nadav and Avihu out of the Sanctuary. He appears to have understood the word נפש in our verse as referring to that of first man, Adam (Sukkah 25b). This is supported by Leviticus 10,5 in which Mishael and Eltzafan are described as וישאום בכתנותם, as having carried them in "their tunics," the latter word referring to the כתנות אור, the tunics made of light worn by Adam prior to his sin.

Eve was the reason that death came into our world, as we know. Vayikra Rabbah 20,2 on Psalms 75,5 states: "I said to wanton men: 'do not be wanton.'" Elisheva, daughter of Aminadav, did not rejoice in spite of five joyous events on the same day: The appointment of her husband as High Priest, the appointment of her brother-in-law Moses as king, her brother Nachshon as prince, her sons Eleazar and Itamar as deputy High Priests, and her nephew's Pinchas elevation to the priesthood. In spite of all this, her sons Nadav and Avihu entered the Sanctuary with אש זרה resulting in their death and turning her joy into mourning. This is why David warns us in the Psalm not to indulge in excessive joys. It is not given to the righteous to experience so much joy in this life. The Midrash mentions that G–d does not rejoice anymore in this world since He had to withdraw His שכינה due to Eve's sin but will rejoice only in the World to Come as we know from ישמח ה' במעשיו, that "G–d will once again rejoice in His accomplishments" (Psalms 104,31) [as He did when He completed the universe. Ed.]. In this world only the wicked experience true joy. There are several difficulties in this Midrash. Why does the author speak about Elisheva's having seen five joyous events on that day instead of the same joyous events "seen" by her husband Aaron? Did not her husband experience even greater joy on that day when he personally was elevated to the position of High Priest? He saw his brother crowned as king, his sons installed as deserving children, as mentioned in the Torah by the words למשפחותם לבית אבותם, "belonging to their families because they are descended from the house of their respective fathers," meaning that his sons are compared to him even more than to their mother? His sons became his deputies which demonstrated how closely they resembled their father in character traits. Some people want to answer our question by referring to the Talmud in Avodah Zarah 31 which regards the wife of a חבר, a pious person, as being equal to her husband. This means that she experienced that her sons regarded themselves as related to their mother as intimately as to their father. This is in line with the advice of our sages (Baba Batra 110a) who counsel a person to examine the brothers of a prospective bride to see what character traits he may expect to find in his bride. When the Torah reports the marriage of Aaron to Elisheva in Exodus 6,23, it stresses that Elisheva was Nachshon's sister. This proves that he was influenced by the character qualities of Nachshon. Still, I regard this answer as somewhat forced.

We should remember that Aaron represented the mystical dimension of Adam. If this was so it is reasonable to regard his wife Elisheva as equivalent to the mystical dimension of Adam's wife Eve. Eve sinned primarily by allowing her eyes to seduce her. The Torah emphasises that "she saw that the tree was good as food, pleasant to behold, etc." This is simply a description of the urge to become honoured. This urge brings about the קליפה that women behave arrogantly. In explaining the verse in Psalms 75,5, the Midrash describes Elisheva's joys as the root of her experiencing some haughtiness. When the Midrash emphasises "Elisheva saw her husband elevated, etc.," it wishes to draw our attention to the fact that in contrast to his wife, Aaron did not "see," did not become haughty on account of the honours and joys he experienced on that day. Aaron acted as if he had not seen these honours which could have caused him to become haughty. When Nadav and Avihu died Elisheva suffered a similar disappointment to the one Eve experienced when death was decreed on mankind, i.e. on her sons and descendants. The Midrash begins with the word תדע, "Know!" meaning that if you want to understand the whole occurrence you would do well to study the chapter of Eve's seduction in גן עדן.

Our sages in Vayikra Rabbah 20,5 claim that one of the reasons the two sons of Aaron died was that they entered the Sanctuary while intoxicated by wine. This is a veiled reference to the יין המשומר, the wine stemming from גן עדן, which we have frequently discussed, as being instrumental in their death. This is why the Torah reports the legislation that priests must not enter the Sanctuary after having drunk wine or other intoxicating drink. If the priests want to benefit from the יין המשומר in the World to Come, they must refrain from drinking the intoxicating drinks of this world while performing service in the Temple.

