Vesna Adi (Paideia 2012-2013)

Written part of the assignment for the course Parashat Hashavua

Vayikra
Regulation of sacrificial laws discussed in Parashat Vayikra provided the commentators with a
good opportunity to address the issues of social justice and responsibility. They showed
compassion with the poor and proclaimed warnings for the rich and powerful. Nehama quotes
several comments which use the narrative of offerings to stress the necessity of high ethical
standards in leadership, ownership and commercial interactions. First of them refer to the very
beginning of parasha, Lev 1:2:

,


; -
,
1 And the LORD called unto
.


Moses, and spoke unto him out of

the tent of meeting, saying:

,,




,

-


--
,,
,



-
,

,,
-,


-,
,


-,

.,

-
,

2 Speak unto the children of

Israel, and say unto them: When
any man of you bringeth an
offering unto the LORD, ye shall
bring your offering of the cattle,
even of the herd or of the flock.

Rabbi Ephraim Solomon ben Haim of Lunshitz, author of Keli Yakar commentary (published in
the beginning of 17th century) 1 elaborates on Rashis comment of these verses2 to the point of
distortion, in order to launch the powerful social critique:
Rashi appears to imply that people are unlikely to steal an animal in order to offer it up as a
sacrifice. Only the foolish would commit a sin in order to perform a good deed, without
profiting from such a deed. However, a person may amass a fortune illicitly and spend a
fraction of it on charity or on a sacrifice, so as to legitimize the rest. Hence Rashis reference
to from robbery just part, not all, of what he has misappropriated. The Prophets
persistently denounced mans desire to enrich himself illicitly and ease his conscience by a

Nehama Leibowitz, New Studies in Bereshit (Genesis), Israel, World Zionist Organization 1993, page 579

Why does the Torah refer to Adam (translated Any man)? Just as Adam did not offer stolen property, for
everything belonged to him, so you, too, may not offer up stolen property. Quoted in: Nehama Leibowitz, New
Studies in Vayikra (Leviticus) Israel, World Zionist Organization 1993, page 26; its important to note that English
translation here conceals the original wording from robbery to which Ephraim of Lunshitz refers

donation, thus satisfying his greed and feeling righteous at the same time. Mans behavior
has, indeed, followed this pattern throughout the generations.3
The observation given above never lost its relevance. It refers to greedy people who gain their
wealth on other peoples expense and use the religious system to wash their hands from
immoral behavior. Through donating for a religious cause or in biblical context, through
offering a sacrifice - they tend to ease their consciousness, completely avoiding to face the ones
whose life they made miserable, through underpayment or any other kind of misappropriation.
As Lunshitz states in the quoted passage, the prophets tried to warn their people that mere
sacrifice is not enough and that it wont be accepted from God if its not supported by sincere
motives and proper moral conduct. I think its worth bringing here the examples of such interbiblical interpretation of the sacrifices, as well as holiday ceremonies to which Nehama points
out. Most quoted in this regard are Jeremiah 6:20 and 7:9-10

-








,

,,
,

;

.




- ,

20 To what purpose is to Me the

frankincense that cometh from Sheba, and
the sweet cane, from a far country? Your
burnt-offerings are not acceptable, nor your
sacrifices pleasing unto Me.

,,



,

;

--,


,

.,

-
,
,




,

-







,
--
,,


,

-

,

.

9 Will ye steal, murder, and commit

adultery, and swear falsely, and offer unto
Baal, and walk after other gods whom ye
have not known,
10 and come and stand before Me in this
house, whereupon My name is called, and
say: 'We are delivered', that ye may do all
these abominations?

as well as Isaiah 1:11-12

,

-
-




,
,; ,




,

,,

, ,
.

--


,

3

11 To what purpose is the multitude of your

sacrifices unto Me? saith the LORD; I am full
of the burnt-offerings of rams, and the fat of
fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of
bullocks, or of lambs, or of he-goats.
12 When ye come to appear before Me, who

Nehama Leibowitz, New Studies in Vayikra (Leviticus) Israel, World Zionist Organization 1993, page 27

 ,,


-
hath required this at your hand, to trample
.

My courts?
The message of the Prophets is clear all the sacrifices and Temple ceremonies are in vain if the
ones who offer them commit sins and do not care for each others well being. In the continuation
of Isaiahs prophecy (1:17), God states the necessary moral qualities that should accompany all
religious rituals:

,




17 Learn to do well; seek justice, relieve

,,
;

the oppressed, judge the fatherless,
{ } .


plead for the widow
This verse is particularly relevant for the point that I would like to make about this parasha,
because it mentions relieving the oppressed. Oppression is discussed in one of the verses from
Vayikra which refer to guilt offerings. Lev 5:21:

- ,,

.



