Thoughts on Ramban, Aharon, The Golden Calf, Azazel and Rambam.

As one learns Ramban on Chumash it becomes clear that as he declared in his introduction, he is having a dialogue with his predecessors. He discloses in that introduction the names of two of them: Rashi and Ibn Ezra. But a person familiar with Rambam’s thought will detect a constant underlying dialogue with Rambam especially when the subject deals with theological matters even when he does not explicitly tell us so. An example of such a subtle dialogue can be detected in this week’s Parsha (Shemini) Vaykra 9:7-8.

ז  וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה אֶל-אַהֲרֹן, קְרַב אֶל-הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וַעֲשֵׂה אֶת-חַטָּאתְךָ וְאֶת-עֹלָתֶךָ, וְכַפֵּר בַּעַדְךָ, וּבְעַד הָעָם; וַעֲשֵׂה אֶת-קָרְבַּן הָעָם, וְכַפֵּר בַּעֲדָם, כַּאֲשֶׁר, צִוָּה יְהוָה.    

And Moses said unto Aaron: 'Draw near unto the altar, and offer thy sin-offering, and thy burnt-offering, and make atonement for thyself, and for the people; and present the offering of the people, and make atonement for them; as the LORD commanded.'

ח  וַיִּקְרַב אַהֲרֹן, אֶל-הַמִּזְבֵּחַ; וַיִּשְׁחַט אֶת-עֵגֶל הַחַטָּאת, אֲשֶׁר-לוֹ.           

 So Aaron drew near unto the altar, and slew the calf of the sin-offering, which was for himself.

The obvious question that comes to mind is what was the purpose of this dialogue? Didn’t Aharon know that it was his job as Cohen to go up to the altar to do the Avodah? Chazal detect reluctance on his part and comment on it. Rashi abbreviates their comment and just points out that Aharon was shy and reluctant. One gets the impression that it was possibly a lack of self-confidence or humility, Aharon feeling that he was not worthy.  Ramban is not content with leaving that impression. After offering a somewhat strained Peshuto Shel Mikra explanation he quotes the Midrash (Mechilta DeMiluim 7, Sifra ad locum) verbatim.

 “But in Torat Kohanim [our Rabbis] commented on this matter by offering a parable. This is comparable to a king who married a woman who was ashamed [to be intimate] with him. She came to her sister who told her – isn’t it for this purpose that you married him? Be bold and come serve the king. So too Moshe told Aharon, brother weren’t you chosen to be Cohen Gadol to serve God? Be bold and do your work. Some say, that to Aharon the altar took the shape of an ox (Ketavnit Shor) and Aharon feared him, Moshe came to him and told him not to let his fears take over, be bold and go closer. That is why it says קְרַב אֶל-הַמִּזְבֵּחַ and  וַיִּקְרַב אַהֲרֹן, אֶל-הַמִּזְבֵּחַ;”

When one reads that Midrash second explanation one can interpret it that Aharon was feeling guilty about having been instrumental in the Egel episode. A more sophisticated read, and probably that is how Rambam would read it, is that he was trying to understand how is the concept of bringing offerings to an idol different than burnt offerings on the altar in the Mishkan. Why when he created the Egel which was ultimately directed to God, he was so harshly censured, isn’t this similar?  Isn’t the idea of bringing an offering a sort of bribe exchanging it for goodwill? Aren’t we attempting to bribe God here too? Moshe’s response was that despite the questions he must do as ordered because it is God’s wish to allow the people to indulge a little in their superstitious illusion and thereby slowly lead them to a more advanced understanding of worship. This is a very directed and regulated worship while the Egel was an unregulated spontaneous outburst of superstition and even worse, to an intermediary, a representation of God.

Ramban however, at the beginning of Vaykra (1:9) has already voiced his vehement disagreement with Rambam’s understanding that Korbanot are a concession to human frailty. He does believe that offerings impact God if brought with the proper intention. The Egel was to an intermediary which is prohibited while Korbanot are directed to the Hallowed Name of Hashem. He now worries that this Midrash will be interpreted support Rambam’s position.

