What Sacrifices Might Connote in an Age of No Sacrifices

Sacrifices as a source of learning, including about ourselves, rather than a practical code of conduct.

In R. Joanathan Sacks’ 2012 Devar Tora for Parashat VaYikra, “Self and Sacrifice”, he categorizes the Tora’s concern with the offerings that were presented in the Mishkan as something akin to what the Talmud states is the “takeaway” regarding the “the Israeli Jewish city to be destroyed due to at least 51% of its inhabitants engaging in idolatry” (Ibid. 13:13-9), and the “stubborn and rebellious son” (Devarim 21:18-21):

Sanhedrin 71a

There has never been a stubborn and rebellious son and there will never be one in the future, as it is impossible to fulfill all the requirements that must be met in order to apply this Halacha. And why, then, was the passage relating to a stubborn and rebellious son written in the Tora? So that you may expound upon new understandings of the Tora and receive reward for your learning, this being an aspect of the Tora that has only theoretical value…

There has never been an idolatrous city and there will never be one in the future, as it is virtually impossible to fulfill all the requirements that must be met in order to apply this Halacha. And why, then, was the passage relating to an idolatrous city written in the Tora? So that you may expound upon new understandings of the Tora and receive reward for your learning.

While the Baraitot being cited by the Talmud state that the topics of “Ben Sorer U’Moreh” and “Ihr HaNidachat” are completely theoretical, whereas we know that Korbanot were once offered and believe that they will be offered again when the Third Temple is constructed, at this point in time, they are practically the same, since none of them are currently “LeMa’aseh.”

A Chassidic interpretation of a verse from the Parashat HaShavua that serves as the basis of R. Sack’s insights.

R. Sacks quotes R. Shneor Zalman of Liadi with respect to Parashat VaYikra’s second verse:

VaYikra 1:2

Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them: When any man of you bringeth an offering unto the LORD…

R. Shneor Zalman remarks concerning this verse’s word order.

We would expect to read: “Adam Mikem Ki Yakriv, “when one of you offers a sacrifice” (“Mikem” modifying the noun “Adam.”) Instead, what it says is: “Adam Ki Yakriv Mikem, “when one offers a sacrifice of you” (“Mikem” modifying the verb “Yakriv.”)

This linguistic nuance leads R. Shneor Zalman to profoundly conclude, according to R. Sacks:

The essence of sacrifice… is that we offer ourselves (“Mikem” = from yourselves.) We bring to God our faculties, our energies, our thoughts and emotions. The physical form of sacrifice – an animal offered on the altar – is only an external manifestation of an inner act. The real sacrifice is “Mikem,” “of you.” We give God something of ourselves.

(While in his commentary on VaYikra, RaMBaN said something reminiscent of R. Shneor Zalman’s insight with respect to the process whereby man atones for his sins:

RaMBaN on VaYikra 1:9

…Because the deeds of man contain within them thoughts, speech, and physical action, God Commanded that when one sins, he bring a sacrifice. He will lean his hands upon its head, corresponding to thought; he will confess upon it verbally, corresponding to speech; and he will burn with fire the innards and the kidneys, because they are the seat of thought and lust, as well as the limbs, corresponding to the hands and feet of a person, which carry out all of his work; and he throws its blood on the Altar, corresponding to the blood of his soul. This is in order that a person when he does all of these things, will think that he has sinned against God with his body and soul, and it would be fitting if (as a consequence) his own blood should be spilled, and his own body be burned, had it not been for the Kindness of the Creator Who Took from him a substitute, and that this sacrifice atoned for him, with its blood representing his blood, its life representing his life, its limbs representing his limbs, and the portions gifted to the teachers of Tora (the Kohanim) in order that they pray for him… 

R. Shneor Zalman understands “sacrifice” as more than a matter of man achieving atonement.)

Reflecting upon the concept of “sacrificing ourselves.”

R. Sacks explains that mystics like R. Sheor Zalman posited that man has two souls: “Nefesh HaBeheimit” (the animalistic life force) and “Nefesh HaRuchanit” (the spiritual soul.) He understands this very tension between man’s “two natures” to lie at the heart of the well-known lines of one of the Tehillot:

Tehillim 8:4-10

4 When I behold Thy Heavens, the Work of Thy Fingers, {N} the moon and the stars, which Thou hast Established;

5 What is man, that Thou art Mindful of him? And the son of man, that Thou Thinkest of him?

→ Nefesh HaBeheimit.

