ייִדישער מחשבֿה אויף מלאכי 1:8

Reflecting the high standard of Israel, the opening Midrash described the disease as epilepsy, a temporary affliction, of brief duration. The remedy quoted, the kami-a, amulet, is considered spiritual in nature, not something organic, (in Talmudic and Midrashic parlance) This suggests that the aberration had been brief, subject to prompt correction by proper spiritual orientation. Angels achieve their shleymut, perfection, by means of a single expression, i.e. experience. (Daniel 4,14), whereas man requires two expressions, i.e. experiences. The first was "let Us make man in Our image," at the time man was being created. The second expression, a further stage leading to complete perfection was the revelation at Mount Sinai. Hopefully, the two experiences between them will achieve mankind's refinement, and convert our potential into the actual achievement of the finest our species is capable of.

Of these two kinds of offerings, the freewill offering is more pleasing, as alluded to in the Midrash quoted at the opening of this chapter. Noach thanked G'd for having saved him. This is like when we recite the benediction hagomel, after having been bypassed by some danger. We are told that Noach had found favour in the eyes of G'd, but G'd had not found favour. Ezekiel 14,14, tells us that even if the generation that he describes would have a Noach amongst them, none would be saved. (Bereshit Rabbah 31) Noach's offering insured though that a repetition of the deluge would never recur, since he had found the key to atonement for all future generations by offering this thanksgiving offering. It was the people of Israel however, who were commanded to offer the daily offerings, (Numbers chapter 28 ) the objective being le-hakriv lee "to achieve closeness with Me,” something that goes beyond the mere attainment of atonement. It is this closeness that the prophet in our opening Midrash envisions. The proliferation of sacrifices in the days of Solomon was pleasing to G'd, since those sacrifices represented the desire to achieve close communion with G'd. The reason that the "days of Noach" are mentioned in the same breath, is to show that also that type of offering is acceptable. The reason that these daily communal offerings of the Jewish people are primarily referred to as olah, is that they are me-ulleh, the highest, most advanced form of offering that exists. If the prophet also mentions ki-yemey olam, a reference to the dawn of history, he may refer to the pleasing aspects of the sacrifice brought by Hevel, who was certainly not inspired by the need for atonement, sin not having been part of man's general lifestyle in those days. If G'd, on the other hand, rejected the offering of Kayin, this proves that the latter's motivation had been of a lower order. The priests, as the recipients of part of the offerimgs, are the intermediaries, conduits between man and his Creator. The killing of the animal in the sanctuary or at least on consecrated ground, is a natural pre-condition for achieving closeness with G'd. The various paragraphs seem to follow one another in a natural order. The Torah starts with the olah, representing what man, at his noblest, altruistic intention wishes to offer, i.e. himself. The Torah emphasises "from you an offering," not "an offering from you." This alludes to the underlying intention. Though the actual sacrifice consists of sheep or cattle, it will be considered as if you had offered yourself. There follow the various regulations connected with the olah offering. We are told which animals are suitable, plus the fact that a "gift offering" must accompany such an olah. This latter is to be of the finest grade of flour etc This too has nothing to do with sin. Next comes the "peace offering," the motivation for which is also unrelated to sin. Only after the list of the most pleasing kinds of offerings has been exhausted, does the Torah list the various sin offerings, whose purpose is the expiation of wrongdoing, though they expiate in the main for unintentional wrongdoing. Here the order commences with a sin committed by the High Priest, followed by the sacrifice appropriate for the error committed by the entire nation. This is to show that the same par, bull, that fulfils the function of expiating for the representative of the nation, also performs that function for ordinary citizens. This is followed by the he-goat which serves as sin offering from the Prince, the temporal authority, followed by the same he- goat serving a sin offering for sins by ordinary individuals. Next we have the regulations about the asham, a sin offering covering a different type of sin. The common denominator of all these sacrifices is the need for semichah, the placing of the sinner's hands and weight on the respective animal prior to its being slaughtered. In this way, the "greatness," i.e. the attributes of man are transferred to the animal. We find that once Moses had placed his hands on Joshua, (Deut. 34,9) the people listened to Joshua, authority had been transferred. Just as power, authority, can be transferred by this means, one's weaknesses and inadequacies can be transferred in a like manner. Aaron is commanded to place his hands on the scapegoat, and immediately afterwards the Torah tells us that the second he-goat carried all the guilts of the Jewish people. (Leviticus chapter 16) Obviously, this was not part of the act of sacrifice, since the he-goat, scapegoat, was not offered on the altar, but consigned to death in wild unfriendly country. The semichah declaration indicates that the donor fulfils the details of the instructions connected with the sacrificial rite, is free from blemish in this respect. We find that those who had overheard the blasphemer, (Leviticus 24,13-14) had to place their hands on him prior to his execution, thus transferring any guilt from them to him. They are stating symbolically "your blood is on your own head, not on ours." Since the sacrifice is to atone for unintentional sins, the donor must recite "I did not knowingly commit the sin for which this animal is to expiate." After the Torah has dealt with the purpose of each individual sacrifice, it turns its attention to what parts of the animal can serve as compensation for the priest who is charged with performing the sacrificial service.

I understand the sequence as follows: Because of its just having been stated that the Blessed One despises sacrificial mounds because the Emorites loved them — although He loved them before — we might get the impression that just as we reject what they espouse, we should espouse what they reject. And since they do not sacrifice an animal with a missing limb, as explained in tractate Avodah Zarah (5b), we should not reject such animals, but we should reject those blemishes which they do not reject and not reject those which they do. Therefore, the Torah tells us that this is not so, that we are forbidden to sacrifice to the Blessed L-rd any animal that has a blemish or any defect of any kind whatsoever. And the reason follows (Ibid): "for it is an abomination to the L-rd your G-d." That is, all of the other things banned by the Torah to keep us from emulating their deeds are not such things forbearance from which will demean Divine service, but sacrificing a defective animal to the L-rd will demean this service, as it is written (Malachi 1:8): "Offer it now to your governor. Will he be pleased with you, or will he show favor to you?"