הלכה על ויקרא 1:9

Once more the issue recedes into the background. Nothing more is heard of the proposal and the entire question is permitted to lie fallow until the middle of the nineteenth century when we find a new protagonist actively espousing resettlement of the Holy Land and reintroduction of sacrificial worship. In a letter addressed to Baron Asher Anshel Rothschild, dated 12 Elul, 5596, R. Zevi Hirsch Kalisher solicits the latter's support for plans to colonize the Land of Israel and outlines his views regarding the sacrificial rites. When these opinions regarding the resumption of the sacrificial service were incorporated in a work entitled Derishat Ẓion and published a little over one hundred years ago, in 5622, the question for the first time became a live issue.¹⁰In fact, R. Shlomoh Drimer of Skole, in an undated responsum, quotes an unnamed interlocutor who reported that “the sages of the Sephardim and of Lithuania wished to sacrifice [the paschal offering] this past erev Pesaḥ.” See Teshuvot Bet Shlomoh (Lemberg, 5637–51), Yoreh De‘ah, II, no. 125. Considerable controversy was aroused and resulted in a meticulous examination by the foremost authorities of the time of the halakhic issues surrounding the proposed innovation. Opposition to Kalisher's views was of a dual nature. Apart from the controversial halakhic ramifications of his proposal, Kalisher's novel eschatological views caused many of his contemporaries to take sharp issue with him. Kalisher argues not only that reinstitution of the sacrificial rites is both permissible and halakhically feasible but that it constitutes a positive mizvah and is, in addition, a sine qua non for the advent of the Messiah. The redemption, he maintains, will take place in the following manner: first, a partial ingathering of the exiles, to be followed by the reinstitution of korbanot; after this will occur the war between Gog and Magog and the complete ingathering of the exiles, culminating in the advent of the Messiah. As evidence for his position, Kalisher cites the statement of the Palestinian Talmud, as quoted by Tosafot Yom Tov, Ma'aser Sheni, 5:2: "The Temple [will] be rebuilt before the reign of the House of David."¹¹In further support of this view, Kalisher cites the wording of the Mussaf service of Rosh Ḥodesh: “A new altar shalt Thou establish in Zion and the burnt offering of the New Moon shall we offer upon it” which is subsequently followed by the phrase “and in the service of Thy Temple shall we all rejoice.” Kalisher argues that reference to rejoicing in the Temple service—which is general in nature—should logically precede the more specific mention of the burnt offering of Rosh Ḥodesh. From this he concludes that the prior reference, which is to a new altar (not a Bet ha-Mikdash), refers to the reinstitution of communal sacrifices and hence is not dependent upon the rebuilding of the Bet ha-Mikdash, whereas the subsequent mention of the Temple service refers to private sacrifices which are contingent upon the rebuilding of the Temple (for reasons that will be examined later in this review) and will, therefore, be reinstituted at a latter date. Referring to the Sifri cited by Nachmanides in his commentary on Deuteronomy 12:5, Kalisher maintains that the offering of sacrifices is causally connected with the reappearance of prophecy and has as its effect the manifestation of the Divine Presence, just as the Shekhinah appeared in the Tabernacle in the wilderness only following the sacrificial offerings of the milu'im. Therefore, he concludes, the reinstitution of the sacrificial rites is not dependent upon a prophetic injunction; rather, prophecy cannot become manifest without prior sacrificial offerings.¹²It is a bit puzzling that in endeavoring to establish this point Kalisher does not cite the more explicit and more a propos discussion of Ramban contained in his commentary on Leviticus 1:9 in which he analyzes the rationale underlying the sacrificial precepts.

