וַיִּרְאֻ֨הוּ בְנֵֽי־הַנְּבִיאִ֤ים אֲשֶׁר־בִּֽירִיחוֹ֙ מִנֶּ֔גֶד וַיֹּ֣אמְר֔וּ נָ֛חָה ר֥וּחַ אֵלִיָּ֖הוּ עַל־אֱלִישָׁ֑ע וַיָּבֹ֙אוּ֙ לִקְרָאת֔וֹ וַיִּשְׁתַּחֲווּ־ל֖וֹ אָֽרְצָה׃
At nakita siya ng mga anak ng mga propeta na nasa Jerico mula sa tapat, at sinabi nila: “Ang espiritu ni Elias ay nananahan kay Eliseo.” At lumapit sila upang salubungin siya, at yumukod sila sa kanya hanggang sa lupa.
Rashi
A wife of one of the disciples of the prophets. She was the wife of Ovadyoh. Every expression of ‘בְּנֵי הַנְּבִיאִים’ [lit., “the sons of the prophets”], in Scripture, is translated [by Targum Yonoson] as, “the disciples of the prophets.”1See Targum above 2:3, 2:7 and 2:15.
Ramban
A BURNT-OFFERING. “[He shall burn it] with the intention that it should be a burnt-offering [and not an offering of another category]. ‘ISHEIH’ (A FIRE-OFFERING). When he slaughters it he should slaughter it with the intention of [burning it by] fire, [as will be explained further on]. Wherever the word isheih occurs, it is an expression of fire. PLEASING — it is pleasing to Me that I have commanded and My will was done.” This is the language of Rashi.
Now the Rabbi did not explain what is meant by “the intention of [burning it by] fire.” In the Gemara102Zebachim 46b. the Rabbis have said: “this is to exclude kabobo, which may not be done.” Now the commentators103Rashi ibid. explained this to mean that he should slaughter it with the intention of placing it on flames burning the pile of wood upon the altar, and not of placing it upon dying coals which are in the process of being extinguished. To me it appears that the intention he needs to have is that the fire should burn it completely, and not that it should just be roasted there a little, the word kabobo being similar to the expression of the Rabbis in the chapter entitled “A stubborn and rebellious son: ”104Sanhedrin 70a. “k’basar kiba (like partly-roasted meat) which thieves eat.” In Tractate Erubin we also find:105Erubin 29b. “v’nichbeiv (let him roast it) and eat it.” Now some books have a reading in Tractate Zebachim:102Zebachim 46b. “this is to exclude gabobo (straw), which may not be done.” Accordingly the meaning thereof is that he should have the intention to put it on a fire of wood, as it is written, on the wood that is on the fire,106Verse 12. and he should not intend to put it upon a fire made of stubble and straw, similar to that which we have been taught [in a Mishnah]:107Shabbath 36b. “If a double-stove had been heated with stubble and gabobo.”
Now this verse mentions a reason for the offerings, namely, that they are a fire-offering, of a pleasing odor unto the Eternal. The Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] wrote in the Moreh Nebuchim108Guide of the Perplexed III, 46. that the reason for the offerings is because the Egyptians and the Chaldeans in whose lands the children of Israel were strangers and sojourners, used always to worship the herd and the flock, the Egyptians worshipping the sheep and the Chaldeans worshipping the demons whom they imagined as assuming the form of goats. To this day men of India never slaughter the herd. It was for this reason that He commanded [Israel] to slaughter these three species [of cattle: the herd, the flock, and the goats], to the Revered Name, so that it be known that the very act which the idol-worshippers considered to be the utmost sin [i.e., slaughtering the above species], that same act should be done as an offering before the Creator, and through it Israel’s sins would be forgiven. For such is the way to cure people of false beliefs, which are the diseasees of the human soul, for all diseases and sicknesses are healed by medicines which are antithetical to them. These are the words [the Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon], and he expounded them at great length.
But these words are mere expressions, healing casually a severe wound109See Jeremiah 6:14. and a great difficulty, and making the table of the Eternal polluted,110Malachi 1:12. [as if the offerings were intended only] to remove false beliefs from the hearts of the wicked and fools of the world, when Scripture says that they are the food of the offering made by fire, for a pleasing odor.111Further, 3:16. Moreover, [if the offerings were meant to eliminate] the foolish [ideas] of the Egyptians, their disease would not thereby be cured. On the contrary, it would increase the cause of sorrow, for since the intention of the above-mentioned wicked ones was to worship the constellations of the sheep and the ox, which according to their opinion possess certain powers [over human affairs], and which is why they abstain from eating them in deference to their power and strength, then if these species are slaughtered to the Revered Name, it is a mark of respect and honor to [these constellations]. These worshippers themselves were in the habit of so doing, as He has said, And they shall no more sacrifice their sacrifices unto the satyrs,112Ibid., 17:7. and those who made the [golden] calf sacrificed to it.113Exodus 32:8. — In other words, despite the Torah commanding that these three animal species, [the herd, the flock, and the goats] should be offered up to G-d, idol-worshippers, who had other forms of deities, could still consider these offerings to be marks of honor to their own particular foolishness, as is evidenced by the fact that they used to sacrifice herd and flock to the goats, or to the calf! Thus how could the offerings specified in the Torah be a cure against all idols? This is the gist of Ramban’s argument. It is more readily understood in the light of Ramban’s explanation on the development of idolatry in Exodus Chapter 20, Verse 3, which indicates that the early idolators believed in a Supreme G-d. See also further, Note 117. Now the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] mentions108Guide of the Perplexed III, 46. that the idol-worshippers used to sacrifice to the moon on the days of new-moon, and to the sun when it rose in a particular constellation known to them from their books. The disease of idolatry would surely have been far better cured if we were to eat [these animal-deities] to our full, which would be considered by them forbidden and repugnant, and something they would never do!
