Pensamiento judío sobre Isaías 43:26

Whenever the matter of animal sacrifices is discussed, there are some difficult questions that cannot be ignored. 1) Is it not unavoidable that sacrifices will be viewed as attempts to bribe G'd to forego the anger caused Him by the sinner who offers the sacrifice? 2) Does it not seem that the donor tries to placate G'd just as he would attempt to placate a mere mortal ruler, thereby insulting G'd, reducing His stature? 3) If, on the other hand, the offering is in the nature of a pennance, payment for trespass from which G'd receives no more benefit than from say the imposition of corporal punishment on the sinner, what good is it? 4) Is the purpose of the sacrifices perhaps merely to provide the priests with a livelihood, or simply the destruction of the animals that are being offered up? It is clearly erroneous to view the offerings as an attempt to restore the perfection or wholeness of G'd by means of a sacrifice that would complement something incomplete in Him. In Psalms 50, 11-13, "I will not accept bullocks from you, since all the animal kingdom is Mine; if I were hungry, would I have to call you? After all, the whole universe belongs to Me." Isaiah 43,24, states this even more succinctly. "You have not bought for Me fragrant reeds with money..nor have you tired yourself out on My behalf. You have not brought Me the lambs of your total offerings, not honoured Me with your meat offerings;..you have not bought Me with your money! I, I forgive you for MY sake!" Clearly, what the prophet stresses is that none of the things Israel did to placate G'd or bribe Him, has had the slightest impact on the well being of G'd Himself. G'd forgives for His own sake. He emphasizes that there is no other consideration, repeats His name when He proclaims that He dispenses forgiveness, in order to stress that there is no personal benefit involved. There is no aspect of G'd that can be enhanced by the gift of man. If there were a price tag on forgiveness, it would have to be set in motion through mutual action. Since however, there is no exchange of values for the forgiveness, it occurs only through "My righteousness." "I will not remember your sins," so as not to shame you. However, "remind Me of them," you tell of them, so that you can become righteous. (Isaiah 43,26) It is evident that the prophet endeavours to squash the foolish notion of "our contribution" in the matter of sacrifices. It is noteworthy that the term avodah, service, is not used in the Torah concerning offerings that are brought on the altar in order to obtain forgiveness. When Moses did use that term when talking to Pharaoh, (Exodus 10,26) "we do not know what we will serve the Lord," he simply used terminology familiar to Pharaoh. It is the manner of pagans to employ the term avodah for their religious observances. (Deut. 13,7) "Let us go and serve other deities." We find a similar warning (Deut 12,30) "lest you inquire into their deities, saying," how do these nations serve their deities?" The Torah in that instance, continues "do not do thus, for the Lord your G'd etc.," meaning that worship of the G'd of Israel is not of that order. Positive proof that worship of our G'd is of a totally different calibre, is the fact that "they burn their own children in fire to their deities," something the G'd of Israel has described as an abomination. True worship of G'd consists of obeying His commandments, neither adding nor subtracting therefrom. (Deut. 13, 1.) When referring to that kind of worship, the Torah does not shrink from employing the term avodah as in Deut. 10, 12, or Exodus 23,25, and other places. In all matters of piety of the heart, performance of good deeds, the benefit that accrues to the practitioner is stressed. (Deut. 10, 13) "for your own good." "Serving" is for our benefit, not G'ds. It is significant that the rasha, wicked person quoted in Parshat Bo, describes the Passover ceremonial as an avodah, service, stressing "what is in it for you?" It is precisely this attitude to sacrificial service that needs to be debunked. Similarly, the second possible rationale suggested for the requirement of sacrifice, namely atonement, cannot be true. It is obvious that the object used for atonement would have to be in some value relationship to the subject against whom the sin had been committed. Since it is imposible to relate to the Creator in this fashion, the idea of sacrifice sufficing as an act of compensation is quite erroneous. This is what the High Priest Eli (Samuel 1,2,23-24) tells his sons when he remonstrates with them. He had heard that they had acted improperly. "When man sins against man, the judge can mediate and determine fair compensation; but when man sins against G'd, who can determine the amount of compensation due to G'd?" How will one know that one had atoned adequately? Similarly, Michah 6,7, calls out: "Does the Lord want thousands of rams, tens of thousands rivers of oil?" The meaning is "could even the greatest amount of sacrificial animals compensate for the iniquity committed?" Obviously then, the idea of compensation is not the rationale for sacrificial rites. Regarding the third possibility mentioned, that the priests should be provided with a livelihood, the many offerings which are completely burned up, demonstrate that this could not have been the thought behind this legislation. Moreover, the idea that priests should be happy to consume the proceeds of man's sins, that their livelihood would improve in direct ratio to the number of sins committed by their brethren, could hardly be pleasing in the eyes of G'd. The fourth possibility mentioned, the wanton destruction of part of the animal kingdom is also difficult to accept as a possible motivation behind this legislation.