The reason that the wine saved from גן עדן is called משומר, is that its dregs, its yeast has been removed. When Eve squeezed the grapes and gave her husband to drink she had not removed those dregs first. The Torah (Numbers 18,8) writes of Aaron, who was the rehabilitation of Adam, that he was to be the recipient of what G–d calls משמרת תרומתי, "The residue of My gifts." It is also said of Abraham (Genesis 26,5) וישמר משמרתי. Some of our sages interpret the repetition of the expression שמר in this verse as meaning that Abraham introduced "fences," preventive measures around G–d's laws so as to ensure that the laws themselves could not easily be violated. This would be similar to the Mishnah in Shabbat 20,1 permitting the suspension of a sieve i.e. meshameret on the holiday in order to catch the shemarim, sediments, yeast, of the wine.

The mystical dimension of all this is that ever since the pollutant of the serpent, i.e. the negative fall-out of the sin, infected man it has become necessary to build "fences" around G–d's laws to make it almost impossible to transgress an actual Biblical injunction. When someone is guilty of being פורץ גדר, demolishing such a fence, the serpent will bite him. In other words, if someone does not construct a משמרת he is liable to transgress the essence of G–ds commandments. In the future, when G–d will remove the pollutant of the serpent there will no longer be a need for these fences; this need stems from the power of the Sig, dross, introduced into our bodies by the serpent. It is significant that in the parlance of our sages the fence is not called גדר, but rather Se\yag, i.e. the same word as Sig. Our Rabbis in Avot 1,1 wanted to make sure that we appreciate the reason for the need to construct such "fences." Aaron came close to G–d in lieu of Adam. He was the Meshameret. This is the meaning of G–d saying in Numbers 18,8 that he would be the משמרת תרומתי.

After conclusion of the paragraph dealing with the death of the sons of Aaron and the precautions priests must take not to run the risk of displeasing G–d to the point where they would become guilty of death, the Torah continues with a list of what we may or may not eat. The chapter dealing with these forbidden foods parallels the prohibition not to eat from the tree of knowledge in גן עדן. The origin of theses forbidden foods is in the סיטרא אחרא, the side of the emanations in which negative influences originate. The Zohar explains this at length.

Eve's sin was due to her being seduced by the serpent which had mated with her and introduced its pollutant into her body. The potency of that evil-smelling drop of semen caused her to become subject to menstruation at regular intervals; she therefore had to remain in a state of impurity for seven days, corresponding to the days it took to create the universe. She, after all, had damaged the work of the six days of Creation. When a woman gives birth she is also subject to ritual impurity in a similar way to the impurity of menstruating women, as per Leviticus 12,2. This too is due to the original sin for which she has to suffer great pain when giving birth as per Genesis 3,16.

Midrash Kohelet, quoting Rabbi Yehudah bar Simon, is of the opinion that the seven days of impurity a woman experiences in connection with menstruation correspond to the seven times Solomon referred to הבלים, futilities, in Kohelet 1,2. [When the word הבל appears in the singular it refers to a single "futility," whereas when it appears in the plural it refers to two "futilities." Ed.] This means that in view of the sin committed by Adam and Eve everything which was created during the seven days of Creation is futile. Creation experienced another damaging blow when Cain murdered his brother הבל. Man indulged in the pursuit of futile objectives, וילכו אחרי ההבל ויהבלו, "They went after delusion and were deluded" (Jeremiah 2,5).

It is well known that the real reason Cain killed Abel was on account of a female, Abel's additional twin-sister. It is understandable then that the Torah legislates that a woman who gives birth to a female child has to remain ritually impure for fourteen days instead of the seven days she remains impure when she gives birth to a male child (Leviticus 12,5). The reason that she is granted a period of thirty-three days if she gave birth to a boy or sixty six days respectively if she gave birth to a girl during which any blood seen by her is not considered as causing impurity, (although she is not yet totally pure again), is hinted at in connection with the birth of Cain and Abel in sacred texts of the Kabbalists.