Furthermore, when Noah came out of the ark with his three sons, there were as yet no Chaldeans or Egyptians in the world, yet he brought an offering, which was pleasing to G-d, as concerning it Scripture says, And the Eternal smelled the pleasing odor,114Genesis 8:21. and on account of it He said in His heart, ‘I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake.’114Genesis 8:21. Abel likewise brought of the first-born of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Eternal had regard unto Abel and to his offering.115Ibid., 4:4. Yet there was as yet not the slightest trace at all of idol-worship in the world! Balaam said, ‘I have prepared the seven altars, and I have offered up a bullock and a ram on every altar.’116Numbers 23:4. His intent117I.e., G-d’s intent. In other words, the fact that Balaam who was not commanded by the laws of the Torah, brought offerings of the herd and the flock, shows that G-d’s intent in commanding Israel that the offerings be brought from the three animal species was not to cure people of these evil idolatrous beliefs, as Balaam was not commanded therein. then was not to eradicate from [Balak’s mind] evil beliefs, nor was he commanded to bring the offerings. Instead, Balaam did so in order to approach G-d so that he would be reached by His communication. The Scriptural expression concerning the offerings is, My food which is presented unto Me for offerings made by fire, for a pleasing odor unto Me.118Numbers 28:2. Far be it that they should have no other purpose and intention except the elimination of idolatrous opinions from the minds of fools!119This concludes Ramban’s array of arguments against Rambam’s rationale of the offerings. It is important to point out that many great authors came to Rambam’s defense, as there are many Scriptural and Rabbinical sources which seem to confirm his opinion, and the questions Ramban raised have been answered by them. A summary of them will be found in my Hebrew commentary, pp. 11-12. See there also for the unique approach of Rabbi Meir Simcha in harmonizing the theories of both Rambam and Ramban.
It is far more fitting to accept the reason for the offerings which scholars120The reference is to Ibn Ezra. This is clearly apparent in Ramban’s language in his sermon called Torath Hashem Temimah, where he writes: “Now the opinion of Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra on the matter of the offerings is that they are an atonement for the soul. The explanation of the matter on the basis of his opinion is that the offerings …” (Kithvei Haramban, Vol. I, p. 164). It is thus clear that what follows is Ramban’s interpretation of the way he understood Ibn Ezra’s thought. This explains why the following exposition is not found verbatim in Ibn Ezra’s writings. See my Hebrew commentary (beginning with the third edition, p. 532). say, namely that since man’s deeds are accomplished through thought, speech and action, therefore G-d commanded that when man sins and brings an offering, he should lay his hands upon it in contrast to the [evil] deed [committed]. He should confess his sin verbally in contrast to his [evil] speech, and he should burn the inwards and the kidneys [of the offering] in fire because they are the instruments of thought and desire in the human being. He should burn the legs [of the offering] since they correspond to the hands and feet of a person, which do all his work. He should sprinkle the blood upon the altar, which is analogous to the blood in his body. All these acts are performed in order that when they are done, a person should realize that he has sinned against his G-d with his body and his soul, and that “his” blood should really be spilled and “his” body burned, were it not for the loving-kindness of the Creator, Who took from him a substitute and a ransom, namely this offering, so that its blood should be in place of his blood, its life in place of his life, and that the chief limbs of the offering should be in place of the chief parts of his body. The portions [given from the sin-offering to the priests], are in order to support the teachers of the Torah, so that they pray on his behalf. The reason for the Daily public Offering is that it is impossible for the public [as a whole] to continually avoid sin. Now these are words which are worthy to be accepted, appealing to the heart as do words of Agadah.73The Agadah (homily) comprises all subjects in Rabbinical literature which do not aim directly at the exposition of the laws of the Torah, but which teach and edify on all subjects concerning the Torah. The Agadic literature is contained primarily in the Midrashim, as well as in the Talmud. It would appear that Ramban uses the term Agadah here in contradistinction to the Torath Kohanim previously mentioned, which is primarily a book of Halachah (law). There in the Torath Kohanim the purpose of the burnt-offering is as explained above; in the Agadah — in Vayikra Rabbah — it is assigned another purpose, as explained further on.
By way of the Truth, [the mystic teachings of the Cabala], there is a hidden secret contained in the offerings. You may be introduced to it by that which our Rabbis have said in the Sifre121Sifre, Pinchas 143. — The Sifre is the Tannaitic Midrash on the Books of Numbers and Deuteronomy. It is equivalent to the Torath Kohanim [or Sifra] on the Book of Leviticus, and the Mechilta on the Book of Exodus. and at the end of Tractate Menachoth:122Menachoth 110a. “Shimon ben Azai said: Come and see what is written in the section of the offerings! It does not say with reference to them E-il (G-d), nor Elokecha (thy G-d), nor Elokim (G-d), nor Sha-dai (Almighty), nor Tze-baoth (G-d of ‘Hosts’), but only, Yod Hei — the Proper name of G-d [the Tetragrammaton — ‘Eternal’] — in order not to give an opponent [i.e., a believer in plurality] an occasion for a point of attack.123“They will bring proof from the fact that a deity with such-and-such a name commanded that the meal-offering be brought to him, and a deity of another name commanded that the bullocks [be offered to him], and a deity of a third name commanded that the ram [be offered to him]” (Rashi ibid.), — In his work on the Torah “Meshech Chochmah” (at the beginning of Seder Shoftim) Rabbi Meir Simchah explains the intent of Shimon ben Azai’s words in the following pertinent way: “It is known that the name Elokim means Master of all (natural) forces, or the Force of forces (see Ramban, Vol. I, p. 25). Hence if the name Elokim or E-il had been used in the section of the offerings it would have given an opportunity to the opponents [of the belief in the true Unity of G-d] that He is in need of food [i.e., in need of replenishing His powers]. Therefore only the Tetragrammaton is used in this whole section in order to indicate that His Existence is the only true Existence, and that everything exists only through His true Existence, for they are all in need of Him, but He is not in need of them nor of any of them.” Perhaps you might say that He is in need of food, Scripture therefore says, If I were hungry, I would not tell thee; for the world is Mine, and the fullness thereof.124Psalms 50:12. I have only commanded you to bring the offerings in order that My Will should be said and fulfilled.” In the beginning of Torath Kohanim we also find:125Torath Kohanim, Vayikra 2:5. “Rabbi Yosei says: Wherever an offering is mentioned by Scripture, the Tetragrammaton is used, in order not to give an opportunity for heretics to rebel” [by finding pluralistic allusions against the principle of Unity]. These are the words of the Rabbis of blessed memory.