In order to comprehend what happened when Moses failed to return at the time expected, we must remember what the Torah tells us about the basic nature of man. We are told in Genesis 8,21, "for the impulse of man's heart is evil from its infancy." Even after man has absorbed the Divine teachings intellectually, his basic nature has not changed thereby. It is not in man's nature to become permanently free from sin so that we would have to view sin as a departure from his nature, and he would therefore forfeit his claim to a future in the hereafter. Sainthood is not demanded of man. What is demanded however, is that any relapse into sin be repaired through true repentance, in order for him to regain his stature as it was prior to his sin. This is the meaning of Exodus 34,6, "The Eternal, the Eternal is a merciful and gracious G-d." This means that G-d is saying "I am the Lord after you have sinned, just as I have been the Lord before you had sinned." The implication is that the likelihood of sin is about equal to the likelihood of saintly purity. Or, in the words of the Psalmist, (Psalms 130,3) "if You would keep remembering sins, O Lord, who could possibly stand up before You?" (Rosh Hashanah 17) The purpose of forgiveness after repentance is described as "so that You may be revered" (Psalms 130,4) It is the person who does not repent who truly merits punishment. If our sages viewed the institution of repentance as chronologically preceding the creation of man, this underlines the concept that sin is an integral part of the world we live in. (Pessachim 54) The episode of the golden calf then provided Israel with a chance to do what G-d had said, (Deut. 5,26) "would that their heart would revere Me." Had it been possible to create the nature of man so that he could be totally good, Israel could not have made the golden calf, for no other nation even approached the ideal of humanity as closely as Israel did at that time. Even G-d had expressed the wish that they should be able to maintain that level of piety in order to reap the fruits of such conduct. Israel's action in making the golden calf was proof that it was unrealistic to expect such high levels of piety and belief in G-d to be maintained at all times. Rabbi Yochanan told us then that Israel was certainly not at a low enough level at that time to have indulged in that sin, nor was David so enslaved to sensuality that the affair with Bat Sheva would be expected of him; rather, in spite of their respective high levels of morality, the nature of man made such sins possible. This teaches us the lesson of repentance as a corollary. David represents a lesson for the individual sinner, whereas Israel provides the example that even collective guilt can be forgiven. The Midrash then only supplied the answer to the question of why a golden calf had to be the idol chosen. The basic answer about why the sin took place at all, lies in the fact that it is in the nature of man to regress spiritually from time to time. Isaiah 43,26, tells us that the discussion of our sins rather than an attempt at whitewash, will bring righteousness in its wake. The Talmud Megillah 25, discusses a series of events with which the Torah deals, and which may be read in public both in Hebrew and in the vernacular. This may be done, though in the process some of our most famous heroes such as Abraham, Yehudah etc. may appear discredited in the ears of the listener. The decisive consideration in all these instances where superficial perusal may reflect discredit on a deserving person is, whether the moral lesson to be learned from the story outweighs the side effect it may produce. The story of the golden calf, discussed in the Torah on two occasions in considerable detail, teaches so much about the ways of G-d, that the fact that it makes Aaron appear as an accomplice is a calculated risk the Torah had to take. Normally, our sages prohibit readings in the vernacular, when they believe that the uneducated masses would form negative impressions about people in the story who are really free from blame. In our situation, the first half of the golden calf episode is permitted to be read also in the vernacular, because the lessons about the power of repentance and forgiveness are derived from that story. However chapter 32,21, is not to be read in the vernacular, since it deals with Aaron's specific involvement, and would give the uneducated listener the impression that Aaron's error was far greater than it actually was. Conversely, this would lead the masses to conclude that the people's involvement in that sin was far less serious than had been the case.