When a woman experiences the pangs of birth, this results in impurity. After the birth, the impurity has been released through her pain. After the seven days of recovery from such impurity she no longer contains the ingredients that have caused it and therefore is free from any new impurity for a period longer than normal. Since, in the case of the birth of a female, the original impurity was stronger and lasted longer, the period during which she will be free from again contracting such impurity is correspondingly longer. [I have paraphrased the author's quotation of th anonymous source. Ed.] Another reason for that is that man lost his garments of light due to his sin and had to wear garments made of skin, i.e. something removed from the flesh of some animal. He became susceptible to נגע צרעת, afflictions of his skin. The Torah (Leviticus 13,1 expresses this by saying: נגע צרעת כי תהיה באדם … אדם כי יהיה בו נגע צרעת בעור בשרו. What all this means is that Adam, who was the cause of man having to wear clothing made of skin, is the cause of these skin diseases which afflict those who engage in slander. The serpent had been the one to indulge in slander against the Lord Himself when it said that Eve could safely eat from the tree of knowledge (Genesis 3,4) without incurring mortality. It seduced Eve and Adam to violate G–d's command.

The Torah instructs that such a skin affliction can only be healed by a priest, the priest being Aaron who was the rehabilitation of Adam. Afflictions such as seminal discharges, זב וזבה, are similarly due to the pollutant the serpent introduced into our genes. Purification rites from such ritual impurities caused by the disease are complete only when accompanied by a קרבן presented by a priest on behalf of the afflicted person.

The Torah resumes the story of the death of the sons of Aaron when they approached G–d (16,1). Looking at the sequence of the Torah from the beginning of פרשת שמיני, we find that the order is perfectly logical. We would have been faced with a difficulty, were it not for the explanation of the sequence we have just mentioned. The beginning of the Book of Leviticus deals with the Tabernacle and the sacrifices to be offered there. It interrupts this discussion with a list of forbidden foods, followed by the legislation of various degrees of impurity due to birth and seminal flux and skin afflictions including such afflictions on one's clothing or one's house. The Torah then resumes the story of the death of the two sons of Aaron and proceeds to the service on the Day of Atonement. According to the way I have presented these matters the sequence is perfectly logical, and the death of the two sons of Aaron is mentioned in connection with the closest approach to G–d possible for man in this world.

The Torah explains that it is impossible for man, while alive, to see G–d. This is why David described the death of the pious as being precious to G–d (Psalms 116,15). Having all this in mind the Torah had to spell out that even a High Priest such as Aaron could enter the Holy of Holies only on one day of the year, on the Day of Atonement. He had to be warned not to enter at will since he had to realize that even the sacred vestments were only made of materials comparable to the כתנות עור ובשר, materials of the physical world, not the כתנות אור worn by Adam prior to his sin. It is only the nature of the Day of Atonement and the forgiveness which G–d grants on that day which enables us to become comparable to angels on that day.

The purpose of the scapegoat tendered to Azazel (17,10) was to silence the negative forces so that Satan would not perform his perennial role as Israel's accuser on that day. The scapegoat would carry our sins so that we could remain pure, free from sin, as had been our status when Man was first created. At such a moment the High Priest was able to enter the Holy of Holies, a place as pure as גן עדן which Adam had inhabited at one time. There was no accusation pending against us then; in fact the perennial accuser became our advocate at such a time. All of this is achieved by means of the High Priest who is the תיקון, the instrument of rehabilitation, for the Jewish people. This is further alluded to when the Torah says: וכל אדם לא יהיה באהל "No Adam shall be in the tent" (16,17). The Torah suggests that only Aaron is the instrument of Adam's rehabilitation.

This is followed by the legislation dealing with עריות, forbidden sexual relations. The Rekanati, quoting 18,6: איש איש אל כל שאר בשרו לא תקרבו לגלות ערוה אני השם, "None of you shall come near anyone of his own flesh to uncover nakedness, I am the Lord," states that most Kabbalists do not offer a specific reason for this commandment; some of them claim that the reason is that something that has been separated by G–d should not be fused again by man. The branch is not to be made part of the trunk. Since all of us move centrifugally, i.e. each generation is further removed from the original pair of human beings, it would be wrong, if, through incestual relationships, we were to reverse this process. קרובים, relatives, are like branches of a tree (root) which extend further and further. We must not make new "trees" through these forbidden unions. These branches are to receive their growth-sustaining moisture from other branches, not from their own root. The original root is perceived as if it was already drying up. Sexual union with the forbidden categories of relatives contributes to further drying out of the vital juices of the parties concerned. The metaphor is applied to the drying up of our affinity to the מרכבה העליונה, the Celestial carriers of G–d's Presence. [Rabbeinu Bachyah writes on this in a similar vein. Ed.] Cain was not forbidden to marry his sister, seeing his sister was one of the original seven human beings who had been created or born under the direct influence of Heavenly forces, corresponding to the seven days of Creation. [The seven are: Adam, Eve, Cain, his twin-sister, and Abel and his two twin-sisters. Ed.]

