When a person presents an offering of meal to the

lord,

His offering shall be of choice flour. (Vayikrah 2:1)

When a person presents an

offering – The term 'soul' [The Hebrew nefesh means both 'person'

and 'soul'- Trans.] in respect to a voluntary offering is used only in conjunction

with the flour offering. Who customarily brings a flour offering? A pauper. Said

the Holy One, Blessed Be He: His offering is accepted as if he had offered his

soul.

(Rashi: ibid. ibid.)

When a person brings a flour

offering – All flour offerings are the holiest of the holy, and an outsider

may not partake with them, and because it is the indigents' norm to bring flour

offerings, the Holy One loves them He makes them holy of holies to show God's humility;

He is a great king yet he loves the poor.

(Rav Yosef Behor Shor, ibid.ibid.)

And the flour offering of

Judah and Yerushalayim shall be sweet to the Lord – In the future, an

abundance of daat (wisdom) will spread and invest even in animals. "In

all of My sacred mount nothing evil or vile shall be done, for the land shall

be filled with daat (devotion – the

Hebrew daat means – among other things – wisdom and intimacy) to

the Lord" and offerings to be presented then – grain offerings, from the

vegetable world – shall be sweet unto the Lord as in the days of yore and in

the years of old.

(Olat Reiyah, p. 292)

Should a person bring forward

Amos Yisrael-Fleishauer

Approximately

half of the Book of Vayikra deals with the offering of animals as a way of

coming close to God (the word Korban- offering, derives from the word kirva

– closeness.) The sacrificial ritual is not practiced today; for us it

seems strange and distant. It was practiced in the Temple that no longer exists. Hope for the reconstruction

of the Bet HaMikdash is woven throughout traditional prayers and Israeli

political realities. I should like to develop a possibility for dialogue on

this complex issue, while exercising close reading of the text.

Our point of

departure is deep study of the plain meaning of the Biblical ext. The second

verse of Parashat Vayikra is, at first glance, quite uncomplicated; it is,

however, quite complex:

And He called

to Moses and the Lord spoke to him from the Tent of Meeting, saying,

Speak to the

Israelites and say to them, 'Should any person from you bring forward to the

Lord an offering…'¹

Verse 2 is not

at all simple. According to the course of events in Vayikra, this verse is God's

first speech to Moshe from within the Tent of Appointment (end of Shemot). It opens

the gates to the laws of the sacrifices.

Is this

only a technical opening to the commandments regarding voluntary sacrifices?

Rabbi Shimshon

Rafael Hirsch² points out the contrast between the "Children of

Israel" whom Moshe addresses, and the "person" (adam-man)

who offers the sacrifice. The choice of the word "adam" is not

fortuitous. In other locations in Vayikra, other designations are used, such as

"[male] man" or "man or woman". Rav Hirsch, in light of the

Talmudic reading, concludes:

In the

beginning of the Rules of Sacrifices, he [the text, or scripture, or God] opens

the gate for all men, whoever they are, not only for a member of Israel. Every

man has the right to offer sacrifices in the Temple.

Rav Hirsch

emphasizes that universalism is not a relatively recent development in Judaism³.

It is at the very heart of the Torat Kohanim, the Priestly Codex (which is also

of ancient vintage and is sacrifice-centered).

Actually the

opening of the second verse is superfluous. The verse could well have begun

with "Should any person offer" or "Should you offer to the Lord".

The addition of the phrase "to the Children of Israel" highlights the

later use of the term "adam". Rav Hirsch elaborates on the artistry

employed in this particular choice of words:

With a single

word Scripture articulates Isaiah's vision regarding the alien nations: 'I will

bring them to My sacred mount let them rejoice in My house of prayer. Their

sacrifices shall be welcome on My altar. For My House shall be called a house

of prayer for all peoples." (Isaiah 56)

Rav Hirsch probes

the passage in depth. Even the word 'mikem" ("from you") is superfluous. The word can be deleted

without affecting the passage "Should a person offer". Use of the

word constitutes a narrowing down of those eligible to approach the Temple service. The Talmud

relates to this reduction:

From

the apostate". (Hulin 5)

An apostate

may not offer sacrifices. Not only may a Jewish sinner offer sacrifices – he is

actually called upon to do so; the mumar (one who has changed his

religion), and one who has cut himself off from Jewish society may not.

A fascinating contrast is created. The Talmud quotes

the Torah as saying "I make this distinction only for you, not for the

nations". Every non-Jew, without exception, has the right to come and

sacrifice. Regarding the Jews, however, there is a distinction: "The mumar

is excluded, for he has already cut off his entire being from Judaism".

How to explain this strange rule – every non-Jew may sacrifice, but a Jewish

mumar may not?

It should be

remembered that the midrash (homiletic exegesis of the Bible) is not the

only source for explanation of this odd structure of the passage under

discussion. From a number of exegetical possibilities the Talmud chose this particular

one. The Sages' particular choice cries out for explication.

