Pensée juive sur Le Lévitique 6:2

Rabbi Berechya in the name of Rabbi Ezra, explains the first verse in the book of Leviticus in Vayikrah Rabbah 7 by means of a parable. "Someone amongst you who wishes to offer a sacrifice etc." A king had two pastry cooks. The first one prepared a pastry for him which the king ate and enjoyed. The second one prepared a pastry for him also, and the king also ate that pastry and enjoyed it. It was impossible to tell which pastry the king had enjoyed more until the king asked the second pastry cook to prepare another pastry for him like the first one he had prepared for the king. We observe that Noach had offered a sacrifice to G'd which G'd had enjoyed. (Genesis 8,20-21 "He savoured the sweet odour") Israel too was asked to offer sacrifices on its holy days. (Numbers 28,4, "you shall observe to do, each day at its appointed time") Only when Moses commanded the Jewish people (Leviticus 6,2) "this is the instruction concerning the total offering"), did we find out that G'd preferred our offerings, as stated by the prophet Maleachi. (Maleachi 3,4, "and the gift offering of Yehudah and Jerusalem will be pleasing to G'd as in the days of old, in former times") "The days of old," refers to the time of Moses, and the "former times," refers to the years of Solomon. An alternative interpretation is that "the days of old," refers to Noach's offering, as Isaiah says in Isaiah 54,4, "this is like the waters of Noach for Me." The "former times" would then refer to the time of Abel, when idolatry was as yet unknown.

Because prayer is service of the heart, we have connected the chapter on prayer with the chapter on the olah, total offering. As an olah is an offering that "rises" towards G'd in its entirety, since the whole of the animal is being offered on the altar, so is prayer an offering of the heart which rises toward Heaven in its entirety. When our sages describe prayer without concentrating on its meaning, as being comparable to a body without soul, they mean that the warmth of feeling generated by genuine prayer, parallels the ongoing fire on the altar that burns the olah. In Vayikra Rabbah 7, Rabbi Pinchas notes that the Torah does not describe the fire on the altar as being "on" the altar. The Torah does not require that the "fire on the altar burn on it," rather it does say “aysh hamizbeach tukad bo," the fire on the altar shall burn within it, meaning that the entire altar should be permeated by it. (Leviticus 6,2) So our hearts are to be permeated by the outpouring of our prayers. The Talmud Berachot 32, tells us that we have to arrange the praise of the Lord before proceeding with voicing our requests from Him. Since the requests concern mostly our temporal needs, our sages (Shabbat 10) describe the supplicant as someone who temporarily abandons his concern with the values of the world to come, in favour of the mundane needs of this world he lives in at the time. If this is so, the opinion held by many, (including Maimonides chapter one hilchot tefillah ) which claims that prayer has been legislated by the Torah, is hard to understand. If the purpose of prayer would be exhausted by our asking for our needs, why should it matter to G'd whether we ask for them or not? We should be entitled to forego the opportunity to ask G'd for His kindness, assistance, etc. However, just as we have described the institution of sacrifice as designed to arouse certain emotions within us which will bring us closer to G'd, so prayer, by means of the trust we express when we ask Him for our needs, will bring us closer to Him. The conviction that He cares, that His Providence watches over us, all this helps to strengthen the existing ties between us and the Creator. The thanks we express for what He has done for us and for others, all help to cement our relationship with hashem. The early Chassidim, men of piety and devoutness, are described by the Talmud Berachot 32, as having prepared for prayer an hour ahead of time, and as having spent another hour winding down from the spiritual high achieved during prayer, before returning to the mundane tasks in their lives. Actually, they did exactly what our sages have since built into the formal liturgy that we follow nowadays. The hymns of praise, keriyat shema, are our introduction and preparation for prayer, i.e. the part during which we voice our requests. On the other hand, we are told that he who fails to enunciate the keriyat shema audibly, has failed in his purpose, since the praise of G'd and our assuming the yoke of Heaven are to be made known to our fellow men. On the other hand, he who raises his voice during the supplication part of the prayer service, is described as lacking in faith, as a prophet of the ido Baal. (Berachot 24) Channah already demonstrated that requests need not be aired audibly. If the High Priest Eli considered her as a drunken woman, this was not because she did not raise her voice in prayer, but because she had chosen a time of day he did not consider suitable for offering up prayer. (compare Samuel I chapter 1) He watched her closely to find out what she had to say to him, since most other women milling around the entrance of the tabernacle always spoke to him. Understanding Eli's error, she told him that her remarks were addressed to Him who does not need audible expression of her words in order to be able to hear and understand them. Since Channah came to the tabernacle after having dined, it was natural for Eli to have misconstrued her purpose, and to have judged same by outward appearances. In fact, one must not raise one's voice, so as not to create the impression that one considers G'd hard of hearing. When Ishmael was close to death, (Genesis 21,17) G'd considered his state of being "as he was then," not the loudness of his prayers. The mental anguish that he was suffering at that moment was the decisive element that led to his rescue. On the other hand, all those paragraphs in the liturgy that teach us knowledge and comprehension have to be recited aloud. "Hear O Israel!"- these words we have to hear with our own ears; they are directed both at ourselves and at our fellow Jews.