Some more recent commentators see the reason for this legislation as connected to the mystery of conception. It is designed to ensure that the name of certain deceased persons should not be erased from history due to a relative becoming part of a forbidden union carrying the כרת penalty. G–d, in His great wisdom, knows whether the name of the deceased will be perpetuated as a male – if he was deserving – or as a female if he was less deserving. Since we, in our limited wisdom, do not know through whose womb the name of such person is to be perpetuated, i.e. איזה מקום מנוחתו, and so that some relative with whom sexual union is forbidden should not impregnate the woman whose issue is to be the carrier of that name, the Torah outlawed certain unions. These commentators see this as the reason that the Torah, who addresses the male, speaks also of ערות אביך, ערות אחי אביך, all males. [I believe that this exegesis is applicable only if we subscribe to the principle of transmigration of souls. Ed.]

Some other reasons for the עריות legislation are advanced by some of the more recent commentators. They say that we are aware that there are ten emanations by means of which G–d established a physical world. He remained close to these emanations exerting His influence on them, remaining inseparable from them. We also know that acts performed in our world are liable to have a damaging effect on the equilibrium in the Celestial Regions. If someone has sexual relations with one of the forbidden categories of relatives he is looked upon as having taken hold of the scepter of the Celestial King in an unauthorized manner [the word שרביט could be a euphemism for the male organ Ed.] since in those Regions a close relationship between איש באחיו, "brothers" is commonplace.

These commentators describe intercourse with one's mother as disturbing the equilibrium in the domain of the emanation בינה, also known as אם הבנים. It also disturbs the equilibrium of the שכינה, also known as the אם כל חי. This is the reason that the Torah in 18,7 writes ערות אמך לא תגלה אמך היא twice in succession. The only one who is entitled to exert his influence, [masculinity] on the domain of the emanation בינה is the King of Kings. Anyone who usurps this privilege [vicariously of course, Ed.] is guilty of the death penalty. Intercourse with the wife of one's father results in upsetting the domain of the emanation הוד, the natural partner of the emanation נצח. This emanation is also called אב לצדיק. If someone engages in sexual intercourse with his sister he damages the equilibrium of כנסת ישראל, the spiritual counterpart of the Jewish people on earth, the latter being referred to in Song of Songs 5,1 in the words: באתי לגני אחותי כלה.

We are to understand the words: מולדת ביתאו מולדת חוץ in 18,9 as an allusion to two "sister-like" emanations, i.e. בינה and גבורה. [This emanation is also referred to as דין, and is on the "left" side of the diagram, immediately beneath that of בינה. Ed.] These two emanations are perceived as each having another "sister" emanation i.e. הוד ומלכות. If someone indulges in sexual intercourse with a granddaughter (daughter of his daughter), he inflicts damage on the equilibrium in the emanation הוד, which is perceived as a "daughter" of the emanation גבורה, whereas if he indulges in intercourse with a granddaughter who is the daughter of his son, he disturbs the equilibrium in the domain of the emanation מלכות, which is perceived as the daughter of the emanation נצח.

Having sexual intercourse with two sisters [while they are both alive, Ed.] is perceived as equivalent to damaging the equilibrium in the domain הוד ומלכות. Only our patriarch Jacob, whom G–d Himself had called "אל" a celestial being (Genesis 33,20, cf. Megillah 18a), attained a level of spiritual perfection that permitted him to use the sceptre normally only used by the "King" in the Celestial Regions. In connection with the prohibition to marry two sisters simultaneously, the Torah (18,18) uses the expression לצרור לגלות ערותה, which we may provisionally translate as "as a rival." Rabbi Abraham Saba, in his Tzror Hamor understands the word as "creating a knot," i.e. tying up Celestial conduits and preventing them from exerting their beneficial influence on their respective partners in the domains of the emanations, and through them on this world. [This comment of the Tzror Hamor is not found in his commentary on this chapter in our פרשה. Ed.]

