בְּאֵ֣ין אֲ֭לָפִים אֵב֣וּס בָּ֑ר וְרָב־תְּ֝בוּא֗וֹת בְּכֹ֣חַ שֽׁוֹר׃
Onde não há bois, a manjedoura está vazia; mas pela força do boi há abundância de colheitas.
Rabbeinu Bahya
A Midrashic approach: the word לראות, “to see,” means “to see and to be seen.” We read in verse six: ויצא חמור אבי שכם אל יעקב לדבר אתו, Chamor the father of Shechem went out to Yaakov to speak with him.” About this the Tanchuma 7 Vayishlach writes: He said to him: ‘I know that your grandfather Avraham was a prince as the Hittites had acclaimed him as: “you are a prince in our midst” (23,6). I, however, am a prince in the land also. Give the daughter of a prince to a prince (my son) as a wife.” Upon hearing this Yaakov replied: “The title ‘prince’ is applicable only to a שור, ox” (not to a donkey, meaning of the name Chamor.) The Torah had written that Avraham ran to the cattle, (ox) (18,7) and it is written in Proverbs 14,4: ורב תבואות בכח שור, “a bountiful harvest is due to the strength of the ox.” An ox and a donkey cannot mate together. The Torah writes expressly: “you shall not plough with an ox and a donkey together.” In the Book of Prophets (Kings II 14,9) we find the following statement: “The thistle in Lebanon sent the following message to the cedar in Lebanon. ‘give your daughter to my son in marriage.’ But a wild beast in Lebanon went by and trampled down the thistle.” The wild beasts in that parable are the sons of Yaakov who have been compared to wild beasts. In the blessings bestowed on Yaakov’s sons by their father, Yehudah is compared to a lion (49,9); Dan is compared to a snake (49,17); Binyamin is compared to a wolf (49,27); Naftali to a gazelle (49,21). When the Book of Kings spoke about the wild beasts trampling the thistle, the reference was to the sons of Yaakov Shimon and Levi killing the male inhabitants of Shechem. The prophet Hoseah also complains about a similar occurrence in Hoseah 6,9 where he wrote about what would happen to the people of Shechem in his own time because they encouraged depravity. The people would be murdered because they had been guilty of sexual misconduct.
Rabbeinu Bahya
ואין פותר אותם לפרעה, “there was no one who could interpret them to Pharaoh.” According to a Midrash, Pharaoh had dreamt both the dream and the interpretation but had forgotten the interpretation. The professional dream interpreters in his kingdom suggested that the seven cows and seven ears of corn referred to seven daughters Pharaoh would sire and subsequently bury. We have reason to wonder why these great wise men of Egypt were unable to come up with a better or even the true interpretation of Pharaoh’s dream. An unprejudiced layman would be able to see at a glance that the subject matter of the dream(s) was seven years of abundance followed by seven years of starvation. Clearly, the cows symbolised the ploughing, seeing that the Egyptians used the cows to pull the ploughs, whereas the ears of corn clearly symbolised the harvest that would materialise as a result of the ploughing. We have a verse in Proverbs 14,4 that “a bountiful harvest is due to the strength of the ox.” The failure of Pharaoh’s advisors was all part of G’d’s plan to arrange for Joseph to be elevated to high status. This is why G’d used this opportunity to “turn sages back and make nonsense of their wisdom” (Isaiah 44,25). In Isaiah 19,11 the same prophet recalled this event when he said: “utter fools are the nobles of Tanis; the sagest of Pharaoh’s advisers have made absurd predictions.” The prophet made the point that only through G’d’s intervention could these normally sagacious individuals fail so utterly in recognising what was before their eyes. Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 89,6 used this incident to explain the meaning of Proverbs 14,6: “a scoffer seeks wisdom in vain; but knowledge comes easily to him who is understanding.” The scoffer referred to by Solomon is Pharaoh, whereas the easily acquired knowledge is a reference to Joseph.
Rabbeinu Bahya
In the third section of Moreh Nevuchim chapter 32, item 47 Maimonides writes concerning the reason behind the animal sacrifice legislation that the Torah wanted to uproot pagan practices amongst the Jewish people and that by sublimating the animal sacrifice ritual this could be achieved. The most important part of the legislation was that instead of sacrifices of living creatures being offered to idolatrous forces in temples dedicated to forces of nature, the Jew would learn to dedicate all he had to dedicate to the one and only G’d. The idolaters had imagined that by what they were doing they could reinforce the power of their respective horoscopes by offering their sacrifices to them and that in turn their horoscopes would bestow their largess upon them or at least protect them against harmful influences.
When the Egyptians worshipped the image of a sheep they did so in the knowledge that the horoscope of the sheep was of great influence in the celestial regions. They felt that the blessings bestowed on earth by means of flocks originated with that zodiac sign. It was generally perceived that essential food products such as milk, butter, etc., were all the “gift” of zodiac signs in the celestial regions. If the Egyptians did not want to be shepherds (compare Genesis 46,34), this was because they felt that acting as if they owned their “gods” was an insult to these gods who they perceived of as being the providers of their essential foodstuffs.