Of these two kinds of offerings, the freewill offering is more pleasing, as alluded to in the Midrash quoted at the opening of this chapter. Noach thanked G'd for having saved him. This is like when we recite the benediction hagomel, after having been bypassed by some danger. We are told that Noach had found favour in the eyes of G'd, but G'd had not found favour. Ezekiel 14,14, tells us that even if the generation that he describes would have a Noach amongst them, none would be saved. (Bereshit Rabbah 31) Noach's offering insured though that a repetition of the deluge would never recur, since he had found the key to atonement for all future generations by offering this thanksgiving offering. It was the people of Israel however, who were commanded to offer the daily offerings, (Numbers chapter 28 ) the objective being le-hakriv lee "to achieve closeness with Me,” something that goes beyond the mere attainment of atonement. It is this closeness that the prophet in our opening Midrash envisions. The proliferation of sacrifices in the days of Solomon was pleasing to G'd, since those sacrifices represented the desire to achieve close communion with G'd. The reason that the "days of Noach" are mentioned in the same breath, is to show that also that type of offering is acceptable. The reason that these daily communal offerings of the Jewish people are primarily referred to as olah, is that they are me-ulleh, the highest, most advanced form of offering that exists. If the prophet also mentions ki-yemey olam, a reference to the dawn of history, he may refer to the pleasing aspects of the sacrifice brought by Hevel, who was certainly not inspired by the need for atonement, sin not having been part of man's general lifestyle in those days. If G'd, on the other hand, rejected the offering of Kayin, this proves that the latter's motivation had been of a lower order. The priests, as the recipients of part of the offerimgs, are the intermediaries, conduits between man and his Creator. The killing of the animal in the sanctuary or at least on consecrated ground, is a natural pre-condition for achieving closeness with G'd. The various paragraphs seem to follow one another in a natural order. The Torah starts with the olah, representing what man, at his noblest, altruistic intention wishes to offer, i.e. himself. The Torah emphasises "from you an offering," not "an offering from you." This alludes to the underlying intention. Though the actual sacrifice consists of sheep or cattle, it will be considered as if you had offered yourself. There follow the various regulations connected with the olah offering. We are told which animals are suitable, plus the fact that a "gift offering" must accompany such an olah. This latter is to be of the finest grade of flour etc This too has nothing to do with sin. Next comes the "peace offering," the motivation for which is also unrelated to sin. Only after the list of the most pleasing kinds of offerings has been exhausted, does the Torah list the various sin offerings, whose purpose is the expiation of wrongdoing, though they expiate in the main for unintentional wrongdoing. Here the order commences with a sin committed by the High Priest, followed by the sacrifice appropriate for the error committed by the entire nation. This is to show that the same par, bull, that fulfils the function of expiating for the representative of the nation, also performs that function for ordinary citizens. This is followed by the he-goat which serves as sin offering from the Prince, the temporal authority, followed by the same he- goat serving a sin offering for sins by ordinary individuals. Next we have the regulations about the asham, a sin offering covering a different type of sin. The common denominator of all these sacrifices is the need for semichah, the placing of the sinner's hands and weight on the respective animal prior to its being slaughtered. In this way, the "greatness," i.e. the attributes of man are transferred to the animal. We find that once Moses had placed his hands on Joshua, (Deut. 34,9) the people listened to Joshua, authority had been transferred. Just as power, authority, can be transferred by this means, one's weaknesses and inadequacies can be transferred in a like manner. Aaron is commanded to place his hands on the scapegoat, and immediately afterwards the Torah tells us that the second he-goat carried all the guilts of the Jewish people. (Leviticus chapter 16) Obviously, this was not part of the act of sacrifice, since the he-goat, scapegoat, was not offered on the altar, but consigned to death in wild unfriendly country. The semichah declaration indicates that the donor fulfils the details of the instructions connected with the sacrificial rite, is free from blemish in this respect. We find that those who had overheard the blasphemer, (Leviticus 24,13-14) had to place their hands on him prior to his execution, thus transferring any guilt from them to him. They are stating symbolically "your blood is on your own head, not on ours." Since the sacrifice is to atone for unintentional sins, the donor must recite "I did not knowingly commit the sin for which this animal is to expiate." After the Torah has dealt with the purpose of each individual sacrifice, it turns its attention to what parts of the animal can serve as compensation for the priest who is charged with performing the sacrificial service.