The first portion of the Third Book of Moses – Leviticus – is called Va’Yik’ra (literally, “and [the Lord] has called on to [Moshe]”). At first blush, this is one of the less intriguing portions of the entire cycle – most of it, if not all, deals in excruciating detail with offerings – offerings of all kinds shapes and sizes. For example, the portion tells us how to treat a sacrificed lamb, where to throw its blood, how to skin it, what to do with its pieces, where to put its head, what portions should be washed in water, etc., etc., etc. – (for some, ad noseam).
But a closer look would reveal a fascinating portion, a true synthesis of – and an ingenious solution to – the problems we discussed in recent weeks. On that, and on one other aspect of the portion that shows, once again, that not much has changed in the past 3,000 years, I would like to comment shortly today.
I. The Offerings – A Great Synthesis
In the past several weeks we have discussed the nearly insurmountable tension between the First Commandment – “I am the Lord your God,” which requires us to worship a transcendent, impossible-to-see, hear, or feel divine entity – and the all-too-human desire to worship something much more concrete (the Santa-Claus image of God, if you will). This is the tension between the notion of a transparent God, untouchable, unimaginable, “which has no form, no shape, and no body,” and the almost irresistible impulse to see, feel, smell, hear, and taste the subject of worshiping. We saw how this tension led the Israelites to commit what many believe to be their worst religious sin ever – the creation and worshiping of the Golden Calf; but we also saw how the same exact tension brought Moshe and God closer than ever. How can this tension be resolved?
Enter the offerings. A God-certified worshipping program, enabling any Jewish person of faith to actually see, hear, smell, touch, and – yes – taste the fruits of his worship. It was the Rambam (Maimonides), of course, who first made this remarkable connection. He understood that such complete algorithm – or framework – of worshiping would contemporaneously show a great belief in God, and allow the believing worshipper to comply with their earthly needs.
Armed with this insight, we can now view again at these “dreary” verses, providing in great detail the exact manner in which we should be treating the animals we sacrifice, in a whole new light. It is only in this way, says the Torah, and not another, that you may use your senses to worship. It is only the Torah’s way – there is no other. Not a Golden Calf, but the proper manner of sacrificing a real calf. In that, the offerings fulfill a very important role of a pragmatic barrier to idol worshipping: No more could the people complain that “our leader is lost”; here’s a way for them to continue and worshiping our Lord God with all their senses, whether Moshe is there or not.
To be sure, not everyone share the Rambam’s pragmatic (and may I add, ingenious) insights. The offerings, say those critics, occupy way too much room in the Text, not to mention the rest of Halacha, to serve merely as a practical barrier to idol worshipping. (See, in particular, the view of the Ramban.) But I think that the Rambam is right precisely because of the large space dedicated to each and every detail of the offering’s work. We must recall that, in the religious sense, the entire five books of Moshe are nothing but a manual for servicing God properly. It is for that reason that the building of the Mishkan receives ten-fold the amount of verses that the entire creation of the universe. It is for that reason that every aspect of the providing the offerings is analyzed and described to such great detail. And finally, this is also probably the most effective way to assure continued allegiance to God; in other words, this is the insurance of the First Commandment – “I am the Lord your God.” Is there anything more important than that (from a religious standpoint)?
[Keen readers of the blog would probably notice that such worshiping doesn’t appear, on its face, to be “Lee’shma” or “for its own sake”; rather, it seems to be more “she’lo lee’shma” or “not for its own sake” form of worshipping. This issue is beyond this week’s blog post, but I’ll be happy to answer questions about it.]
Ok, you may ask, so what is the substitute today, now that the entire edifice of the offering framework is no longer in effect? This is a tough question, and I have no good answer to that. I may, however, venture to offer some guesses. One possibility is that since there is no good substitute, many people – much more than ever in the history of Judaism – don’t follow the First Commandment; they no longer believe in God (at least not in the way meant by the Torah). Another is that these days, Jews all over the world are in constant search for a satisfactory alternative to the actual work of offerings – alternatives like Zen Buddhism, spiritualism, all kinds of “isms” that are not included in the text – all in order to compensate themselves for the lack of using their sense; still, but nothing seems to satisfy them quite like the original. Finally, any visitor to a synagogue – a relatively new invention in terms of Judaism’s history – would easily observe the “physical” aspects of worshiping, from simply standing together as a community, to kissing the Holy Book to moving during the prayer, to special Aliyah, etc., etc.
So much for understanding the offerings.
II. When a Ruler Hath Sinned…
The second point I want to note on today relates to the tension (and the complicated relations) between the Torah – a treatise that recognizes one, and only one, true leader – and the pragmatic human need for human leadership. [Sounds familiar? Indeed, it is simply a different aspect of the first point we mentioned.]
In that respect, the portion this week asks what should happen – more accurately, what kind of offerings should be made – “if” a member of the community (or even the community as a whole) unintentionally commits a sin (something along the lines of committing a “negligent criminal act,” in today’s legal parlance”). For example, the text reads “If the anointed priest would sin … “(Leviticus 4:3); and “If the entire congregation would sin . . .” (Id., 4:13); and “If one person would sin, erroneously . . .” (Id., 4:27).
However, when the text approaches the issue of when the ruler of the community would commit a similar, unintentional, sin, the term “if” suddenly disappears and is now replaced by “when”: “When a ruler has sinned . . . erroneously” (Id., 4:22) In other words, there is no question that the ruler would sin. There is no “if” here. Rather, the only question is “when,” and for that event we have a ready-made (religious) answer.
This is very interesting. It shows us that not much has changed over the past 3,000 years (at least in terms of leadership). Leaders have come and gone, and they have always sinned. They still commit sins today, and would probably sin as long as they would last. It is in the very nature of governing, of one person having too much power over other people. (Recall Lord Acton famous quote of 1887: “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts completely.”) Indeed, many years later, the Babylonian Talmud teaches us that we should not nominate a leader on the community “unless a can of worms is hanging from his back” (that is, unless there is evidence that he has performed many a sin before taking office), so whenever his title “alters his mind” (that is, whenever he begins to think of himself as above other people, or the law), the people should remind him: “look at your back.” (8 Bab. Talmud, Yoma, Page 25, 2).
Here, again, we see Judaism’s ambivalent relation to – and deep understanding of – human nature. On the one hand, our forefathers realized that leaving the entire role of leadership to God would create an “earthly” vacuum that the community would not be able to fill up – see the example of the Golden Calf. The same Jewish leaders wanted to emphasize that no leader, not even Moshe himself who spoke to God face-to-face, is above ordinary human tendencies and behavior. All those human leaders sin, the portion tells us this week, and therefore all should be treated with the same amount of suspicion. Only God does not sin, and only He should be worshipped.
Shabbat Shalom,
Doron
No comments:
Post a Comment