Rav Hirsch explains

that the Temple

is a national endeavor with a universal goal. It follows that one

who impairs the national effort, one who cuts himself off from the nation, cannot

participate in it. There is no reason, however, for proscribing the gentile,

whom we wish to bring closer.

According to

the Talmud, the definition of a mumar is a religious one – changing

faith, idolatry, violation of the Shabbat. But in the light of our above

explanation, it can said that the definition is period-dependant – religion was

indeed the defining component of the national identity. If the issue is

ideological partnership in the universal vision and in the national endeavor

for its realization, it is possible to suggest an alternative definition of the

mumar:

One who

withdraws from the community and does not share in its sorrow and does not participate

in its fast, even though he has accumulated mitzvoth and good deeds, he

has no portion in the world to come. (Tractate

Taanit 11a)

A mumar,

then, is one who separates himself (in various ways) from the community.

The focal

point of the ritual, its goal, is universal. I will not deal here with the question

of what is ritual, how does the sacrificial bring us closer to God, how does it

serve the universal objective? I will say only that the prophet Isaiah changes

the center of gravity of the future Temple

from an institution of sacrifices to a house of prayer (in which sacrifices

will still be offered):

In My house

of prayer – Their sacrifices shall be welcome on My altar. For My House shall

be called a house of prayer for all peoples."                                          

The Temple is called "A

House of Prayer". I would like to suggest an additional step, one which

will can become a national/universal project of the Temple, one with which it will be (more) easy

to identify.

One of our era's

most creative analysts of the Temple

ritual was Rabbi Hayyim Hirschenson.⁴ He believed that in the future

sacrifices will not be of animals.⁵

But his vision

of the Temple

is much wider and more basic. First of all he emphasizes the connection of all

nations to the Temple, and the making the Temple suitable for

becoming the center for all nations. He notes that the Temple can become a House of Pray for all the

nations only if there if there will be "no image or symbol. which is

particular to one nation alone." There are to be no specifically Jewish

characteristics in the Temple.

The Tablets of the Covenant inside the Holy of Holies are the basis of

universal justice, the cultural foundation of all humanity.⁶

Rav Hirschenson

sees the Temple

also as the seat of international justice … the center of justice between

nations, and justice for the individual against the state. In his eyes this is

the central goal of Zionism. In his view, this concept is spelled out by the

prophet Isaiah:

In the days to

come, the Mount of the Lord's House shall stand firm above the mountains …

And all the nations shall flow to it. And the many peoples shall go           and say come let us go up to the

Mount of the Lord, to the House of the God of             Jacob

that He may instruct us in His ways . . for instruction shall come forth from

Zion, the word of the Lord from Yerushalayim, and He will judge among the

nations, and arbitrate for the many peoples … and they shall beat their

swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks, nations shall not

take up sword against nation, they shall never again know war. (Isaiah 2)

At the time Rav

Hirschenson was writing these words, the nations of the world were establishing

the League of Nations, the international

organization which preceded the United Nations. A few years earlier the International Court

for Justice was established. Why did Rav Hirschenson prefer the Temple over these bodies?

The Beit

Hamikdash is to be the place which will provide the answer to all injustice.

The vision of peace and justice will be realized before the Lord and through

His ritual. Rav Hirschenson criticizes the League of Nations, for at its center are the

nations and not the people. At the center of the Temple, however, will stand man – not

the state – and individuals will even be able to bring suit against nations. This

world peace, in which man is free, is a pre-condition for Temple service. At that time, the Temple service will be

perceived as facilitating and necessitating the application of justice.⁷

This is a

lofty vision for all mankind, one begins with the word "man" in this

week's Torah portion. It is totally dependant upon our ability not to be mumarim

to the humanism in our Judaism. We must enlist in the effort on behalf of every

person, for all mankind. So will we approach one another, and we shall bring

man closer to the center of the (religious) Jewish effort.

·       

What are the implications of this

for us? Regarding our prayers? Regarding the national identity and the

political positions?

·       

Why must we consider the physical,

corporeal ritual, to be the proper way for achieving such exalted goals?

·       

Perhaps is would be more proper to

learn the U.N. Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and… Isaiah??

·       

And perhaps "Instead of bulls

we will pay [the offering] of our lips." Prayer is that which should

advance universalism and "man".

May it be His

will that our holy site be a uniting, encompassing, and receptive factor, and

not a source of contention.

May it be His

will, that the material components of our ritual – prayers, offerings, the cult

of consumerism, culture and honor – motivate us to repair of the world from

within and through the means of that materialism. May the material serve man

and not man the material. Then will the offering be a means for bringing close.

1. In order to avoid printing the Lord's name, I have quoted

only segments of verses. This saves the reader the bother of burying these

pages.

2. Shimshon

Rafael Hirsch, 1808-1888, Frankfurt,

Germany, leader

of Orthodox Jewry (and the separatist community) and father of the "Torah

and Derech Eretz ideology"

3. This is in contrast to the position to be

found in research of Judaism which claims that in early times Judaism included

primitive and tribal ritual; with time Judaism developed in to more 'highly

developed' religion with a universal outlook.