Now it is true that in the section of the Torah where the offerings are commanded it does not say E-il or Elokim (G-d). But we do find [elsewhere in Scripture] verses as follows: and thou shalt offer burnt-offerings thereon unto the Eternal ‘Elokecha’ (thy G-d);126Deuteronomy 27:6. the bread of ‘Elokeihem’ (their G-d), they do offer;127Further, 21:6. thou shalt sanctify him [the priest], for he offereth the bread of ‘Elokecha’ (thy G-d).128Ibid., Verse 8. In the psalm mentioned above it is written, Offer unto ‘Elokim’ (G-d) the offering of thanksgiving.129Psalms 50:14. It is further written: For our fathers have acted treacherously, and done that which was evil in the sight of the Eternal our G-d, and have forsaken Him … Also they have closed the doors of the porch, and put out the lamps, and have not burned incense nor offered burnt-offerings in the holy place unto ‘Elokei’ (the G-d of) Israel.130II Chronicles 29:6-7. Here too the Name Elokei Yisrael (the G-d of Israel) is used in connection with the burnt-offering, instead of the Proper Divine Name.
But the whole subject is explained in the Torah [itself], as it is said, My offering, My bread ‘l’ishai’ (for My fire-offerings),131Numbers 28:2. — The word l’ishai [vowelled with a patach] means, “for My ishim — fires,” as alluded to further on. See also my Hebrew commentary, p. 13. and it is said, the food of ‘isheh’ (the fire offering),132Further, 3:11. meaning that the offerings are the food of isheh, and from it they are for the ishim — the word isheh being an expression for “fire.” Now Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote that isheih is an adjectival noun, meaning “a fire-offering,” qualifying the word “all” [and the priest shall cause ‘all’ to ascend in fumes];133The verse reads: and the priest shall cause ‘hakol’ (all) to ascend in fumes on the altar ‘olah’, (a burnt-offering) ‘isheih’ … Now the word isheih which is in the masculine, is the adjective to the word hakol which is also in the masculine, and not to the word olah which is in the feminine. and in the case of the meal-offering where it says, and the priest shall cause to ascend in fumes the memorial-portion of it upon the altar, ‘isheih’ (a fire-offering), of a pleasing odor unto the Eternal,134Further, 2:2. [the word isheih] is adjectival to the word kometz [“handful” — mentioned in the first part of the verse]. But this is not so. Rather, the word isheih is a noun like eish (fire), and olah isheih [mentioned in Verse 9 before us] is like olath eish (a burnt-offering of fire), of a pleasing odor unto the Eternal, and so are all similar expressions, their meaning being like lechem isheh (the food of the fire-offering).135Ibid., 3:11. In other words, although here in Verse 9 it is stated isheih, and so also in many other places, the word is yet to be understood as isheh, which is surely a noun and not an adjectival noun (as Ibn Ezra explained it). The reason, however, why He did not say eish but said isheih [comprised of the letters: alef, shin, hei] is [to allude to] the plain meaning thereof, as it hath been shown thee in the mount136Exodus 27:8. — See here my Hebrew commentary, p. 13. at the Giving of the Torah, which refers to the offering in the attribute of justice. The slaughtering [of the offering] must be to the Name of the Eternal alone, meaning that [he who slaughters it] must have no intention to do so to anything else in the world, save unto the Name of the Eternal only, this being the meaning of the expression ‘olah hu … isheh hu’ (it is a burnt-offering … a fire-offering)…137Further, 8:21. The word olah (burnt-offering) also means “ascending” — thus alluding to its ascension to the highest emanation. Hence the expression, it is an ‘olah’ unto the Eternal … That is why the verse says, For the ‘ishei’ (fire-offerings) of the Eternal, the bread of their G-d, they offer, and they shall be holy,138Further, 21:6. for the offering of their G-d is unto the ‘ishei of the Eternal; and therefore the Rabbis have said122Menachoth 110a. that in [the sections of the Torah giving] the commands for the offerings, it does not mention E-il or Elokim (G-d),139These Names represent the attribute of justice. The Tetragrammaton [“the Eternal”] represents the attribute of mercy. but a fire-offering unto the Eternal,140Further, 2:16, etc. a pleasing odor unto the Eternal,141Here in Verse 9, etc. for the intention must be unto the Eternal alone, and he who performs the acts of offering it up should have no other intent or thought save only to the Proper Name [i.e., the Tetragrammaton]. This is the sense of the saying of the Sages:142Sanhedrin 60b. “Scripture has ordered all these Services to be devoted to the Proper Name.”
And in the Torath Kohanim143Torath Kohanim, Vayikra 4:6 (end of chapter). it is said: “Unto the Eternal — unto Him Who created the world.” It is this which the psalm states: Offer unto G-d the offering of thanksgiving, and pay thy vows unto the Most High;129Psalms 50:14. For the Eternal is the Most High, Fearful, a Great King over all the earth.144Psalms 47:3. The vow [to bring the offering] may also only be taken unto the Proper Name. It is this which the psalm states, G-d, thy G-d, am I. I will not reprove thee for thy offerings,145Ibid., 50:7-8. Ramban is here suggesting that the first Name Elokim is here like the Proper Name — “the Eternal” (Ma’or V’shamesh). This is obvious from the following words of Ramban. just as He said, I am the Eternal thy G-d.146Exodus 20:2. This is the sense of the whole psalm wherein it says, ‘E-il Elokim Hashem’ (G-d, G-d, the Eternal) hath spoken, and called the earth etc.,147Psalms 50:1. using the full Divine Name148G-d, the Eternal spoke. (On “the full Divine Name” see in Vol. I, p. 66). in reference to the world,149The verse there continues: and He called the earth from the rising of the sun unto the going down thereof. and mentioning therein the offerings. It is with reference to this too that it is said [speaking of the offerings], They shall come up with acceptance on Mine altar, and I will glorify My glorious house,150Isaiah 60:7. meaning to say that the offerings shall be brought for acceptance, which is upon His altar, and He will then glorify His glorious house when they go up for a pleasing odor, the word nicho’ach (pleasing) being derived from the expressions: ‘nachah’ (there rests) the spirit of Elijah on Elisha;151II Kings 2:15. ‘vatanach’ (and there rested) the spirit upon them.152Numbers 11:26. Likewise all terms of korban (offering) [from the root ‘karav’, near] are expressions of approaching, and unity. Therefore, it says, Nor did they offer burnt-offerings in the holy place unto the G-d of Israel,153II Chronicles 29:7. See Note 130 above. for the burnt-offering in the holy place is to the G-d of Israel. The angel taught Manoah the concept of the offerings when he said, Though thou detain me, I will not eat of thy bread,154Judges 13:16. meaning that if Manoah were to make him food he would not accept it from him, as it would be unfit and an offering which is an abomination to G-d. But if thou wilt make ready a burnt-offering, unto G-d alone thou must offer it.154Judges 13:16. Then will it be for acceptance as the fire-offerings of the Eternal, as indeed the angel of the Eternal ascended in the flame of the altar.155Ibid., 20. Thus is the subject [of the offerings] explained and clarified. May the good Lord pardon!156II Chronicles 30:18. See also Vol. I, p. 437, Note 275. — The idea suggested here by Ramban is that in order to disprove certain erroneous explanations about the offerings, he had to resort to discuss openly some of the mystic teachings of the Cabala. Hence his prayer for forgiveness.