What applied to the Egyptians and their sheep applied to the Chaldaens and their attitude to cattle. They perceived the zodiac sign of the ox to be the source responsible for their food-supply. As a result they forbade that cattle be slaughtered, and abstained from eating beef. Indians still cling to such beliefs today and do not slaughter cows, (hence the expression “holy cow.”) This is why G’d commanded that just these species be sacrificed to G’d. This is why the Torah commenced the section dealing with animal sacrifice by referring to a person’s desire to offer מן הבקר ומן הצאן, “from the cattle or the flock” (1,2). The Torah wanted to let us know that these species were considered as so important in determining the fates of the heathens of those days. Henceforth, these very species would be featured in obtaining forgiveness for the trespasses committed by the Jewish people unintentionally. Faulty philosophies, i.e. religious beliefs, can be forgiven only when one reverses course. By dedicating the very thing one used to dedicate to idolatrous causes to a sacred cause approved by G’d, or better still, commanded by G’d, atonement for one’s former errors becomes possible. Diseases of the body are healed, i.e. reversed, when the balance of the body is restored by the person suffering from the disease reversing course, i.e. negating intake of what brought on the disease, etc. The same is true for spiritual imbalances which resulted in idolatrous philosophies. The Torah’s principal concern is the combating of false philosophies, false perceptions of who rules the universe and who has created it. This is why such sacrifices became “a fire-offering of pleasant odour to the Lord.” When the people unite in order to serve the Lord instead of idols, they thereby strengthen the unity of G’d. Idolatry, by definition, is the opposite of unity, in particular of the concept of the unity of G’d. This is the approach of Maimonides and his followers to the subject of animal sacrifice.
However much one might be tempted to accept Maimonides’ theory, the fact remains that righteous people long before the Torah had been given were in the habit of offering animal sacrifices not to idols- but to the one and only G’d. All of this preceded the times when idolatrous practices were introduced. Adam offered animal sacrifices (Chulin 60); Hevel, his son, also offered sheep, i.e. animal sacrifices (Genesis 4,4). Noach and his sons offered numerous animal sacrifices as thanksgiving after the deluge from which they had been saved (Genesis 8,21). G’d is on record as responding to these sacrifices by describing them as ריח ניחוח, “pleasant smelling odour.” All this occurred long before there were any Egyptians or Chaldaens.
When the Egyptians worshipped the image of a sheep they did so in the knowledge that the horoscope of the sheep was of great influence in the celestial regions. They felt that the blessings bestowed on earth by means of flocks originated with that zodiac sign. It was generally perceived that essential food products such as milk, butter, etc., were all the “gift” of zodiac signs in the celestial regions. If the Egyptians did not want to be shepherds (compare Genesis 46,34), this was because they felt that acting as if they owned their “gods” was an insult to these gods who they perceived of as being the providers of their essential foodstuffs.
What applied to the Egyptians and their sheep applied to the Chaldaens and their attitude to cattle. They perceived the zodiac sign of the ox to be the source responsible for their food-supply. As a result they forbade that cattle be slaughtered, and abstained from eating beef. Indians still cling to such beliefs today and do not slaughter cows, (hence the expression “holy cow.”) This is why G’d commanded that just these species be sacrificed to G’d. This is why the Torah commenced the section dealing with animal sacrifice by referring to a person’s desire to offer מן הבקר ומן הצאן, “from the cattle or the flock” (1,2). The Torah wanted to let us know that these species were considered as so important in determining the fates of the heathens of those days. Henceforth, these very species would be featured in obtaining forgiveness for the trespasses committed by the Jewish people unintentionally. Faulty philosophies, i.e. religious beliefs, can be forgiven only when one reverses course. By dedicating the very thing one used to dedicate to idolatrous causes to a sacred cause approved by G’d, or better still, commanded by G’d, atonement for one’s former errors becomes possible. Diseases of the body are healed, i.e. reversed, when the balance of the body is restored by the person suffering from the disease reversing course, i.e. negating intake of what brought on the disease, etc. The same is true for spiritual imbalances which resulted in idolatrous philosophies. The Torah’s principal concern is the combating of false philosophies, false perceptions of who rules the universe and who has created it. This is why such sacrifices became “a fire-offering of pleasant odour to the Lord.” When the people unite in order to serve the Lord instead of idols, they thereby strengthen the unity of G’d. Idolatry, by definition, is the opposite of unity, in particular of the concept of the unity of G’d. This is the approach of Maimonides and his followers to the subject of animal sacrifice.
However much one might be tempted to accept Maimonides’ theory, the fact remains that righteous people long before the Torah had been given were in the habit of offering animal sacrifices not to idols- but to the one and only G’d. All of this preceded the times when idolatrous practices were introduced. Adam offered animal sacrifices (Chulin 60); Hevel, his son, also offered sheep, i.e. animal sacrifices (Genesis 4,4). Noach and his sons offered numerous animal sacrifices as thanksgiving after the deluge from which they had been saved (Genesis 8,21). G’d is on record as responding to these sacrifices by describing them as ריח ניחוח, “pleasant smelling odour.” All this occurred long before there were any Egyptians or Chaldaens.