Comentários de Citação sobre Gênesis 4:5

Echad Mi Yodea and Chad Gadya are brought at the end of the Haggadah to explain the similarities and differences between matters of the body and matters of the soul. The soul is the divine aspect of the human being which originates in the the Divine One.⁹⁴Yechido shel Olam means literally the Unique One of the world. The soul continues to branch out and spread forth until it again finds its wholeness in the Divine One. The physical body is different. Matters of the body have their roots in the evil inclination “which is evil from its youth,” (Gen. 8:21) and for whom, “sin couches at the door.” (Gen. 4:5) Only though its many activities does it find the ability to repair itself in the Holy One.

מן הבהמה, if he chooses to offer a 4-legged mammal, it must only be from either the category of cattle or sheep and goats. Wild roaming, undomesticated beasts, are not permitted to be offered as sacrifices on the altar. This needed to be spelled out as we were taught in Deuteronomy 14,4-5 that the wild roaming beasts with the distinguishing features that make them “pure” animals are permitted for consumption by Israelites provided they have been slaughtered in the appropriate manner. The animals discussed in these portions as candidates for sacrifices are only the ones mentioned in our verse here, i.e. בקר or צאן. The Torah indicates that such voluntary offerings as are under discussion at this time may even be offered by gentiles and accepted on the altar of the Temple or Tabernacle. When Leviticus 22,25 proscribes offerings tendered by the בני נכר what are meant are not gentiles but Jews who have become estranged to their G’d, have renounced their religion and become meshumadim. These are far worse that gentiles born as such, and that is why G’d rejects their voluntary offerings on His altar. Included are Jews who publicly desecrate the Sabbath. [Eyruvin 69 states that desecrating the Sabbath publicly is equivalent to violating all of G’d’s commandments. Ed.] There are three categories of offerings which may sometimes be voluntary and other times mandatory. These comprise the burnt-offering, עולה, the peace-offering, שלמים, and the gift-offering (non-animal) מנחה. When they are offered by the poor i.e. bird offerings, only pigeons and turtle doves qualify among all the birds. Complementary offerings known as סולת-שמן-לבונה are also part of voluntary offerings on occasion. The sin offerings חטאת and אשם are invariably mandatory offerings. This helps to explain the offerings of Hevel and Kayin and why the offering of Kayin was not accepted by G’d. (Genesis 4,5) It consisted of material which G’d had not designated as fit to be offered as a gift to Him. The Torah did not simply state that G’d did not turn to Kayin, but that “He did not turn to Kayin and His gift.” In other words, the reason He did not accept Kayin’s offering was that it consisted of matter rejected by G’d as unfit to be an offering to Him. On the other hand, when Noach offered a sacrifice G’d responded not only by accepting it, without further ado, but He reacted to it as if it were the most pleasant smelling fragrance, ריח ניחוח, although burnt flesh and fat most certainly does not exude a pleasant fragrance. What the Torah meant to say there (Genesis 8,21) was that G’d accepted the parts of the offering which were fit to please Him as if it were sweet smelling fragrance. (as a result of that offering not only did G’d promise never to bring another deluge, but He permitted man to kill animals for food, something that had been forbidden since Adam’s sin or earlier). Interestingly, the Torah does not say that G’d accepted all of Noach’s offerings, presumably seeing that some pure animals that were of the free roaming category are not acceptable although these animals are fit to be eaten by Jews, and all the more so by gentiles such as Noach. (the author speaks about this in Genesis 8,21 claiming that prior to the giving of the Torah all of the species of “pure” animals were fit as sacrifices.) In connection with the sin offerings it is mandatory for the person trying to obtain forgiveness by means of such mandatory offerings to place his hands on the animal with all his weight, as if attacking it, and praying that it be accepted as a substitute of his own person. Each individual’s sin offering possesses an element of what we are familiar with from the legislation concerning the communal “scapegoat” upon which the High Priest placed his hands, symbolically transferring the many sins of the Jewish people to that animal. (Leviticus 16,21) By means of this symbolic act, the humility with which the owner of the sin offering is to approach G’d prior to gaining a chance of acceptance and forgiveness, has been demonstrated. As a result, ונרצה לו לכפר עליו, “G’d will be in a mood to forgive such a person.” Seeing that there are so many different kinds of sin, some of which are merely sinful thoughts, not involving sinful deeds, it is appropriate to ask G’d’s forgiveness also for such sinful thoughts. This is best accomplished as a by product of the voluntary burnt offering called עולה by the Torah, an offering of which the priests only receive the skin and hair of the animal. The burning of the fat parts of the animal or the parallel fistful of flour and oil of the gift offering מנחה, which is burnt on the altar, are the instruments that bring about this atonement for sinful thoughts. Obtaining forgiveness for sinful deeds (all of them committed inadvertently, of course) other parts of the bodies of the offerings presented as חטאת or אשם, “sin offering or guilt offering,” are required. Peace offerings, שלמים, on the other hand, are viewed (based on Tzefaniah 3,9) as if the owner joins, becomes a partner with the angels, he and they serving their Lord jointly.

וישע AND HE HAD REGARD— and He turned to; similarly in the next verse “He had no respect for his offering” means, “He did not turn to it.” Similarly, (Isaiah 17:8) ולא ישעה אל המזבחות which means “And he shall not turn towards the altars”; so also (Job 14:6) שעה מעליו “turn away from him” — disregard him.

ואל ישעו בדברי שקר AND LET THEM NOT REGARD VAIN WORDS — let them not think and speak always about “words of wind” saying, “Let us go and sacrifice”. Of similar meaning is, (Psalm 119:117) “And I will speak of (ואשעה ב־) thy statutes continually”. The phrase (Deuteronomy 28:37) למשל ולשנינה “[thou shalt become] a proverb and a byword” we translate in the Targum by “a topic of conversation (שועי)”, and the word ויספר (Genesis 24:66) “and he related” by ואשתעי “and he spoke about”. One cannot possibly say that the word ישעו has the same meaning as the verbs in (Genesis 4:4) “And the Lord turned (וישע) to Abel” and in (Genesis 4:4) “but to Cain and his offering he did not turn (שעה)”, and that we must translate אל ישעו by “Let them not turn”, for if this were so Scripture should have written אל דברי שקר or לדברי שקר (instead of בדברי) for so is the construction in all such cases. Examples are: (Isaiah 17:7) “A man shall turn to (ישעה אל) his Maker”; (Isaiah 17:8) “and he shall not turn to (ישעה על) the altars”; (Isaiah 31:1) “they turn not unto (שעו על) the Holy One of Israel”. I do not find the construction of a ב following these verbs in the sense of “turning to”, but after an expression of דבר “speaking” — as when one intently directs his conversation upon a matter — the construction with כ is quite an appropriate one. For instance: (Ezekiel 33:30) “those who intently direct their conversation (הנדברים) upon thee (בך)”; (Numbers 12:1) “And Miriam and Aaron directed their speech (ותדבר) upon Moses (במשה)”; (Zechariah 4:1) “And the angel who directed his conversaion (הדובר) upon me (בי)”; (Deuteronomy 11:9) “To turn your conversation (לדבר) intently upon them (בם)”; (Psalm 119:46) “And I will direct my speech (אדברה) upon thy testimonies (בעדותיך)”. So, too, here: ואל ישעו בדברי שקר means “let them not always be conversing about vain and idle matters”.