2021/5781
Imagine it’s a nice, beautiful day in the Midbar, with beautiful scenery of sand to the east, sand to the west, sand to the south, and sand to the north. But in the middle of this desert land remains a large band of wandering Hebrews, newly freed from bondage in Mitzrayim, newly bestowed the Torah HaKedoshah their ancestors only dreamt of, and on their way to land their ancestors were promised so many years ago. Among the youth of this fledgling nation is a young girl named Rivkah. Rivkah is sad to learn from her parents that the family cow, Basya (perhaps Bessie in English), is going to be brought to the inauguration of the Mishkan as a Korban to Hashem. Rivkah, in her young naivete, keenly beseeches her father: “Why does Basya have to die?” To that, her father answers, “Because Hashem has commanded that when someone brings a Korban, that it be a cow or sheep, and it will be an offering to Him. “Daber El Bnei Yisrael VeAmarta Aleihem Adam Ki Yakriv Mikem Korban LaHashem Min HaBeheimah Min HaBakar U’Min HaTzon Takrivu Et Korbanchem,” “Speak to the people of Israel, and say to them: When any of you presents an offering of cattle to Hashem, he shall choose his offering from the herd or from the flock” (VaYikra 1:2).
Yet, Rivkah’s young innocence poses a fundamental question which does not simply plague little girls and boys about losing their favorite cow or sheep, but many scholars over the generations as well: What is the purpose of the Korbanot? Why must they be from certain animals? How can a society which claims to be of the highest ethical order commit to such barbaric tendencies and practices? What does Hashem gain from commanding us to offer them?
In assessing the complex nature of this predicament, we are forced to seemingly draw various lines and conclusions as to the multifaceted philosophy of Korbanot. It may be, even, that we are not able to grasp even a sliver of the ultimate purpose behind them as a result of our limited understanding. Nonetheless, we are granted and bestowed with the ability to discern as much understanding as we are able. With that, we come only closer to Kol HaEmet, the whole truth. Thus, we must essentially break apart our understanding of the Pasuk before us in the following manner. We must ask: What does the double language of “Min HaBeheimah” and “Min HaBakar U’Min HaTzon” reveal about the nature of Korbanot? How does man’s connection with the rest of the animal kingdom play into this? And finally, we must ask what the Korbanot divulge about man’s connection with HaKadosh Baruch Hu?
In noting the seeming tautology of “Min HaBeheimah” and “Min HaBakar U’Min HaTzon,” we may draw a stark contrast between the two designations made in the Pasuk. According to Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik (Yemei Zikaron p. 192), this tautology is in truth a distinction indicative of man’s uniquity in the animal kingdom. It is an indication that man is not only separate from but elevated over creatures in that he holds the ability to engage in self-sacrifice. When the soul of man lifts its eyes and gazes on high to the future and prepares to sacrifice for it - this is the “Ruach Bnei HaAdam HaOlah Hi LiMa’alah,” “the spirit of the children of men is that which rises upward” (Kohelet 3:21). In the eyes of the Rav, the “Adam Ki Yakriv Mikem Korban” - one who offers a Korban - sacrifices himself, and his animalistic nature. To this end, Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch (VaYikra 1:2) propounds that the very essence of the Korban is that in doing so, one offers the “animal” side within themselves, which still requires refinement. By bringing near this “animal” through the sacrifice of Korbanot, one sanctifies and purifies their sensory drives in doing so.