And I found with Ramban, may his memory be blessed, [an explanation] on the [level] of the simple meaning, similar to this reason. As he wrote (Ramban on Leviticus 1:9) in the name of others, and this is his language: Since the deeds of people are determined by thought, speech and action, God, may He be blessed, commanded that when he sins, he brings a sacrifice and place his hands upon him corresponding to the deed, and confess with his mouth corresponding to the speech, and burn the innards and the kidneys, as they are the instruments of thought and desire. And the limbs [of the sacrifice] correspond to the hands and feet of a person that does all of his work. And he sprinkles the blood on the altar corresponding to the blood of his soul, so that a person think in doing all of this that he sinned to God with his body and his soul, and it is fit for him that his blood be spilled and his body burnt; were it not for the kindness of the Creator, who took an exchange and ransom from him [in] the sacrifice - that its blood be instead of his blood and its soul be instead of his soul. And the central limbs correspond to his central limbs. And the portions with which to sustain the teachers of Torah [are so] that they will pray for him. And the daily sacrifice is because there is no saving the community from always sinning. And these words are tenable [and] grab the heart, like the words of classic homiletic teachings (Shabbat 87a). To here [are his words]. And he wrote at more length about the matter and wrote, "And in the way of truth (mysticism), the sacrifices contain a hidden secret, etc.," as he wrote in his commentary on Parshat Vaykra.

We were commanded in all of these things, such as the table, the menorah, the bread of display and the sacrifices, from the angle of the receivers (people), and like the matter that I wrote. There is no doubt or qualm to anyone who understands, or student that is not lacking in comprehension in the world who would think that with the arrangement of bread in the Temple upon the table, which we place complete and we take [away] complete, that there is any benefit (enjoyment) accrued by the Above, God forbid - not in its appearance, not in its smell and not from any angle. Rather, He commanded us like this in His desire, blessed be He, that we be blessed from Him, in His great trait of kindness. And [this is] also [true about] the frankincense that comes with the bread, about which it is written, "a burnt offering to the Lord." And [when] some of the commentators (Rashi on Leviticus 24:7) said that there is nothing from the bread that is for the Above except for the frankincense, their intention was not, God forbid, that there be any distinction between the frankincense and the bread for the Above. And the fulfillment of the commandment of God is the same with the bread and the frankincense: As just like God, blessed be He, commanded to arrange the bread in front of Him, so too is His will done, with the frankincense that He commanded to burn, and they burned it - one standard for all. Rather, all of these matters were written from the angle of those involved [in them]. As it cannot be written about the bread - that we feed the priests - that it is all for God; as others have a portion in it. But with anything that man does not have any benefit in it at all, and it is completely consumed in the commandment - with that we can say about it that it is completely for God. [That] means to say that all of it is included in the commandment - no man ate from it, nor enjoyed any physical benefit from it at all. And since smell is not from the pleasures of the body, but rather from the pleasures of the spirit - as the body only receives tangible pleasure - the matter of smell is always attributed to God, blessed be He. [This is] even though He, blessed be He and blessed be His name, is not - due to His supernal level and His greatness - connected to these matters at all; as He is not a body, and not the attribute of a body. This is known to all that understand. And they, may their memory be blessed, already explained (Rashi on Zevachim 46b, s.v. hanachat ruach) [that] every place that it is stated, "a pleasing smell to the Lord" (for example, Leviticus 1:9), [it means] "I said something, and My will was done." And so [too,] "And the Lord smelled the pleasant smell" (Genesis 8:21), [should be understood] in this way. This is what appears [correct] to us regarding the matter of the arranging of the bread in the House of God. And Rambam, may his memory be blessed, wrote (Guide for the Perplexed 3:45), and this is his language: But I do not know a reason for the table and the bread always being put upon it; and to this day, I do not know to what thing to ascribe it.

From the laws of the commandment is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said about the procedure of the burnt-offering that it was executed thus: We slaughter the beast in the [Temple] yard - and the slaughter is fit even with non-priests, but from the reception of the blood and onward, it is a commandment of the priesthood. And the priest would sprinkle the blood and flay it and dissect the limbs whole - as it is written (Leviticus 1:6), "into sections," and they, may their memory be blessed, explained (Chullin 11:1), "And not sections into sections." And when he dissects [it], he removes the sciatic nerve from the thigh, and incinerates all of the sections on top of the altar. And the wool on the heads of the sheep, the hair of the beards of the male goats, the bones, the tendons, the horns and the hooves - when they are attached - we incinerate it all, as it is stated (Leviticus 1:9), "and the priest incinerates it all." [But if] they were separated, they do not go up, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 12:26), "And you shall execute your burnt-offerings, the meat and the blood."