“The meaning of this Midrash is because Aharon who was a holy person and only had sinned once at the Egel, that sin stood out in his mind, … and he saw the form of the calf, namely that it was preventing him from successfully getting forgiveness.  Moshe tells him not worry as he is already forgiven for that misstep. Others say that the Satan was showing him the calf, as the Rabbis say there, Aharon my brother, even though God forgave you, you still have to offer something to the Satan to stop him from interfering when you come into the Holy places…”

Ramban interprets the Midrash as saying that Aharon was worried about his having sinned and that will stand in the way of his worship. He makes that point lest we interpret that the Korbanot themselves were problematic. Ramban does not see a problem with offerings as long as they are directed to God. The second explanation offered by the Rabbis he interprets as the Satan appearing to Aharon demanding a bribe for himself.  There are circumstances where even the Torah sanctions bringing offerings other than to God. Satan at times may have to be placated just like the Azazel offering on Yom Kippur see Ramban and Ibn Ezra on Vayikra 16:8.

Rambam in MN 3:46 explains that the Azazel offering does not imply that one can transfer one’s sins onto another entity (reminds us of Kaparot and I would not be surprised that was in his mind as the custom goes back to Geonim) but rather to symbolically awaken in us the thought that we have left our past behind and we are starting afresh with the undertaking of not repeating past mistakes. This offering represents the most abhorrent sins of the whole people which are so bad that they cannot be bought into the sanctuary in front of God. I also believe that at the end of the whole charged Avodah of the holiest day of the year, Yom Kippur, the last offering does not come onto the altar as a symbol that the burning is not what a Korban is. God does not need it and to Him it is all the same whether offered to him as a burnt offering or whether it is gratuitously destroyed. It is all to get us thinking about our actions and improving them. We have here a classic redirection of a habit that cannot be stopped.

Circumcision and Child Sacrifice - Some Fascinating Parallels.

In 2006 (scary! my blog is over 5 years old) I posted this re the Akeida and it generated quite a few interesting comments at the time. To my surprise and I have to admit satisfaction my old posts are read and relevant five years later as I received a thoughtful email commenting on it. The comment triggered some further thoughts on the subject and here they are.

In the earlier post I explained my understanding of Rambam that Avraham was having internal debates about his dedication to God. The question that I did not address is why did his introspection lead to a vision that manifested a human sacrifice? The same thinking could have found other visions that are less jarring that would demonstrate his devotion. Apparently, the idea of sacrificing a child, especially a first born, was very much the custom of the time and that is where Avraham got this idea in his vision. Neviim are realists who live within their time and culture and their vision is formed by that reality.

To expand on this theme - the haftorah to this week’s Parsha is the story in Melachim 2:4 about the Shunamit woman who was helped by Elisha and gave birth to a son whom she almost lost later - a similar theme to Abraham's experience with Yitzchak. That is usually the case with Haftorot; they have some connection to the Parsha that is read before it. What most people miss in our Haftorah is the shouting silence that is heard by what is not read - the end of the story just preceding this one, Melachim 2:3:26-27.

כו  וַיַּרְא מֶלֶךְ מוֹאָב, כִּי-חָזַק מִמֶּנּוּ הַמִּלְחָמָה; וַיִּקַּח אוֹתוֹ שְׁבַע-מֵאוֹת אִישׁ שֹׁלֵף חֶרֶב, לְהַבְקִיעַ אֶל-מֶלֶךְ אֱדוֹם--וְלֹא יָכֹלוּ.       

26 And when the king of Moab saw that the battle was too sore for him, he took with him seven hundred men that drew sword, to break through unto the king of Edom; but they could not.

כז  וַיִּקַּח אֶת-בְּנוֹ הַבְּכוֹר אֲשֶׁר-יִמְלֹךְ תַּחְתָּיו, וַיַּעֲלֵהוּ עֹלָה עַל-הַחֹמָה, וַיְהִי קֶצֶף-גָּדוֹל, עַל-יִשְׂרָאֵל; וַיִּסְעוּ, מֵעָלָיו, וַיָּשֻׁבוּ, לָאָרֶץ.  {פ}              

27 Then he took his eldest son that should have reigned in his stead, and offered him for a burnt-offering upon the wall. And there came great wrath upon Israel; and they departed from him, and returned to their own land. {P}

The rabbis, quoted ad locum by Rashi and Redak explain that the King of Moab asked his advisers, what merits Israel has, that it deserves such miracles which help them in battle.   His advisers told him that their forefather Abraham offered his firstborn as a sacrifice when God asked him to do so. The king of Moab therefore did the same and sacrificed his own firstborn. God was angry because it contrasted the devotion that this man had to his god with Israel’s lack of the same as Israel was sacrificing their sons to strange gods which their own God forbade.  The rabbis clearly connected the two – the popular custom of child sacrifice and the Akeida.  Although it is very much the theme of the Parsha, the Haftorah starts immediately after these verses, skipping them because of God's wrath but the elephant is in the room for one who knows Tanach or bothers to look up the Haftorah in a Tanach.