Having intercourse with one's daughter-in-law upsets the equilibrium in the domain of the emanation הוד which is perceived as the partner of the emanation נצח, "son" of the emanation חסד. He simultaneously upsets the Celestial equivalent of daughter-in-law i.e. the emanation בינה. If someone sleeps with his mother-in-law he upsets the equilibrium in the domain of the emanation גבורה, which is perceived as the mother-in-law of the emanation נצח. If someone sleeps with his aunt, he upsets the equilibrium in the domains of the emanations גבורה and והוד. The emanation גבורה is Perceived as the aunt of the emanation נצח, the emanation הוד is perceived as the aunt of the emanation מלכות. They represent the sister of one's father and the sister of one's mother respectively, as per 18,12-13. If someone has sexual relations with the wife of his brother who already has children by him he upsets the equilibrium of the domain of the emanation הוד, which is perceived as the wife of the emanation נצח, itself the brother of the emanation תפארת, and its son צדיק [commonly known as the emanation יסוד. Ed.] and its daughter מלכות. Sexual relations with one's father's wife upset the equilibrium in the domain of the emanation גבורה, which is perceived as the wife of the emanation חסד. The reason that the Torah uses the term לא תגלה, "do not reveal," in connection with the entire עריות legislation is that such relations result in the offender laying bare what should remain an intimate relationship between two natural partners or mates. All the עריות allude to spiritual forces of the higher world which receive their spiritual input from their natural partners. The wise will understand this hint. Thus far the remarks of the last mentioned Kabbalists.

The aforementioned Kabbalists view the Torah's introductory words to the עריות legislation i.e. ערות אביך, as an example of all the other forbidden unions. The reason for all these prohibitions is that through the system of גלגול, transmigration of souls, someone whose soul in his former life inhabited the body of a male may now inhabit the body of a female, or vice versa. The reason the Torah singles out אביך and דודיך [i.e. אחי אביך, seeing the Torah speaks to the male and should restrict itself to pairings with females, Ed.] is that through such matings one could reverse nature, turning the משפיע, active force, into the מקבל, recipient, passive force, and vice versa. This is different from other instances of homosexual relations [where such גלגול considerations do not apply, Ed.] when the party initiating such a relation turns his partner from a משפיע into a מקבל, whereas he himself remains a משפיע. The reason that the Torah also refers to a relationship ערות אחיך in 18,16, [although this appears to be covered by the prohibition of homosexual relations. Ed.] maybe that by indulging in such a relationship with someone who is on a par with him, he reduces his brother to becoming inferior by turning him into a מקבל. The reason the Torah mentions בנך in 18,15 maybe that by such relationship the father expresses dissatisfaction with his role as משפיע of his own generation in favor of becoming a משפיע in the next generation.

There follows פרשת קדושים which deals with how to sanctify oneself, how to get rid of the residual pollutant of the serpent. The very purpose of the legislation in this פרשה is alluded to in 19,26: לא תנחשו, "do not indulge in practices reminiscent of the נחש, the serpent." The Rekanati comments on this verse as follows: "Do not commit the error of following the path of the original serpent which is known as the spirit of impurity, whose actions are known as ניחוש. We know about this from Bileam of whom the Torah reports in Numbers 24,1 that he discontinued consulting נחשים as had been his practice. Such consultations involved calling upon the assistance of impure spirits by swearing some kind of allegiance to them. These spirits are presumed not only to know the future but also to be able to reveal it to man. Anyone who prefers to rely on these spirits will find that G–d withdraws from him, and delivers him up to the mercy of those spirits. This is the meaning of Pessachim 110: כל דקפיד קפדינן בהדיה, "The more one is worried [about the influence of negative forces, מזיקים, Ed.] the more power these forces will have over such a person. When such a person dies, the aforementioned forces will accompany his body in accordance with the statement of our sages: בדרך שאדם רוצה לילך בה מוליכין אותו, "One leads man along the path he has chosen for himself" (Makkot 10). There are other commentators who see a warning in the verse exhorting us not to be מנחש, not to do something similar to what the serpent did when it upset the equilibrium of the Celestial equivalent of Eve by seducing Eve on earth.