Now the Rabbi did not explain what is meant by “the intention of [burning it by] fire.” In the Gemara102Zebachim 46b. the Rabbis have said: “this is to exclude kabobo, which may not be done.” Now the commentators103Rashi ibid. explained this to mean that he should slaughter it with the intention of placing it on flames burning the pile of wood upon the altar, and not of placing it upon dying coals which are in the process of being extinguished. To me it appears that the intention he needs to have is that the fire should burn it completely, and not that it should just be roasted there a little, the word kabobo being similar to the expression of the Rabbis in the chapter entitled “A stubborn and rebellious son: ”104Sanhedrin 70a. “k’basar kiba (like partly-roasted meat) which thieves eat.” In Tractate Erubin we also find:105Erubin 29b. “v’nichbeiv (let him roast it) and eat it.” Now some books have a reading in Tractate Zebachim:102Zebachim 46b. “this is to exclude gabobo (straw), which may not be done.” Accordingly the meaning thereof is that he should have the intention to put it on a fire of wood, as it is written, on the wood that is on the fire,106Verse 12. and he should not intend to put it upon a fire made of stubble and straw, similar to that which we have been taught [in a Mishnah]:107Shabbath 36b. “If a double-stove had been heated with stubble and gabobo.”
Now this verse mentions a reason for the offerings, namely, that they are a fire-offering, of a pleasing odor unto the Eternal. The Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] wrote in the Moreh Nebuchim108Guide of the Perplexed III, 46. that the reason for the offerings is because the Egyptians and the Chaldeans in whose lands the children of Israel were strangers and sojourners, used always to worship the herd and the flock, the Egyptians worshipping the sheep and the Chaldeans worshipping the demons whom they imagined as assuming the form of goats. To this day men of India never slaughter the herd. It was for this reason that He commanded [Israel] to slaughter these three species [of cattle: the herd, the flock, and the goats], to the Revered Name, so that it be known that the very act which the idol-worshippers considered to be the utmost sin [i.e., slaughtering the above species], that same act should be done as an offering before the Creator, and through it Israel’s sins would be forgiven. For such is the way to cure people of false beliefs, which are the diseasees of the human soul, for all diseases and sicknesses are healed by medicines which are antithetical to them. These are the words [the Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon], and he expounded them at great length.
But these words are mere expressions, healing casually a severe wound109See Jeremiah 6:14. and a great difficulty, and making the table of the Eternal polluted,110Malachi 1:12. [as if the offerings were intended only] to remove false beliefs from the hearts of the wicked and fools of the world, when Scripture says that they are the food of the offering made by fire, for a pleasing odor.111Further, 3:16. Moreover, [if the offerings were meant to eliminate] the foolish [ideas] of the Egyptians, their disease would not thereby be cured. On the contrary, it would increase the cause of sorrow, for since the intention of the above-mentioned wicked ones was to worship the constellations of the sheep and the ox, which according to their opinion possess certain powers [over human affairs], and which is why they abstain from eating them in deference to their power and strength, then if these species are slaughtered to the Revered Name, it is a mark of respect and honor to [these constellations]. These worshippers themselves were in the habit of so doing, as He has said, And they shall no more sacrifice their sacrifices unto the satyrs,112Ibid., 17:7. and those who made the [golden] calf sacrificed to it.113Exodus 32:8. — In other words, despite the Torah commanding that these three animal species, [the herd, the flock, and the goats] should be offered up to G-d, idol-worshippers, who had other forms of deities, could still consider these offerings to be marks of honor to their own particular foolishness, as is evidenced by the fact that they used to sacrifice herd and flock to the goats, or to the calf! Thus how could the offerings specified in the Torah be a cure against all idols? This is the gist of Ramban’s argument. It is more readily understood in the light of Ramban’s explanation on the development of idolatry in Exodus Chapter 20, Verse 3, which indicates that the early idolators believed in a Supreme G-d. See also further, Note 117. Now the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] mentions108Guide of the Perplexed III, 46. that the idol-worshippers used to sacrifice to the moon on the days of new-moon, and to the sun when it rose in a particular constellation known to them from their books. The disease of idolatry would surely have been far better cured if we were to eat [these animal-deities] to our full, which would be considered by them forbidden and repugnant, and something they would never do!
Furthermore, when Noah came out of the ark with his three sons, there were as yet no Chaldeans or Egyptians in the world, yet he brought an offering, which was pleasing to G-d, as concerning it Scripture says, And the Eternal smelled the pleasing odor,114Genesis 8:21. and on account of it He said in His heart, ‘I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake.’114Genesis 8:21. Abel likewise brought of the first-born of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Eternal had regard unto Abel and to his offering.115Ibid., 4:4. Yet there was as yet not the slightest trace at all of idol-worship in the world! Balaam said, ‘I have prepared the seven altars, and I have offered up a bullock and a ram on every altar.’116Numbers 23:4. His intent117I.e., G-d’s intent. In other words, the fact that Balaam who was not commanded by the laws of the Torah, brought offerings of the herd and the flock, shows that G-d’s intent in commanding Israel that the offerings be brought from the three animal species was not to cure people of these evil idolatrous beliefs, as Balaam was not commanded therein. then was not to eradicate from [Balak’s mind] evil beliefs, nor was he commanded to bring the offerings. Instead, Balaam did so in order to approach G-d so that he would be reached by His communication. The Scriptural expression concerning the offerings is, My food which is presented unto Me for offerings made by fire, for a pleasing odor unto Me.118Numbers 28:2. Far be it that they should have no other purpose and intention except the elimination of idolatrous opinions from the minds of fools!119This concludes Ramban’s array of arguments against Rambam’s rationale of the offerings. It is important to point out that many great authors came to Rambam’s defense, as there are many Scriptural and Rabbinical sources which seem to confirm his opinion, and the questions Ramban raised have been answered by them. A summary of them will be found in my Hebrew commentary, pp. 11-12. See there also for the unique approach of Rabbi Meir Simcha in harmonizing the theories of both Rambam and Ramban.