However, the nature of the Pasuk’s language, in seeking to understand why Korbanot were instituted, to begin with, is still a bit of a mystery. It may even be problematic in that animal sacrifices were not only common but standard amongst the nations of the world in the Tanach era, as they served as conduits of Avodah Zara. Noting this very problem, Rambam (Moreh Nevuchim 3:32) makes a controversial assertion that Korbanot were initially instituted as a means of preventing Bnei Yisrael from rebelling and resorting to the pagan practices of the time. By instituting animal sacrifices, albeit with a “Jewish take,” Jews were simply granted the ability to use Korbanot as a means of copying the non-Jewish nations. The specific nature of the Korbanot (ie. that they were of cows, sheep, or goats) is equally due to the practices of the surrounding idolatrous nations and forms the basis of these practices as a means of protection (ibid. 3:46). Perhaps this explains the approach of the Chizkuni (VaYikra 1:2, s.v. Adam), in that the word “Adam” used in the Pasuk may theoretically serve as permission of Korbanot brought to Hashem by non-Jews.
Not surprisingly, Ramban (ibid. 1:9 s.v. Olah) fights Rambam’s assertion, noting that the practice of animal sacrifice could not have historically been derived from the surrounding Amei Avodah Zara, given that the practice has its origins in Sefer BeReishit, with the incident of Kayin and Hevel’s Korbanot. Thus, what truly distinguishes the Jewish institution of Korbanot, in essence, is that Korbanot allowed someone who had committed an Aveirah to offer an animal in his place as punishment. This in turn would force the sinner to reflect upon their own mortality and actions, resulting in Teshuvah. In the modern conception of the disagreement between Rambam and Ramban, however, Rav Soloveitchik (The Halakhic Mind, p. 91; Al HaTeshuvah, pp. 166-167) concludes in favor of Ramban, holding Rambam’s opinion to be significantly lower than Ramban’s in addressing the Korbanot in general.
Rav Hirsch (ad loc.) is neither satisfied nor finished, however, drawing upon the very Shoresh of Korban itself. Contrary to what is perhaps the most easily misunderstood notion of what Korban is defined as - sacrifice - Korban is in fact neither a present nor a gift to God. The concept, in Judaism, is found solely in the context of man’s relationship to Hashem, and can only be understood through a basic etymology of the word Korban through its Shoresh: Karov (Kuf-Vav-Bet). The meaning of Karov means, in its plainest sense, to draw closer or grow closer to someone or something. Hakravah (ie. the Hakravah Al HaMizbei’ach, placing the offering on the Altar), then, would be seen as a realization of a more noble existence, an existence not simply confined to the laws of nature alone. Conclusively, if we are to realize this noble existence, we must additionally realize that what would today describe the practice of Korbanot - destruction, annihilation, loss, barbarity - should not be ascribed here. It also follows that a Korban serves to meet the needs of the Makriv, the one bringing that Korban, and not the One to Whom the Korban is brought near. The will of the Makriv, says Rav Hirsch, is that something of his own should come into a closer relationship with Hashem; this is known as Hakravah. The purpose of a Korban is to seek Hashem to seek Hashem’s nearness.
Finally, we may return to the crux of what ails our minds in understanding the rough opening of Sefer VaYikra. In essence, we may conclude that what defines the loss of Rivkah’s favorite cow is part of a much larger and distinguishing train of thought than this little girl would realize at her age. The Korbanot serve as a conduit for our recognition of not simply a higher power and our desire to grow closer to Him but to recognize the essence of our own humanity and mortality. In realizing that we, as humans make mistakes, are driven by both distinctly human, and simultaneously animalistic precepts, we shed our Nefesh HaBehemit and access the Nefesh HaAdam. And while the origins and purposes of instituting the practice of Korbanot are subject to much debate (though, as I have earlier noted, there may indeed be no debate), the meaning is clear. And so, while Basya the cow sadly has to die, we may, in turn, come to reflect upon the vastly significant nature of her sacrifice in our place, and realize our own humanity; yet we also realize our ability to actively reflect our wish to grow closer to HaKadosh Baruch Hu through this sacrifice. And so, like in any good Hollywood-esque explanation of a tragedy to a little girl, we may say to Rivkah: “Basya is playing a heroic role and in due time you’ll come to see that.” Indeed, if Rivkah were to later possess the knowledge to grasp the philosophy of Korbanot - in essence, we may assume that she will come to this conclusion as well.