Still other commentators write that if someone violates the commandment in question his garments will be the serpent. The statement is, of course, a metaphor for the impact which certain transgressions will have on our character.

The injunction at the end of 19,26: לא תעוננו, not to base one's actions on the perceived fortuitousness of certain dates (soothsaying), is related to the word עונה, similar to Deut. 18,14 where the Torah denigrates the Gentile nations which put their trust in "soothsayers and augurs."

Immediately afterwards the Torah mentions the prohibition of shaving off corners of one's beard seeing that imitating pagan practices has been forbidden. One must not destroy the very symbols representing the emanation חד. This is a profoundly mystical aspect to which I have already alluded when discussing Genesis 49,22: בן פורת יוסף, where we discussed the mystical dimension of man's features, that the hair alludes to divine forces found in אדם העליון, the Celestial equivalent of terrestrial Man. Some of these are spiritual outgrowths of the attribute of חסד, whereas others are outgrowths of the attribute of דין. The former are the ones that one must not destroy by shaving them off. This is the mystical dimension of the injunction in 21,5 that: לא יקרחה קרחה בראשם, "The priests must not make bald spots on their heads (in mourning for someone who died). The priests, who more than anyone, originate in the emanation חסד, are forbidden to do this, whereas the Levites who originate in the emanation גבורה, are on occasion even instructed to shave off all the hair on their bodies (Numbers 8,7) in order to weaken the forces of דין. We observe that Gentiles, especially their clergymen, who are the recipients of abundant influences from the emanation גבורה, i.e. the attribute of Justice, and upon whom the spirit of impurity rests, make a point of destroying the hair around the corners of their beards, even though they act like a blind man looking for a window [they do not realize the mystical dimension of what they are doing. Ed.]. Similar considerations are at the root of the prohibition to inflict tattoos on one's flesh (19,28). Once you understand this you realize the reason that women are not subject to the injunctions not to shave off the hair on their heads. They are comparable to the Levites.

It would seem that the Torah compares other hairs to forces originating in the emanation דין, for we read in Song of Songs 5,13: לחייו כערוגת הבשם, "His cheeks are like a bed of spices," מגדלות מרקחים, "towers of perfume;" שפשותיו שושנים, "his lips are like lilies," נוטפות מור עבר, "they drip flowing myrrh." We also have a verse in Song of Songs 4,3: כחוט השני שפשותיך, "Your lips are like crimson thread." All the areas of the body mentioned in those verses are allusions to the attribute of Justice. Rabbi Elazar, in his book called ספר הנפש, writes that the hairs on one's head derive their nourishment from the brain, similar to מלאכי הכבוד, a category of angels; he goes into a great deal of detail on the subject.

In פרשת אמור the Torah details the sanctity of the priests. They must not defile themselves ritually through contact or association with a dead body because it is they who offer up the sacrifices which are to rehabilitate Man who introduced such impurity into the world. They are forbidden to marry divorcees, harlots, or women who are the issue of marriages forbidden to priests. The latter symbolize expulsion, i.e. Man's rejection from the inner circles of sanctity to a domain in which Samael, i.e. the קליפות also exercise a dominant influence. Both the priests who offer the sacrifices and the animals to be offered must be free of blemishes because they represent sanctity. Any blemish, however insignificant, is termed רע, because it originates in the pollutant man has absorbed from the original serpent.

There follows the legislation concerning days that have been sanctified, the Sabbaths and the Holidays. The more sanctity G–d has imbued certain times with, the more sacrifices of a holy nature are needed to achieve the rapprochement to the Ineffable Name of G–d which is the aim of these offerings.

The general rule which emerges from all this is that the Tabernacle or Temple respectively symbolize the חידוש העולם, the rejuvenation of the world, and that the priest is the basis of bringing about man's rehabilitation, i.e. the rehabilitation of אדם הראשון. It is the latter who is perceived as the subject in the second verse of the Book of Leviticus when the Torah speaks of אדם כי יקריב מכם קרבן לה'. When a person suffers from any of the skin afflictions mentioned in chapters 13 they must not only undergo a period of purification, but in order for this purification process to be completed successfully, he has to offer a sacrifice or sacrifices which the priest offers on his behalf. Until such a sacrifice has been presented on the altar of the Tabernacle he has not achieved atonement for whatever caused his affliction. In summation, the entire Book of Leviticus from פרשת ויקרא until פרשת בהר deals with the various aspects of the קרבנות.