It is far more fitting to accept the reason for the offerings which scholars120The reference is to Ibn Ezra. This is clearly apparent in Ramban’s language in his sermon called Torath Hashem Temimah, where he writes: “Now the opinion of Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra on the matter of the offerings is that they are an atonement for the soul. The explanation of the matter on the basis of his opinion is that the offerings …” (Kithvei Haramban, Vol. I, p. 164). It is thus clear that what follows is Ramban’s interpretation of the way he understood Ibn Ezra’s thought. This explains why the following exposition is not found verbatim in Ibn Ezra’s writings. See my Hebrew commentary (beginning with the third edition, p. 532). say, namely that since man’s deeds are accomplished through thought, speech and action, therefore G-d commanded that when man sins and brings an offering, he should lay his hands upon it in contrast to the [evil] deed [committed]. He should confess his sin verbally in contrast to his [evil] speech, and he should burn the inwards and the kidneys [of the offering] in fire because they are the instruments of thought and desire in the human being. He should burn the legs [of the offering] since they correspond to the hands and feet of a person, which do all his work. He should sprinkle the blood upon the altar, which is analogous to the blood in his body. All these acts are performed in order that when they are done, a person should realize that he has sinned against his G-d with his body and his soul, and that “his” blood should really be spilled and “his” body burned, were it not for the loving-kindness of the Creator, Who took from him a substitute and a ransom, namely this offering, so that its blood should be in place of his blood, its life in place of his life, and that the chief limbs of the offering should be in place of the chief parts of his body. The portions [given from the sin-offering to the priests], are in order to support the teachers of the Torah, so that they pray on his behalf. The reason for the Daily public Offering is that it is impossible for the public [as a whole] to continually avoid sin. Now these are words which are worthy to be accepted, appealing to the heart as do words of Agadah.73The Agadah (homily) comprises all subjects in Rabbinical literature which do not aim directly at the exposition of the laws of the Torah, but which teach and edify on all subjects concerning the Torah. The Agadic literature is contained primarily in the Midrashim, as well as in the Talmud. It would appear that Ramban uses the term Agadah here in contradistinction to the Torath Kohanim previously mentioned, which is primarily a book of Halachah (law). There in the Torath Kohanim the purpose of the burnt-offering is as explained above; in the Agadah — in Vayikra Rabbah — it is assigned another purpose, as explained further on.
By way of the Truth, [the mystic teachings of the Cabala], there is a hidden secret contained in the offerings. You may be introduced to it by that which our Rabbis have said in the Sifre121Sifre, Pinchas 143. — The Sifre is the Tannaitic Midrash on the Books of Numbers and Deuteronomy. It is equivalent to the Torath Kohanim [or Sifra] on the Book of Leviticus, and the Mechilta on the Book of Exodus. and at the end of Tractate Menachoth:122Menachoth 110a. “Shimon ben Azai said: Come and see what is written in the section of the offerings! It does not say with reference to them E-il (G-d), nor Elokecha (thy G-d), nor Elokim (G-d), nor Sha-dai (Almighty), nor Tze-baoth (G-d of ‘Hosts’), but only, Yod Hei — the Proper name of G-d [the Tetragrammaton — ‘Eternal’] — in order not to give an opponent [i.e., a believer in plurality] an occasion for a point of attack.123“They will bring proof from the fact that a deity with such-and-such a name commanded that the meal-offering be brought to him, and a deity of another name commanded that the bullocks [be offered to him], and a deity of a third name commanded that the ram [be offered to him]” (Rashi ibid.), — In his work on the Torah “Meshech Chochmah” (at the beginning of Seder Shoftim) Rabbi Meir Simchah explains the intent of Shimon ben Azai’s words in the following pertinent way: “It is known that the name Elokim means Master of all (natural) forces, or the Force of forces (see Ramban, Vol. I, p. 25). Hence if the name Elokim or E-il had been used in the section of the offerings it would have given an opportunity to the opponents [of the belief in the true Unity of G-d] that He is in need of food [i.e., in need of replenishing His powers]. Therefore only the Tetragrammaton is used in this whole section in order to indicate that His Existence is the only true Existence, and that everything exists only through His true Existence, for they are all in need of Him, but He is not in need of them nor of any of them.” Perhaps you might say that He is in need of food, Scripture therefore says, If I were hungry, I would not tell thee; for the world is Mine, and the fullness thereof.124Psalms 50:12. I have only commanded you to bring the offerings in order that My Will should be said and fulfilled.” In the beginning of Torath Kohanim we also find:125Torath Kohanim, Vayikra 2:5. “Rabbi Yosei says: Wherever an offering is mentioned by Scripture, the Tetragrammaton is used, in order not to give an opportunity for heretics to rebel” [by finding pluralistic allusions against the principle of Unity]. These are the words of the Rabbis of blessed memory.
Now it is true that in the section of the Torah where the offerings are commanded it does not say E-il or Elokim (G-d). But we do find [elsewhere in Scripture] verses as follows: and thou shalt offer burnt-offerings thereon unto the Eternal ‘Elokecha’ (thy G-d);126Deuteronomy 27:6. the bread of ‘Elokeihem’ (their G-d), they do offer;127Further, 21:6. thou shalt sanctify him [the priest], for he offereth the bread of ‘Elokecha’ (thy G-d).128Ibid., Verse 8. In the psalm mentioned above it is written, Offer unto ‘Elokim’ (G-d) the offering of thanksgiving.129Psalms 50:14. It is further written: For our fathers have acted treacherously, and done that which was evil in the sight of the Eternal our G-d, and have forsaken Him … Also they have closed the doors of the porch, and put out the lamps, and have not burned incense nor offered burnt-offerings in the holy place unto ‘Elokei’ (the G-d of) Israel.130II Chronicles 29:6-7. Here too the Name Elokei Yisrael (the G-d of Israel) is used in connection with the burnt-offering, instead of the Proper Divine Name.
