Myśl Żydowska do Wyjścia 19:5

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.

Since the nourishment provided for the various species of the universe is commensurate with their respective needs, it is axiomatic that the most advanced species are provided with the most advanced form of nourishment available. Normally, the type of food provided for a species is on a level that is one degree lower in the order of life than the species to be fed by it. Since we have stipulated elsewhere that the order of creation proceeded from the simple towards the more sophisticated, it follows that the lowest form of life derives its food supply from primordial matter. This would be immediately below it in the order of creation. After all, the lowest form of existence is primordial matter. Next would be the four basic elements, all of which rank equal in the scheme of created matter. Therefore, air, fire, earth and water act respectively as nourishment for plant life, the latter being of a more sophisticated nature than the basic elements. If plants need rain or water to sustain them, this is in accordance with such natural order as we have described. On the other hand, development, growth of the inert form is possible only through the infusion of an amalgamation with any or all of the basic materials contained in primordial matter. When a creature of a certain level in the world of matter receives its nourishment, or part of it, from a category more than one rung lower than itself, this is a curse. When we are told that the serpent in addition to feeding on plants, also feeds on earth, a lower form of created matter, this is a curse. (Genesis 3,14). Also man,-as long as he had been restricted to a vegetarion diet- (Genesis 1,29) was not yet at the elevated level where his food supply was only one category lower in the scheme of things than he himself. Possibly, the verse (Genesis 1,28) "and have dominion over the fish in the sea, over the fowl in the air and over every living thing that creeps on the earth," was in fact permission to also feed on an animal diet. The fact that such an animal diet was withheld till after the deluge, could have been the result of the original sin. The gradual decline of animals into becoming carnivorous beasts, is merely a form of corruption paralleling the corruption of man during the period preceding the deluge. This is why Isaiah predicts in chapter eleven, that all these carnivorous beasts will undergo a change of nature in the post messianic era. Since the Jewish people have attained the stature of am segulah, "precious nation," their nourishment does not only include the category immediately below them in the world of matter, but even part of their own category. G-d describes this in Deut.7,16, when the Torah says "you will consume all the nations the Lord your G-d gives you, your eyes shall have no pity on them." This refers to our having been granted permission to ensure our continued existence and well being at the expense of gentile nations worshipping idols and practicing other perversions. When we find that the Talmud Pessachim 49, states that the ignorant is not permitted the consumption of meat, this may mean that any person who has not qualified to be a member of the human race "in good standing," is not allowed to use the immediately lower category of life to serve as the material that satiates his appetites. To make indiscriminate use of creatures only a single category less sophisticated than ourselves, we must first prove that we ourselves live up to our own destiny, are intelligent creatures, chay ha-medabber.. Both Bileam (Numbers 24,8), Joshua and Caleb (Numbers 14,9) describe Israel as "consuming" its enemies. There are humans whose way of life places them sufficiently below us that they may serve as our life sustainers. Food, after all, is an aspect of life sustaining matter. On the other hand, food too far below our rank would drag us down to its level; therefore, insects etc. are forbidden. Since cannibalism is prohibited as despicable, the references above refer to our right to dispose of these nations as we see fit. A human being may fit into one of three categories. 1) He may be so ignorant that he has difficulty putting thoughts into words. 2) He may be capable of putting his thoughts into words, but his thoughts are so banal and mundane, that he only achieves basic purposes such as union with a mate, ("he shall cleave to his wife and they shall become one flesh") 3) He may belong to the select group who use the power of speech to express lofty thoughts, whose ideas are capable of standing on their own without physical sustenance. Of this group it is said "if he will live, he will die, but if he will die, he will live." (Yalkut Shimoi Bereshit 14) Dilution of the spiritual with the physical is apt to impair the spiritual to the point of death, whereas refinement of the spiritual to the exclusion of the physical, will result in life eternal. People of that category require two kinds of nourishment, one for the physical part of their beings, the other for the spiritual part. Our rabbis refer to this as "two tables." The physical part can be nourished successfully by a vegetarian diet, meat being forbidden to it, since it derives from the same level of creature. In such a type of person, the spiritual part is not considered integral to the total personality. Their intellect, being of the world of the spirits, does not require physical sustenance just as none of the spirits require this. This is the reason such individuals as Chanina survived on as little as a kav (6 eggs' volume) of carobs from Sabbath eve to Sabbath eve. (Taanit 24) This indeed may have been G-d’s wish when He created original man in whom the spirit, intellect reigned supreme before the fall. The food par excellence for people of such stature would be bread, (compare Proverbs 17,1, "better dry bread than meat obtained in an environment of strife") Concerning the "second table," the substance required by the spiritual part of such men is the product of his good deeds. In the words of Isaiah 3,10, "hail the just man for he is well off; he shall eat the fruit of his works." The meaning is allegorical, just as in Psalms 128,2, "you who eat the fruit of your labours," namely the good deeds you have performed sustain you into the hereafter, into kingdom come. When the Lord provided Manna for the Jewish people in the desert, it had been hoped that everyone would qualify as belonging to the highest category of person outlined above. If that had been so, the physical part of the Manna would have sustained the reduced needs of their bodies. Since the quality of that food was such that it could be completely assimilated by their bodies, none of it having to be excreted, only a small' quantity would have been needed. The spiritual part of their personalities would have been sustained by the many lessons to be learned from the composition, the quantity, the manner of delivery, by the time at which the Manna was to be gathered etc. The fact that G-d did provide meat in answer to the request of the Jewish people, but in a manner much less gracious than the way in which the Manna was provided, leads one to believe that the supply of the quail was a one time occurrence. It was merely meant to demonstrate that it was indeed G-d who had taken the people of Israel out of Egypt, not Moses and Aaron, as the Israelites had been complaining. The very fact that the people are once more reported as having demanded meat, (Numbers 11,4) proves that meat had not been part of their diet all along. Further proof that meat was a exceptional provision, lies in the fact that it came unaccompanied by such ordinances as the manner in which it had to be slaughtered, specific quantities for each person, how long it could be preserved etc., all details that had been spelled out about the Manna. When the Torah talks about "bread," and uses Manna as proof that "man does not live by bread alone, but by all that issues from the mouth of the Lord," (Deut.8,3) bread is a synomym for nourishment, and the lesson is that nourishment of a physical kind is solely for our physical parts, (elevated man category three) Observance of the instructions (motza pee hashem ) accompanying such food are the nourishment for our spiritual part. It will be shown that this too was the nature of the food supplied to Adam in the garden of Eden.

Aristotle, in his Ethics describes the difference between animalistic life and human life as the difference between life governed wholly by the senses and life governed by a combination of the senses and the intellect. The former, being governed wholly by his senses, may, when hungry, eat something poisonous because its sense of hunger dominates it. Man, when in possession of his intellect, would first examine the food to ensure it is wholesome. When man ignores his intellect, he becomes beast-like, a slave to his instincts. Such surrender to his senses hastens his ultimate destiny, death. When the mating urge overcomes an animal, it will mate with the first available mate, irrespective of compatibility. Humans, when guided by their intellects, would display circumspection when choosing mates as life partners.