The Torah next discusses mystical elements of Creation in פרשת בהר, where the seven times seven periods of the שמטה cycles symbolise hidden elements of the seven days of Creation. We have discussed these aspects in connection with "time" [Beginning of 'Torah Ohr' section on Vayetzei].

Following this legislation the Torah holds out promises for our future, i.e. all the blessings listed at the beginning of פרשת בחוקותי. These promises have never been completely fulfilled and will come fully true only when G–d will once again take up residence in our midst, at which time He will lead us קוממיות, upright, as per 26,13. G–d describes the Covenant with the Jewish people which forms the basis of our national existence in our own land. We will be recipients of all the blessings listed, as long as we keep our part of the Covenant and observe the laws of the Torah; if not, G–d forbid, we become subject to all the curses listed from verse 14 and onwards.

After this the Torah in chapter 27 once more discusses the "value" of Man in monetary terms. This chapter contains allusions to many mystical aspects which we hope to explain in due course. The chapter concludes in verse 29: כל אשר יחרם מן האדם לא יפדה, מות יומת, "No human being who has been proscribed can be ransomed; he shall be put to death." Since it is man's function to live indefinitely, as will be the case in the future, the Torah commences the Book of Leviticus, i.e. תורת כהנים with the verse describing how אדם, Man,can be rehabilitated by establishing close affinity with the Ineffable Name of G–d by means of sacrifices; it concludes by again referring to אדם. We are all mortal nowadays and our approach to G–d is only through sacrifices and the priest. In the future, however, Man himself, both body and soul, will be the sacrifice and will then live forever because he will have fulfilled the injunction: תמים תהיה עם ה' אלוקיך, to be unblemished in his relations with G–d.

Let us now discuss some details of the portions which deal with the priests who are the ones offering the sacrifices, the animals to be sacrificed, and the times at which such sacrifices are to be offered. There are specific times when these various public offerings are to be offered up on the altar. The daily עולה is offered once in the morning and once in the evening. The מוספים are offered after the daily morning עולה on the days such a מוסף offering is called for, i.e. on the Sabbath days, New Moons and the various Holy Days. The sacrifices which have to be offered by persons who have purified themselves after having been ritually impure have to be offered immediately after the other purifying rites have been completed. Sin offerings have to be presented after the inadvertent commission of a sin. The word זמן, time, can be understood as an acronym meaning זמן-מקריב-נקרב.

The portions ויקרא and צו speak about the priests who are מקריב, and about the בהמות or מנחות which are נקרבות, are being sacrificed. The sacrifices whose function it is to help us obtain atonement from specific sins will rehabilitate us from the sin which resulted from the original pollutant of the serpent.

At the end of פרשת צו the Torah mentions the sanctity of Aaron and his sons and how they were sanctified. The Torah (8,6) writes there: ויקרב משה את אהרון ואת בניו, "Moses offered Aaron and his sons (as a sacrifice)." The Torah had also commanded Moses to do just that in Exodus 28,1. The meaning of these verses is that Aaron as well as his sons themselves served as sacrifices, i.e. the mystical dimension of אדם, as we have explained this at the very beginning of the Book of Leviticus.

By the act of Moses "sacrificing" them to G–d they ceased being זרים, "strangers," mundane, and became sanctified. At that time the status of Aaron and his sons was similar to that of Isaac after Abraham had offered him to G–d and Isaac had agreed. All our traditional sources describe יצחק as having been an עולה תמימה לה' "an unblemished burnt-offering to G–d." The book בעשרה מאמרות specifically describes Aaron and his sons as having been sacrificed as offerings to G–d, and personifying the instruction in 1,2: אדם כי יקריב מכם. The author quotes 8,6 as his proof. He further states that the burning of the souls of the two sons of Aaron, Nadav and Avihu, is to be understood like the burning of the flesh parts of an animal offering on the altar after the blood had been sprinkled, etc. He finds his proof for this in the similarity of the wording used by the Torah which is identical with wording used in connection with animal offerings.. On the one hand the Torah (10,2) writes: ותצא אש … ותאכל אותם, whereas a little while later the Torah speaks of the remaining two sons of Aaron, Eleazar and Ittamar, as הנותרים, "the leftovers," an expression used for parts of a sacrifice which were not consumed within the prescribed time. The meaning of the word: בקרבתם in 16,1 would describe what happened when Isaac was being offered, i.e. that the fire in the pan for burning had already been lit. [metaphorically speaking, since Isaac was not an incense offering. Ed.] [This even though through Heavenly intervention the sacrifice was not actually consumed. Ed.] The Torah states in 9,22: וירד מעשות החטאת, "Aaron descended after offering the sin offering." [The author may mean that the word מ-עשות here refers to something that had not been completed. Ed.]