But the whole subject is explained in the Torah [itself], as it is said, My offering, My bread ‘l’ishai’ (for My fire-offerings),131Numbers 28:2. — The word l’ishai [vowelled with a patach] means, “for My ishim — fires,” as alluded to further on. See also my Hebrew commentary, p. 13. and it is said, the food of ‘isheh’ (the fire offering),132Further, 3:11. meaning that the offerings are the food of isheh, and from it they are for the ishim — the word isheh being an expression for “fire.” Now Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote that isheih is an adjectival noun, meaning “a fire-offering,” qualifying the word “all” [and the priest shall cause ‘all’ to ascend in fumes];133The verse reads: and the priest shall cause ‘hakol’ (all) to ascend in fumes on the altar ‘olah’, (a burnt-offering) ‘isheih’ … Now the word isheih which is in the masculine, is the adjective to the word hakol which is also in the masculine, and not to the word olah which is in the feminine. and in the case of the meal-offering where it says, and the priest shall cause to ascend in fumes the memorial-portion of it upon the altar, ‘isheih’ (a fire-offering), of a pleasing odor unto the Eternal,134Further, 2:2. [the word isheih] is adjectival to the word kometz [“handful” — mentioned in the first part of the verse]. But this is not so. Rather, the word isheih is a noun like eish (fire), and olah isheih [mentioned in Verse 9 before us] is like olath eish (a burnt-offering of fire), of a pleasing odor unto the Eternal, and so are all similar expressions, their meaning being like lechem isheh (the food of the fire-offering).135Ibid., 3:11. In other words, although here in Verse 9 it is stated isheih, and so also in many other places, the word is yet to be understood as isheh, which is surely a noun and not an adjectival noun (as Ibn Ezra explained it). The reason, however, why He did not say eish but said isheih [comprised of the letters: alef, shin, hei] is [to allude to] the plain meaning thereof, as it hath been shown thee in the mount136Exodus 27:8. — See here my Hebrew commentary, p. 13. at the Giving of the Torah, which refers to the offering in the attribute of justice. The slaughtering [of the offering] must be to the Name of the Eternal alone, meaning that [he who slaughters it] must have no intention to do so to anything else in the world, save unto the Name of the Eternal only, this being the meaning of the expression ‘olah hu … isheh hu’ (it is a burnt-offering … a fire-offering)…137Further, 8:21. The word olah (burnt-offering) also means “ascending” — thus alluding to its ascension to the highest emanation. Hence the expression, it is an ‘olah’ unto the Eternal … That is why the verse says, For the ‘ishei’ (fire-offerings) of the Eternal, the bread of their G-d, they offer, and they shall be holy,138Further, 21:6. for the offering of their G-d is unto the ‘ishei of the Eternal; and therefore the Rabbis have said122Menachoth 110a. that in [the sections of the Torah giving] the commands for the offerings, it does not mention E-il or Elokim (G-d),139These Names represent the attribute of justice. The Tetragrammaton [“the Eternal”] represents the attribute of mercy. but a fire-offering unto the Eternal,140Further, 2:16, etc. a pleasing odor unto the Eternal,141Here in Verse 9, etc. for the intention must be unto the Eternal alone, and he who performs the acts of offering it up should have no other intent or thought save only to the Proper Name [i.e., the Tetragrammaton]. This is the sense of the saying of the Sages:142Sanhedrin 60b. “Scripture has ordered all these Services to be devoted to the Proper Name.”
And in the Torath Kohanim143Torath Kohanim, Vayikra 4:6 (end of chapter). it is said: “Unto the Eternal — unto Him Who created the world.” It is this which the psalm states: Offer unto G-d the offering of thanksgiving, and pay thy vows unto the Most High;129Psalms 50:14. For the Eternal is the Most High, Fearful, a Great King over all the earth.144Psalms 47:3. The vow [to bring the offering] may also only be taken unto the Proper Name. It is this which the psalm states, G-d, thy G-d, am I. I will not reprove thee for thy offerings,145Ibid., 50:7-8. Ramban is here suggesting that the first Name Elokim is here like the Proper Name — “the Eternal” (Ma’or V’shamesh). This is obvious from the following words of Ramban. just as He said, I am the Eternal thy G-d.146Exodus 20:2. This is the sense of the whole psalm wherein it says, ‘E-il Elokim Hashem’ (G-d, G-d, the Eternal) hath spoken, and called the earth etc.,147Psalms 50:1. using the full Divine Name148G-d, the Eternal spoke. (On “the full Divine Name” see in Vol. I, p. 66). in reference to the world,149The verse there continues: and He called the earth from the rising of the sun unto the going down thereof. and mentioning therein the offerings. It is with reference to this too that it is said [speaking of the offerings], They shall come up with acceptance on Mine altar, and I will glorify My glorious house,150Isaiah 60:7. meaning to say that the offerings shall be brought for acceptance, which is upon His altar, and He will then glorify His glorious house when they go up for a pleasing odor, the word nicho’ach (pleasing) being derived from the expressions: ‘nachah’ (there rests) the spirit of Elijah on Elisha;151II Kings 2:15. ‘vatanach’ (and there rested) the spirit upon them.152Numbers 11:26. Likewise all terms of korban (offering) [from the root ‘karav’, near] are expressions of approaching, and unity. Therefore, it says, Nor did they offer burnt-offerings in the holy place unto the G-d of Israel,153II Chronicles 29:7. See Note 130 above. for the burnt-offering in the holy place is to the G-d of Israel. The angel taught Manoah the concept of the offerings when he said, Though thou detain me, I will not eat of thy bread,154Judges 13:16. meaning that if Manoah were to make him food he would not accept it from him, as it would be unfit and an offering which is an abomination to G-d. But if thou wilt make ready a burnt-offering, unto G-d alone thou must offer it.154Judges 13:16. Then will it be for acceptance as the fire-offerings of the Eternal, as indeed the angel of the Eternal ascended in the flame of the altar.155Ibid., 20. Thus is the subject [of the offerings] explained and clarified. May the good Lord pardon!156II Chronicles 30:18. See also Vol. I, p. 437, Note 275. — The idea suggested here by Ramban is that in order to disprove certain erroneous explanations about the offerings, he had to resort to discuss openly some of the mystic teachings of the Cabala. Hence his prayer for forgiveness.