4.

Hayyim Hirschenson, 1857-1935, Safed, Israel-Hoboken,

New Jersey.

5.

Regarding his controversy with Rabbi Kook, see his response "Malki

BaKodesh, letters in part 4; comp. with Rabbi Kook, "The Vision of

Vegetarianism and Peace". It is a subject worthy of additional and deep

discussion

6.

(Hirschenson: Malki BaKodesh 11-12 (1919). To the best of my knowledge,

these selections have not been studied in the context which I propose here. Therefore,

I quote the entire text with notes: "And from there all the sages of Israel

shall teach the nation justice, law, and righteousness. And there shall stand

chairs of justice of the Great Bet Din in Yerushalayim. From there shall come

forth Torah and light to all the world, and this House shall be a House of

Prayer for all nations. For there will not be present any image or symbol

particular to a single nation in which another cannot believe. Inside the ark

will be only the two Tablets of the Covenant which are the pillar of

civilization for all the nations, and all the nations shall flow there and many

peoples shall go and say 'Come let s go up to the Mount of Lord to the House of

the God of Jacob that He may instruct us in His ways and that we may walk in

His Paths, for instruction shall come forth from Zion, the word of Lord from

Jerusalem'. This is the form that this house must take when we arrange there

our government's organization" Further on: "It is not far-fetched to

think that this is the period of which Isaiah prophesied: The Mount of Lord's

House shall stand firm above the mountains and tower above the hills and to it

shall flow the many peoples etc and he made no mention of burnt offerings, meal

offerings or animal sacrifice…"

7.

"Before we will be informed the location of the altar and we have a

functioning High Priest, the Mount of the House of God will be standing atop

the mountains… and will judge between the nations and will arbitrate for the

many peoples… and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their

spears into pruning hooks, nations shall not take up sword against nation, they

shall never again know war", the simple meaning of which is that "He

will judge between he nations" is connected to 'The Mount of the House of

the Lord", meaning that Mount of the House of Lord will be the place where

God will judge between the nations, etc. The inevitable conclusion is that the

Hall of Peace will be located in this House, it will not be the Hall of Peace

as in the Hague in which the delegates of peace bowed in awe before those who

instill fear in the Land of the Living, and the slightest accusation of

injustice leveled at one of the kings of the earth is considered rebellion. It

will also be more than the League of Nations proposed by "the Father of

National Morality", the Wilson Program ( the basis for the Versailles

Treaty and the establishment of the League of Nations., A.Y.); …it will house

the Court of Nations which will judge nations with righteousness and the

peoples with justice, and wickedness will no longer rule the world, and the

idea that nationalism justifies wickedness and injustice will be voided and

there will be equality before the law for every nation, very man will the right

to develop according to his nature without impairing the rights of his fellow

man, and man will not rule over man nor nation over nation, nor nation over man

nor man over nation to their detriment, nation shall not lift up sword against

nation and they shall no longer learn war".

Amos

Yisrael-Flieshauer raises four children in Yerushalyim. He is a volunteer in

the Center for Victims of Sexual Abuse and is writing a doctorate on relations

between the Halacha and international law.

I

thank my wife Esther for her helpful advice. I will be happy to receive readers'

thoughts on the article. aisrael@idc.ac.il

All contributions to either the

NIF or PEF should be marked as donor-advised to Oz ve'Shalom, the Shabbat

Shalom project. For Donations to NIF, please mention that Oz veShalom is

registered as no. 5708.

If you wish to subscribe to the

email English editions of Shabbat Shalom, to print copies of it for

distribution in your synagogue, to inquire regarding the dedication of an

edition in someone's honor or memory, to find out how to make tax-exempt

donations, or to suggest additional helpful ideas, please call +972-52-3920206

or at ozshalomns@gmail.com

If you enjoy Shabbat Shalom,

please consider contributing towards its publication and distribution.

• Hebrew edition distributed in Israel

  $700

• English edition distributed via email $ 100

Issues may be dedicated in honor

of an event, person, simcha, etc. Requests must be made 3-4 weeks in advance to

appear in the Hebrew, 10 days in advance to appear in the English email.

About

us

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom is a

movement dedicated to the advancement of a civil society in Israel. It is

committed to promoting the ideals of tolerance, pluralism, and justice,

concepts that have always been central to Jewish tradition and law.

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom shares

a deep attachment to the land

of Israel and it no less

views peace as a central religious value. It believes that Jews have both the

religious and the national obligation to support the pursuit of peace. It

maintains that Jewish law clearly requires us to create a fair and just

society, and that co-existence between Jews and Arabs is not an option but an

imperative.

4,500 copies of a 4-page peace oriented commentary

on the weekly Torah reading are written and published by Oz VeShalom/Netivot

Shalom and they are distributed to over 350 synagogues in Israel and are

sent overseas via email. Our web site is www.netivot-shalom.org.il.

Shabbat Shalom is available on

our website: www.netivot-shalom.org.il