I believe we can use this explanation to answer a difficulty which arises from Exodus 29,33: "These things shall be eaten only by those for whom expiation has been made with them when they were ordained and consecrated; they may not be eaten by a layman for they are holy." The meaning of the verse is that the owners of the animals receive their expiation through the priests' eating. The difficulty is that Aaron and his sons consumed these parts while being owners, whereas Moses was the priest performing the sacrificial service described in the relevant section of the Torah. We can only answer this by viewing Aaron and his sons as being both priests and owners at one and the same time. They had become priests by the very fact that Moses "sacrificed them," i.e. בקרבתם לה' coming close to G–d. They became similar to the archangel Michael who, in his capacity as Celestial High Priest, offers the souls of the righteous as a sacrifice. We find an allusion to this comparison between the task of Aaron and that of the archangel מיכאל in (9,4) כי היום י-ה-ו-ה נראה אליכם where we have the letters of the names of Aaron and מיכאל side by side in the last two words of the verse. In comparison to Moses, Aaron and his two sons were indeed the owners of the sacrifices (מילואים), seeing that Moses at that time occupied a position even higher than that of the High Priest. The reason for this was that Moses had never been a זר, mundane person, and did not have to be raised to his spiritually elevated position as did his brother Aaron. We have explained that he was holy from the moment he left his mother's womb and how the whole house was filled with light at that time. To repeat, in respect to the מילואים Aaron and his sons were both owners and priests. Because this is so the religious ruling for all future generations evolved that by the priests eating the parts of the sacrifice allotted to them the owners obtain forgiveness.

Let us now return to our statement that פרשת ויקרא as well פרשת צו speak about the people offering the sacrifices as well as about the objects of these sacrifices. Among the latter there are some which serve as atonement for their owners, such as the קרבן חטאת, and the קרבן אשם. There is the קרבן חטאת קבוע, the purpose of which is to obtain forgiveness for a “מום קבוע,” the kind of sin which has become second nature to us due to the pollutant from the serpent. There are also sin-offerings for various leaders of the community and the community as a whole respectively. In each of these instances different elements are at the root of the sin committed. This is why separate sacrifices are needed to secure atonement and absolution of the residual pollutant of the serpent. There is even a type of sacrifice called אשם תלוי, a sin-offering of a suspended nature, which must be offered when the owner is in doubt whether he has become guilty of a certain transgression. One's duties were clear as the light of the sun, and being in doubt whether one had behaved in a circumspect manner or not is the kind of doubt that should never have arisen.

When a person has trespassed against property belonging to the Temple treasury he must not only make restitution and bring a sacrifice but must also add 20% to the value of the property against which he has committed such מעילה, trespass. It is a precondition to the achievement of perfect harmony in the world that there has to be a perfect union in the spiritual world of the ten emanations. This union must be able to "flow" from the "top" downwards as well as in reverse from the "bottom" upwards. The "top" is the emanation כתר, whereas the "bottom" is the emanation מלכות. The mystical dimension the emanations is י, ten. When we spell י as a word, i.e. יוד,=20. This is the mystical dimension of אור הישר, original light and אור החוזר, reflected light, a concept familiar to the Kabbalists. The former originates in the emanation כתר, whereas the latter originates in the emanation מלכות. Between them these two emanations represent 20% of all the emanations. If someone has made profane use of property designated as sacred he therefore has to atone for this by adding 20% to the value of the property involved. This is to encourage him to become penitent and thereby achieve atonement for his negligence.