Rabbeinu Bahya
A kabbalistic approach sees in the word קרבן itself an allusion to G’d’s Unity. The word suggests that all of G’d’s various attributes are very close to one another just as His names are very close to each other, all part of One Unity. Anyone offering a sacrifice thereby reinforces this fabric of G’d’s Unity. This is the mystical dimension of the words והקטיר הכהן את הכל המזבחה, “that the priest will ensure that the All will be going up in flames on the altar.” The additional letter ה at the end of the word המזבחה does not wish to confuse us but is meant to explain a concept. That letter represents the final letter ה in the tetragram and as such it symbolises the attribute which “receives.” It is therefore also called מזבח. From this altar ideas rise higher and higher until in the course of their “rising” they become progressively more purified, end up as מחשבה טהורה, pure thoughts. We find similar constructions both in Chronicles II 29,27 where King Chiskiyah instructed the priests to offer burnt-offerings not למזבח but להמזבח, the extra letter ה alluding to the same concept as in our verse. Another example of this concept is found in Psalms 20,4 where David speaks about the ashes of the gift-offerings being received by G’d; he says ידשנה instead of ידשן, the extra letter ה conveying the same idea as the letter ה at the end of the word המזבחה in our verse. [In his chapter on כנויים, the meanings of well-known words or terms, the author of Pardes Rimonim defines the word קרבן as another word for the Shechinah seeing that the function of the Shechinah is to gather together all the “threads” and emanations so that after being gathered together they form a unity, i.e. demonstrate that they did not exist as independent ideas, entities, but all originate in the same whole. This may make the author’s words easier to understand. Ed.]
In our verse the Torah describes the result of the sacrificial rites being performed as עולה, אשה ריח ניחוח. The word עולה describes the smoke from the burned up parts of the animal rising heavenwards as far as the region represented by the letter ה in the word המזבחה which we just mentioned. Having reached that level, this very letter ה (i.e. what it represents) helps that offering to rise ever higher into the celestial regions. Once the smoke has ceased rising, the meat turns into fire; this is why the Torah added the description אשה, “a fire-offering” to the word עולה, “a burnt-offering,” which rises into celestial regions. Once the fire has burned itself out also, the whole becomes רוח spiritualised in the form of ריח, something that can neither be seen anymore, felt anymore, but can only be perceived by our sense of smell. This spirit is to “pull” the goodwill and the outpouring of it to earth via the attribute of Mercy.
The whole expression ריח ניחוח לה' may be perceived as related to the word נחה, “came to rest, settled.” We find that in the discussion between the prophet Elijah with his disciple Elisha who had balked at accepting the mantle of prophecy from Elijah unless the latter endowed him with twice as much רוח, spirit, as that possessed by his master Elijah, that the Book of Kings (II 2,15 relates that Elisha’s wish was granted and that this spirit came to rest on him. In a similar way the objective of the עולה--אשה--ריח ניחוח is to result in the desired divine qualities being bestowed on those who offer the sacrifice (and the whole people in the case of a public offering).
In Torat Kohanim Sifra Vayikra 1,59 the words עולה--אשה--ריח ניחוח are explained as follows: עולה לשם עולה, אשה לשם אשים,לשם ריח ניחוח, לשם נחת רוח לה', לשם מי שעשה את העולם. The meaning of this cryptic sentence is that the word עולה means that the person offering this sacrifice must intend that it reach the tenth emanation; however this does not mean it should be directed at, i.e. dedicated to that emanation. It means that from that region onwards the thoughts which prompted the offering will become capable of achieving their objective; from that region the offering will enter holy celestial domains.
The words אשה לשם אשים mean that the offering be addressed to both the “weaker” and the “stronger” attribute of Justice. The meaning is parallel to the Midrash which comments on the words קרבני לחמי “did you think I need the sacrifice as My food?” The meaning is that it should serve to assuage the “injured feelings” of the attribute of Justice; the sinner had offended that attribute by committing the sin which the sacrifice is to atone for. This is all part of G’d saying לאשי, “for My fires,” you bring it to these attributes of Mine. The emanation כבוד will receive the offering from the attribute פחד. We find a parallel statement in the Midrash Zutta on Song of Songs 1,15 on the words הנך יפה רעיתי, where the author interprets the word רעיתי as equivalent to פרנסתי, “My livelihood.” According to the Midrash, G’d said to Israel: “what you are presenting to Me in the form of fire-offerings I view as if it were intended to be My food, My livelihood.” This explains the addition of the letter ה at the end of the word, as normally the word “fire” is written as אש without the letter ה at the end. The letter ה in אשה is basically as superfluous as the letter ה in Psalms 8,8 צנה ואלפים כלם, “sheep and oxen all of them.” The word אשה meaning “woman” is alluded to by the Midrash in Song of Songs which perceives the Jewish people as being G’d’s “provider” by means of their sacrifices. The Midrash reads the word isheh as if the vowel under the letter ש had been a kametz, i.e. making the word into ishah, woman, provider for her husband. Another reason why the word is not spelled merely as אש is so as to draw our attention to the “fifth” emanation (from the tenth down) the emanation of גבורה also known as האש הגדולה, the “great (consuming) fire, the fiery attribute of Justice.” Compare Deut. 5,22 where the expression האש הגדולה occurs.
When the Torat Kohanim wrote the words ריח לשם ריח הניחוח, it meant that the Torah wants the person offering the sacrifice to concentrate on the heavenly source (seat of pure thoughts) from where all of G’d’s goodness is lavished on earth and G’d’s creatures. It is from that region that these intentions are drawn towards the attribute of Mercy and come to rest on there. [I believe that to sum up it is simpler to say that a sinner must first assuage the attribute of Justice before he can put the attribute of Mercy at ease. One cannot sin and by trying to bypass the attribute of Justice whom one has offended rely on the attribute of Mercy to deal with the attribute of Justice on our behalf instead of addressing it directly. Ed.]