-
, ,

21 If any one sin, and commit a trespass

against the LORD, and deal falsely with his
neighbour in a matter of deposit, or of
pledge, or of robbery, or have oppressed
his neighbour;

Concerning the interpretation of this passage Nehama quotes Bava Metzia 111a where an
explanations of the terms oshek (wronging or oppressing) and gezel (robbery) are given:
Which is oshek and which is gezel? R. Hisda said: Go and come again, go and come again
that is oshek; I have something that belongs to you, but I will not restore it to you this is
gezel.4
In continuation she states that according to another explanation, oshek concerns wages withheld
from a laborer.5 Therefore, commentators claim that Torah advocates righteous treatment and
payment for the workers. Sacrifice offered by a person who violates laborers rights does not
make any effect. Withheld wages, as well as any other kind of misappropriation have to be
annulled first, and only then can a worshiper proceed to the sacrifice. If the offering is brought
prior to the repayment of depths it does not count. Nehama quotes Bava Kamma 9:12 in this
regard:

Nehama Leibowitz, New Studies in Vayikra 56

Nehama Leibowitz, New Studies in Vayikra 57

He who made restitution before bringing his guilt-offering has complied with the law; he
who brought his guilt-offering before making restitution has not complied with the law.6
The transgressor has no excuses to avoid the restitution no matter how many troubles it can cause
him to find the damaged person in order to return the stolen property. In the earlier passage of
Bava Kamma, 9:5 it is stated:
If a man robbed his fellow of the value of a perutah, and swore falsely to him, he must take it to him
even as far as Media7

The description all the way to Media was interpreted in different ways, namely as the end of
the world or the dangerous country in which money is not valued, despite which the
transgressor has to risk his life and make the journey for the restitution. The most interesting
source that Nehama brings on this subject is the work of Israel Lipschitz, rabbi who was active in
the 19th century in the communities of Dessau and Danzig. Her quote is second hand:
according to Tiferet Yisrael, the Mishnah referred to Mediain order to emphasize that
even if the injured party is in an affluent country, where gold and silver are as plentiful as
stones, and he is not in need of the perutah, it must be restituted. The robbers act, besides
harming the injured party, likewise affects his own person, as it is written: If iniquity be in
thy hand, put it far away, and let not wickedness dwell in thy tents (Job 11:14)8
From this we can see that the purpose of the Law is not only to ensure that nobody gets injured
or impoverished so that society functions properly, but also to redeem the inner state of the
individual from sinful to righteous. Therefore, the transgressor should not take into consideration
if the damaged party urgently needs the restitution or can as well live without it. Ethics of the
ruling is not selective and everything which is stolen must be repaid regardless if the damaged
party is poor or he/she lives in abundance.
Although poverty was not deciding factor in the situation described, it nevertheless raised much
concerns and sympathies among the Torah commentators and interpreters. The second chapter of
Leviticus deals with the meal offerings (minha), which were generally seen as the offerings of
the poor people who could not afford sacrificial animals. The word used in Lev 2:1 for a man
who offers the sacrifice is nefesh:

--


,


-
, 1 And when any one bringeth a
, ,,



;


,
meal-offering unto the LORD, his
.



offering shall be of fine flour; and
he shall pour oil upon it, and put

Nehama Leibowitz, New Studies in Vayikra, 59

Nehama Leibowitz, New Studies in Vayikra, 59

Nehama Leibowitz, New Studies in Vayikra, 60

frankincense thereon.
Following the erroneous translation of nefesh as a soul, which the scholarship today rejects,
but which was in usage for many centuries, commentators perceived Torah language as sensitive
to social inequalities. They understood that this wording is giving special status to the offering of
the poor man, because it was very hard for him to put anything aside but he still managed to
bring voluntary sacrifice. Therefore, they equate meal offering with the sacrifice of ones very
soul to God:
Rabbi Yitzhak said: Why is the minhah distinct in that the expression soul is used in its case?
Because the Holy One, blessed be He, said: Whose habbit is it to bring a meal offering? It is
the poor mans. I consider it as if he had offered his very soul to Me. (Menachot 104b)9
The Priests were not allowed to discriminate the poor people and judge the material value of
their offering. Nehama brings very nice story from Vayikra Rabba which I quote from the book
in our library:
Once a woman brought a handful of fine flour and the priest despised her, saying: See what
she offers! What is there in this to eat? What is there in this to offer up? It was shown to him
in a dream: Do not despise her! It is regarded as if she had sacrificed her own life.10
She further explains that the minimum quantity of such offering exactly matched the daily
portion of flour necessary for a mans sustenance. 11 Therefore, by sacrificing the portion of food
which keeps him/her alive for a day, an offerer symbolically acknowledges that its only by
Gods grace that he can sustain. Thus, he/she makes a statement that he surrenders his life to
Gods mercy and guidance. Midrash Hagadol12 is explicit that a poor man leaves nothing for
himself the day he brings an offering:
Rabbi Yitzak said: Behold, the Torah does not mention the soul or designation of the
person who offers an animal sacrifice the offering of a rich man merely stating, If any
man bring an offering.; but when specifying the laws of the poor mans offering, the Torah
refers affectionately to the soul that will offer as if he were offering up his soul. And justly
so, for he did not have more than just one seah of wheat to feed his family, but he ground it