There is a further connection of child sacrifice to the Mitzvah of Brit Milah. It is quite plausible that one of the reasons[1] for the Mitzvah of Milah is that it was meant as a replacement for human sacrifice, letting blood instead of killing the child. Symbolically the bloodletting is performed on the organ that is responsible for reproduction and future generations - that which this sacrifice, if it had been performed was precluding. In fact, the story of the birth of Yitzchak and subsequently the Akeida follow the instructions Avraham received about the Brit Milah. The Torah is telling us that after the commandment of Milah, child sacrifice has no place in religion. The Mitzvah of Mila that is performed at birth replaces it and if additional manifestations of devotion to God are needed, replace a human sacrifice with one of animals – the ram being a symbol for Korbanot.

The Bracha we make during the Brit Mila is (MT Hilchot Mila 3:3):

ואחר כך מברך אבי הבן, או המל, או אחד מן העומדין שם ברכה זו--ברוך אתה ה' אלוהינו מלך העולם, אשר קידש ידיד מבטן, וחוק בשארו שם, וצאצאיו חתם באות ברית קודש

The words קידש ידיד מבטן, are quite possibly a reference to the ancient cultural custom of child sacrifice. I heard this suggestion close to 30 years ago by Professor Haim Gevaryahu at the Brit Milah of one of his grandsons. I subsequently found it online with an attribution to him by his son Gilad Gevaryahu with a reference to the source for this conjecture.  

Philo of Byblos (64-141 A.D.) described a ritual in Canaanite religion as follows:

Among ancient peoples in critically dangerous situations it

was customary for the rulers of a city or nation, rather than

lose everyone, to give over the dearest of their children as a

propitiatory sacrifice to the avenging deities. The children

thus given up were slaughtered according to a secret ritual.

Now Kronos, whom the Phoenicians call El, who was king of

their land and who was later divinized––after his death––as

the star of Kronos, had an only son by a local bride named

Anobret (and therefore they called him Yedid1; even now

 among the Phoenicians the only son is given this name); when

war’s gravest danger gripped the land, he [Kronos] dressed

his son in royal attire, prepared an altar, and sacrificed him.

(Harold W. Attridge and Robert A. Oden, Jr., Philo of Byblos

The Phoenician Histroy: Introduction, Critical Text, Notes.

Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 9. Washington,

D. C.: Catholic Biblical Association, 1981: 61–62.)

See also a post I wrote a few years ago.

---

[1] BTW Rambam in MN offers three and one more can be found in MT. 

The Conundrum of Korbanot - Part 1 - Introduction.

Rambam’s explanation of the reason for the Mitzvot related to Korbanot has been discussed for generations from the famous Ramban at the beginning of Vaykra followed by almost every Maimonidean scholar and commenter, classic or modern, since. To complicate the matter even more is the apparent inconsistency in Rambam’s own position between the different places in his writing where he addresses the issue. (He addresses the issue in every one of his books, whether directly or implicitly. I will try to address all of them as we go along.)

For the contemporary Jew, Korbanot is a major problem. It is contrary to our whole understanding of right and wrong to sacrifice living things just to ask forgiveness or placate God. The idea itself of placating God, though still acceptable in many circle, goes against the sensibilities of a more sophisticated understanding of a transcendent God. In truth, even the prophets, found the idea of Korbanot to be incongruous. We read in the Haftorah before Tisha Be’av, where Yeshayahu 1:11 declares –

יא  לָמָּה-לִּי רֹב-זִבְחֵיכֶם יֹאמַר יְהוָה, שָׂבַעְתִּי עֹלוֹת אֵילִים וְחֵלֶב מְרִיאִים; וְדַם פָּרִים וּכְבָשִׂים וְעַתּוּדִים, לֹא חָפָצְתִּי.

11 To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto Me? says 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.

And Yirmyahu (11:22) declares in an astounding denial –

כב  כִּי לֹא-דִבַּרְתִּי אֶת-אֲבוֹתֵיכֶם, וְלֹא צִוִּיתִים, בְּיוֹם הוציא (הוֹצִיאִי) אוֹתָם, מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם--עַל-דִּבְרֵי עוֹלָה, וָזָבַח.