Our verse concludes with the word לה' in order to indicate that in the final analysis the goal of the sin-offering is the attribute of Mercy, as unless that attribute were involved in interceding on our behalf no one could stand up to the attribute of Justice by himself. Torat Kohanim phrased this as “to the One who created the universe,” as without the existence of and active intervention by the attribute of Mercy the world such as we know it would not endure seeing man is so sinful. We know that already when G’d created the universe using the attribute of Justice, He decided to “co-opt” the attribute of Mercy in order to ensure that the universe would endure and not self-destruct (Bereshit Rabbah 12,15, see Rashi on Genesis 1,1).
In our verse the Torah describes the result of the sacrificial rites being performed as עולה, אשה ריח ניחוח. The word עולה describes the smoke from the burned up parts of the animal rising heavenwards as far as the region represented by the letter ה in the word המזבחה which we just mentioned. Having reached that level, this very letter ה (i.e. what it represents) helps that offering to rise ever higher into the celestial regions. Once the smoke has ceased rising, the meat turns into fire; this is why the Torah added the description אשה, “a fire-offering” to the word עולה, “a burnt-offering,” which rises into celestial regions. Once the fire has burned itself out also, the whole becomes רוח spiritualised in the form of ריח, something that can neither be seen anymore, felt anymore, but can only be perceived by our sense of smell. This spirit is to “pull” the goodwill and the outpouring of it to earth via the attribute of Mercy.
The whole expression ריח ניחוח לה' may be perceived as related to the word נחה, “came to rest, settled.” We find that in the discussion between the prophet Elijah with his disciple Elisha who had balked at accepting the mantle of prophecy from Elijah unless the latter endowed him with twice as much רוח, spirit, as that possessed by his master Elijah, that the Book of Kings (II 2,15 relates that Elisha’s wish was granted and that this spirit came to rest on him. In a similar way the objective of the עולה--אשה--ריח ניחוח is to result in the desired divine qualities being bestowed on those who offer the sacrifice (and the whole people in the case of a public offering).
In Torat Kohanim Sifra Vayikra 1,59 the words עולה--אשה--ריח ניחוח are explained as follows: עולה לשם עולה, אשה לשם אשים,לשם ריח ניחוח, לשם נחת רוח לה', לשם מי שעשה את העולם. The meaning of this cryptic sentence is that the word עולה means that the person offering this sacrifice must intend that it reach the tenth emanation; however this does not mean it should be directed at, i.e. dedicated to that emanation. It means that from that region onwards the thoughts which prompted the offering will become capable of achieving their objective; from that region the offering will enter holy celestial domains.
The words אשה לשם אשים mean that the offering be addressed to both the “weaker” and the “stronger” attribute of Justice. The meaning is parallel to the Midrash which comments on the words קרבני לחמי “did you think I need the sacrifice as My food?” The meaning is that it should serve to assuage the “injured feelings” of the attribute of Justice; the sinner had offended that attribute by committing the sin which the sacrifice is to atone for. This is all part of G’d saying לאשי, “for My fires,” you bring it to these attributes of Mine. The emanation כבוד will receive the offering from the attribute פחד. We find a parallel statement in the Midrash Zutta on Song of Songs 1,15 on the words הנך יפה רעיתי, where the author interprets the word רעיתי as equivalent to פרנסתי, “My livelihood.” According to the Midrash, G’d said to Israel: “what you are presenting to Me in the form of fire-offerings I view as if it were intended to be My food, My livelihood.” This explains the addition of the letter ה at the end of the word, as normally the word “fire” is written as אש without the letter ה at the end. The letter ה in אשה is basically as superfluous as the letter ה in Psalms 8,8 צנה ואלפים כלם, “sheep and oxen all of them.” The word אשה meaning “woman” is alluded to by the Midrash in Song of Songs which perceives the Jewish people as being G’d’s “provider” by means of their sacrifices. The Midrash reads the word isheh as if the vowel under the letter ש had been a kametz, i.e. making the word into ishah, woman, provider for her husband. Another reason why the word is not spelled merely as אש is so as to draw our attention to the “fifth” emanation (from the tenth down) the emanation of גבורה also known as האש הגדולה, the “great (consuming) fire, the fiery attribute of Justice.” Compare Deut. 5,22 where the expression האש הגדולה occurs.
When the Torat Kohanim wrote the words ריח לשם ריח הניחוח, it meant that the Torah wants the person offering the sacrifice to concentrate on the heavenly source (seat of pure thoughts) from where all of G’d’s goodness is lavished on earth and G’d’s creatures. It is from that region that these intentions are drawn towards the attribute of Mercy and come to rest on there. [I believe that to sum up it is simpler to say that a sinner must first assuage the attribute of Justice before he can put the attribute of Mercy at ease. One cannot sin and by trying to bypass the attribute of Justice whom one has offended rely on the attribute of Mercy to deal with the attribute of Justice on our behalf instead of addressing it directly. Ed.]
Our verse concludes with the word לה' in order to indicate that in the final analysis the goal of the sin-offering is the attribute of Mercy, as unless that attribute were involved in interceding on our behalf no one could stand up to the attribute of Justice by himself. Torat Kohanim phrased this as “to the One who created the universe,” as without the existence of and active intervention by the attribute of Mercy the world such as we know it would not endure seeing man is so sinful. We know that already when G’d created the universe using the attribute of Justice, He decided to “co-opt” the attribute of Mercy in order to ensure that the universe would endure and not self-destruct (Bereshit Rabbah 12,15, see Rashi on Genesis 1,1).
Rashi
The guards of the threshold. The thresholds of the [Temple] Court, [i.e.,] those in charge of the keys of the [Temple] Court,7Alternatively, these were the custodians of the Temple’s vessels.—Ralbag for [Targum] Yonoson rendered it as, “אֲמַרְכְּלַיָּא [=custodian of the keys],” and there were seven אֲמַרְכָּלִים, for the seven gates of the [Temple] Court. [This is stated in] Tosefta of [Maseches] Shekalim.82:15.