וְכִ֧י תִזְבְּח֛וּ זֶ֥בַח שְׁלָמִ֖ים לַיהוָ֑ה לִֽרְצֹנְכֶ֖ם תִּזְבָּחֻֽהוּ׃
At kapag naghandog kayo sa Walang-Hanggan ng handog pangkapayapaan, ihandog ninyo ito upang kayo ay maging kalugud-lugod sa Kanya.
Kol Dodi Dofek
When a miracle does not find its appropriate echo in actual deeds, a lofty vision dissipates and is squandered, whereupon Divine Justice indicts the ungrateful recipient of the miracle. “The Holy One sought to make Hezekiah the Messiah and Sennacherib, Gog of Armageddon. However, God’s Justice said to Him … ‘Hezekiah, for whom You wrought all these miracles, did not sing in praise before You. Shall You make him Messiah?”.5 Then comes distress, the hour of misery. Suffering is the final warning given by Providence to the man, who is devoid of gratitude for the good God has done for him. To the final proclamation that issues forth from suffering, one must react quickly and answer the call of the Almighty, who cries out to him, “Where are you?” (Genesis 3:9). Judaism has been very careful about not missing the appointed hour. It has a very sensitive time awareness; any delay is considered sinful. Man may sometimes lose his entire world for but one sin — that of tarrying. “But he lingered” (Genesis 19:16). What is the sin of leaving over a sacrifice, if not missing the appointed hour (Leviticus 19:5–8)? What is the desecration of the Sabbath, if not the performing of prohibited actions one second after the setting of the sun — work that just one second before was permitted? How does the loss of the ability to perform a mitzvah occur if not for the tarrying of a few moments, such as reciting the passages of the Shema after its appointed hour or the taking of the Lulav and Etrog after sunset, and the like? Two kings of Israel, both equally the anointed of the Lord and heroes of the nation, sinned, repented fully, and confessed. One God did not absolve; the other was immediately forgiven upon his confession. With regard to Saul, God acted in accordance with the demands of strict justice and tore the kingdom from him. With respect to David, He tempered justice with mercy and his dynasty was not wrested from his children. Why was the Holy One so strict with Saul and compassionate with David? The question does not require special analysis. The answer is quite simple. David did not miss the opportunity and immediately confessed his sin; Saul tarried a bit, and for this delay kingship was wrested from him. When Nathan the prophet came to David and uttered his cry, “You are the man!” (II Samuel 12:7), David, in the blinking of an eye, began his confession. “And David said to Nathan, I have sinned against the Lord” (II Samuel 12:13). After he heard Samuel’s reprimand, Saul wasted one precious second, a second “more precious than gold and pearls” (Proverbs 20:15). “And why did you not listen to the command of God but instead went after the booty?” (I Samuel 15:19). Saul began to argue with the prophet and only later confessed: “And Saul [initially] said to Samuel: ‘Indeed I have done what God has commanded me to do, and I have gone along the path in which the Lord has sent me’" (I Samuel 15:20). Indeed, in that confrontation, [after a moment’s reflection] he also confessed his sins out of a broken heart and a tempest-tossed spirit. “And Saul said … ‘I have sinned, for I transgressed God’s command and your instructions’" (I Samuel 15:24). But this confession was not timely, and a momentary lag such as this caused Saul to lose his kingdom. By the time Saul confessed, the decree was already sealed and the opportunity was lost. “The Lord has rent the kingdom of Israel from you” (I Samuel 15:28). If Saul had not missed the proper moment, and had he not been among the laggards, his dynasty would have continued.6
For the Perplexed of the Generation
The sacrifices, however, certainly the entire time that the ethical state of humanity necessitates them or to become straightened by it, to use it for its material needs in the killing of animals, it is proper to be used for a better purpose, which is to teach the inner recognition of the obligation to be grateful to the good God, and that should be through the sacrifice of animals. Additionally, perhaps it will continue even in this era, and the ethical values will be carried until the [concept of eating] flesh of any life will be revolting. However, the idea of the existence of the attribute [of God] of [divine] judgment and the use of cruelty in the world, is proper for them to be found certainly in whatever era, to guard the spiritual state of man, so that he won’t fall lower through the evil deeds of those who stumble in social ethics. (Isaiah 65:20) “The sinner who is 100 years old will be cursed.” Therefore, the concept of sacrifices will impact anyway the one involved in that idea, [internalizing in him] that there is still [the concept of] the attribute of [divine] judgment in this world. However, when their status becomes loftier, to a most exalted fashion, where no preservation is needed at all any longer, then certainly the great Sanhedrin that will adjourn in that place that God will choose, they will delve into the Torah whether it’s possible to [still] sacrifice then to God all living things, [at a time] when no one will be able to desire it in any way because of their ethical awareness, and it says, (Leviticus 19:5, Leviticus 22:29) “According to your will should you sacrifice.” And once it will be impossible for there to be willingness [to sacrifice] in any perfected person, certainly the Great Bet Din will have the power to switch animal sacrifices to vegetable offerings, and on this that final testimony stated, (Malachi 3:4) “Then shall the offering of (minchat) Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant to God,” precisely an offering (mincha), and not a sacrifice (zevach). And our sages say about this, (Leviticus Rabbah 9:6) “All sacrifices will become nullified, but the thanksgiving offering will not become nullified”, [because it] is made up of bread which is the great fundamental about it. Obviously, it is impossible to define the specifics of that era, in which the power of authority will only be [given] to the Great Bet Din in that place God will choose. Anything they will decree in the explanation of the Torah and its boundaries, whether through the “reason of the verse” (taama d'kra), or whether it is through finding support from the Torah (asmachta), once the opinion of the Great Bet Din is unanimous, that is the complete Torah. Someone who disagrees with [their rulings] is a “rebellious elder” (zaken mamre). There will be no sin that will be as despicable as that at the time of perfection.
Sefer Yesodei HaTorah
There was yet another benefit in the individual offerings, namely, aside from the portion adverting to the Cohanim, also what was left to the owners had to be eaten in company with others. For they were not permitted to leave anything over of it until the morrow or against the third day. Nor was it permitted to salt the flesh of the sacrifice and to bring it to their houses outside of Jerusalem and eat it with their families. And one who paid his vow to the L-rd for His lovingkindess to him was obliged to include others also in his rejoicing, so that he was bound in ties of affection with people he had never known, or, at least benefited the poor and needy from his repast. Therefore, immediately after (Vayikra 19:5-8) "And when you sacrifice a sacrifice of peace-offerings to the L-rd … On the day of your sacrifice shall it be eaten and on the morrow … And if it be eaten on the third day … its eater shall bear his sin" — immediately after there follows another mitzvah which seems to be entirely unrelated to what precedes, viz. (Ibid. 9-10) "And when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not end off the corner of your field … to the poor man and to the stranger shall you leave them." This, because the mitzvah of eating the sacrifice for one or two days is similar to that of leaving peah (the corner) in the field, the intent of both being charity and lovingkindness.