Nehama Leibowitz, New Studies in Vayikra, 42

10

Midrash Rabbah Leviticus, translated by Judah J. Slotski, The Soncino Press USA, 1983, page 40

11

Nehama Leibowitz, New Studies in Vayikra, 43

12

A collection of Midrashim on the Pentateuch compiled from ancient Tananitic sources by David ben Amram
Adani, a Yemenite scholar in the 13th century Nehama Leibowitz, New Studies in Bereshit, 582

into flour and made it into an offering, leaving naught for himself. The Torah considers it as
if he had offered up his own soul..13
We see that the commentators were showing special concern for the life of the poor and their
efforts to keep religious observance despite all difficulties. They were also aware that living
conditions of the majority of population were not in their own hands, but depended on the ethics
of the elites. Therefore many interpreters found in wording of Vayikra important reminders about
the responsibilities of the leaders. Nehama quotes the reasoning of Nahmanides who compared
verses Lev 4:13, Lev 4:22 and Lev 4:27, and deducted a warning for the sovereign from the
specific wording used in Lev 4:22:

,

,

-

,
,
,

,

-

.
--

-

13 And if the whole congregation of Israel

shall err, the thing being hid from the eyes
of the assembly, and do any of the things
which the LORD hath commanded not to be
done, and are guilty:

,

;




-

--
,
-

.,

22 When a ruler sinneth, and doeth

through error any one of all the things
which the LORD his God hath commanded
not to be done, and is guilty:

-,





,
,

:

.,
--

-

27 And if any one of the common people

sin through error, in doing any of the
things which the LORD hath commanded
not to be done, and be guilty:

Only in the verse concerning the ruler, the emphasis the Lord HIS God appears, and
Nahmanides sees it as a precaution from the usual habit of the rulers to perceive themselves as
higher beings and neglect obedience to God. He states:
The stress on the Lord being his God is to remind him that although he is the king and ruler
over men, he must fear the Lord his God, Who is the Lord of Lords14
Piousness of the elites was supposed to include taking care of their subordinates. However, the
commentators were well aware that higher social position brings higher risk of its misusage on
13

Nehama Leibowitz, New Studies in Vayikra, 42

14

Nehama Leibowitz, New Studies in Vayikra, 51

the expense of the others. Therefore some authors interpreted Lev 4:22 as containing a hint to the
usual corruptness of the leaders. Ovadiah ben Jacob Sforno, Italian rabbi active in 15th and 16th
century15 commented on the opening of the verse:
If (asher) a ruler will sin: It being common for a ruler to sin, as stated in the Torah and
Yeshurun grew fat and kicked (Deut. 32:15)16
The passage from the poem brought here is recited by Moses as a warning to the people of Israel, here
poetically addressed as Jeshurun. He advises them to take care of moral conduct and religious
observance after his death. He also predicts their ungratefulness towards God and warns about the
consequences. I think that its valuable to expand the quote here because the continuation is relevant for
the (im)proper practice of the sacrificial worship:

{ },

, ,

; } {

}{ ,

{ } .

15 But Jeshurun waxed fat, and kicked-thou didst wax fat, thou didst grow thick,
thou didst become gross--and he forsook
God who made him, and contemned the
Rock of his salvation.

{; },
,

16 They roused Him to jealousy with

{ } .

strange gods, with abominations did they
,

provoke Him.

--

, ,

,,
;,

}{

,


,
} {

.,


,
}{
{}

{; }
,

{ } .


,

17 They sacrificed unto demons, no-gods,

gods that they knew not, new gods that
came up of late, which your fathers
dreaded not.

18 Of the Rock that begot thee thou wast

unmindful, and didst forget God that bore
thee.

Idolatrous sacrifices bring us back to the very beginning of Nehamas compilation of commentaries on
Vayikra, which discuss the initial reason for establishing sacrificial cult. Many late commentators saw
them as barbaric and too close to pagan customs, and felt the need to find some explanation for their very
existence. Biblical verses quoted above may serve as the justification of Maimonidess view that people
were simply used to this kind of religious conduct and that they could not give it up easily. According to
his interpretation, the best that could be done in that particular historical moment was to redirect Israelites
from sacrifices to false gods towards the sacrifices to one and only True God 17. Quoted biblical verses
testify that it was not an easy task because the Israelites were constantly tempted to return to pagan
15

Nehama Leibowitz, New Studies in Bereshit, 587

16

Nehama Leibowitz, New Studies in Vayikra, 50

17

Nehama Leibowitz, New Studies in Vayikra, 1-2

worship. However, after a long period of time the traces of idolatry were blotted out and the truly great
principle of our faith, the Existence and Unity of God, was firmly established.18 Seeing that different
kinds and fractions of Judaism(s) survived the destruction of the Temple and continued to develop for
many centuries without sacrificial cult, we can hardly dispute Maimonides on this point.

18

Nehama Leibowitz, New Studies in Vayikra, 1-2