6 Yet Thou hast Made him but little lower than the angels, and hast Crowned him with Glory and Honor.

7 Thou hast Made him to have dominion over the works of Thy Hands; Thou hast Put all things under his feet:

8 Sheep and oxen, all of them, yea, and the beasts of the field;

9 The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea; whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas.

→ Nefesh HaRuchanit.

10 O LORD, our Lord, how Glorious is Thy Name in all the earth!

R. Sacks asserts that what we are “sacrificing,”

(the word “Korban” actually signifies “bringing closer to God,”)

according to R. Shneor Zalman, is specifically our “Nefesh Beheimit,” and the three main types of animals used for these sacrifices, i.e., “Beheima” (domesticated animals,), “Bakar” (cattle), and “Tzon” (flocks, herds) suggest three aspects of our lives that bear “offering.”

R. Sacks writes:

“Beheima” is animal instinct itself. The word refers to domesticated animals. It does not imply the savage instincts of the predator. What it means is something more tame. Animals spend their time searching for food. Their lives are bounded by the struggle to survive. To sacrifice the animal within us is to be moved by something more than mere survival…, (a) search (for) meaning, purpose, a goal…

The word “Bakar,” cattle, in Hebrew reminds us of the word “Boker,” “dawn”, literally to “break through”, as the first rays of sunlight break through the darkness of night. Cattle, stampeding, break through barriers. Unless constrained by fences, cattle are no respecters of boundaries. To sacrifice the “Bakar” is to learn to recognize and respect boundaries – between holy and profane, pure and impure, permitted and forbidden. Barriers of the mind can sometimes be stronger than walls.

Finally, “Tzon,” flocks, represents the herd instinct – the powerful drive to move in a given direction because others are doing likewise. … “Kadosh,” the holy, is something set apart, different, separate, distinctive. Jews were the only people in history consistently to refuse to assimilate to the dominant culture or convert to the dominant faith…

Discussion.

While R. Shneor Zalman’s insight is intriguing, R. Sacks’ expansion, using the categories “Beheima,” “Bakar,” and “Tzon” seems arbitrary at best. What about sacrifices that come from fowl and grain? (See yesterday’s blog post “Is This Where the Question is Better than the Answer?”) Furthermore, “Beheima” is a general category, under whose rubric come cattle, sheep, and goats. To treat the word as a separate aspect of what constitutes “sacrifice” perhaps makes sense in homiletical terms, but not logical ones.

“Throwing my own hat into the ring,” perhaps the following could be said about the categories of sacrifices that R. Sacks omitted:

“Izim,” from the Hebrew word “Aiz” or “Oz”—strength, power. When an individual sacrifices, he should reflect upon the fact that he is stating that all of his efforts, particular the more strenuous ones, are to be devoted to God rather than to his personal interests.

“Ofot,” from the Hebrew verb, “LaUf”—to fly. The paradigm of a bird’s essence is to fly freely wherever it wishes, hence the term “Tzippor Dror”, “a free bird,” “free as a bird!” What is called to mind is the famous statement in the sixth chapter of the Baraitot associated with Ethics of the Fathers:

Avot 6:2

Said R. Yehoshua b. Levi:… (Shemot 32:16) “And the Tablets were the Work of God, and the writing was the Writing of God, “Charut” upon the Tablets.”—do not read the word “Charut” (engraved) but rather “Cheirut” (freedom.) The only truly free individual is someone who occupies himself with Tora study…

Paradoxically, instead of assuming that one who subjugates himself to Tora and Mitzvot is significantly limiting his autonomy and freedom, the sentiment expresses in Avot is just the opposite!

“Mincha,” the gift of the grain offering. RaShI, drawing upon a Midrash, emphasizes in his commentary to VaYikra 2:1 s.v. VeNefesh Ki Takriv, how the fact that the term “Nefesh” is only used with respect to this particular case of sacrifice is in order to point out that despite the fact that this is a poor person offering a “lesser” type of sacrifice, if this is all he can afford, God Views this as if he has sacrificed his soul, the very point that R. Shneor Zalman is making!