22 For I spoke not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings or sacrifices;

So how are we to understand the centrality of Korbanot in Jewish Halacha? Besides the extensive detailed precepts we find in the written Torah, in fact, it is the most regulated ritual of all, in addition we have a whole section in the Gemara – Seder Kodashim – discussing just those rules in addition to there being discussions scattered all over Shas. Rambam in his MT dedicates two of the 14 Books to Korbanot – Sefer Avodah and Sefer Korbanot. Our daily prayer is modeled after Korbanot and we pray constantly for their return once the Beit Hamikdash is rebuilt. How is a contemporary thoughtful Jew supposed to deal with this whole corpus of ritual?

I believe a discussion based on Rambam’s many writings on the subject can bring us closer to a resolution and a better understanding of how to deal with this dilemma. As a continuation of my earlier posts on Ta’amei Hamitzvot, I will dedicate a few posts to this subject.

As I have discussed many times, Rambam does not accept the idea that Mitzvot have any intrinsic worth. In other words, a Mitzvah does not influence God nor does it change His supposed opinion of us. All Mitzvot are meant for us, either to teach us a proper theology, or to help us change our behavior and improve ourselves or to establish and maintain a properly functioning society. It is in this vein that Rambam begins his discussion of Korbanot in MN 3:32. Interestingly it is here that he elaborates on the idea that Mitzvot are fine-tuned psychologically to help us change our way of thinking. He starts by giving a lesson in the natural evolution and adaptation to the environment of all living things.

“If you consider the divine actions – I mean to say the natural actions – the deity’s wily graciousness and wisdom, as shown in the creation of living beings, in the gradation of the motions of the limbs, and the proximity of some of the latter to others, will through them become clear to you.”

He then continues to detail how every limb and part of living things are so perfectly calibrated to function with each other, be protected from a hostile environment and generally the intelligent way all biological things are made. He then continues –

“Many things in our Law are due to something similar to this very governance on the part of Him who governs…”

The Mitzvot according to Rambam are tailored to the physical world we live in. They are tailored to work with our human biology and psyche. Unlike many thinkers who saw the Mitzvot as a way of influencing higher powers, changing the way “shefa” – the flow - comes to us; Rambam sees them as intended to influence our behavior and thought process.

“For a sudden transition from one opposite to another is impossible. And therefore, man, according to his nature, is not capable of abandoning suddenly all to which he was accustomed. As therefore God sent Moshe our master to make out of us a kingdom of priests and a holy nation- through the knowledge of Him…..”

Human beings cannot change their behavior or their thinking in one leap. They require a gradual process of education and learning, training oneself to react differently and to think rationally. Mitzvot are intended to help us accomplish that and bring about a change in our behavior and thinking. They accomplish that gradually. The goal of Mitzvot is to transform the primitive human being into a sophisticated thinker, one who is consumed with daily physical survival into an intellectual devoted to understanding existential matters. That goal is multi-generational and evolves over millennia. For it to work, the Torah had to be tailored so that it puts a person on a path to development, starting with the state he is in currently and advancing with him as he grows intellectually. All Mitzvot are therefore only tools necessary for us to reach our goal of intellectual development.

“… and that similarly all the actions prescribed by the Law – I refer to the various species of worship and also the moral habits that are useful to all people in their mutual dealings – that all this is not to be compared with the ultimate end and does not equal it, being but preparations made for the sake of this end.” (MN3:54)

As we will see in upcoming posts, Korbanot are a paradigm for all Mitzvot, demonstrating very succinctly this idea of Mitzvot. That is why the Rambam in his Pirush on the second Mishna in Avot –

הוא היה אומר, על שלושה דברים העולם עומד--על התורה, ועל העבודה, ועל גמילות החסדים.

ב] יאמר, שבחכמה, והיא התורה, ובמעלות המידות, והן גמילות חסדים, ובקיום ציוויי התורה, והן הקרבנות - התמדת תיקון העולם, וסידור מציאותו על האופן השלם ביותר.

The word Avodah refers to Mitzvot and the paradigm for them is Korbanot. The Mishna is telling us that the physical world owes its continuity and existence – de facto and not in a mystical way – on three things:

Torah – which includes ALL knowledge including the sciences namely Chochma.

Gemilut Chassadim – which represent all the social laws, being they are reciprocal.

Avodah – refers to all the ritualistic laws that are represented by Korbanot.

They all have as purpose to bring us to search for the existential meaning of our existence and the goal and responsibilities we have as part of HKBH’s world. It is only then that we can act responsibly and insure continuity -- התמדת תיקון העולם, וסידור מציאותו על האופן השלם ביותר .

To be continued.