Please note: If you are reading this via the email distribution, the Hebrew characters will be rendered as question marks (???). To see the Hebrew, you need to use the link to log into the Blog.
*************************
We begin as usual with a selection from the Mishnah. The Mishnah, as we have seen throughout this treatise of the Talmud, is concerned with a number of highly technical issues related to offerings in the Temple. The issues might seem bizarre to the modern mentality–for example, the notion that an animal brought to the priests for sacrifice while pregnant might have any young birthed between the consecration and the sacrifice at the same time–what to do with the offspring? But we need to understand that when the Temple stood, especially in its last decades, the numbers of animals sacrificed must have been very large, and all sorts of complications would have been faced, and likely on a daily basis.
In the case of the sages of the Mishnah in particular, the notion that the Temple might be re-established was not impossible–nor even unlikely! Even a century after the Mishnah was completed, we know that the Emperor Julian gave the Judeans the right to rebuild the Temple (about 355 C.E.) and they apparently began that work–only to see permission revoked two years later. But the important point is that what we see in the Mishnah is the claim of its sages to own the authority to guide the priests in their administration of the sacrificial rites.
[79b] MISHNAH. The young of a thank-offering,14 its substitute,15 and the animal which was set apart in the place of the thank-offering which was set apart and was lost,16 do not require the bread-offering; for it is written, and he shall offer with the sacrifice of thank-offering.17 The thank-offering requires the bread-offering, but its young, what is brought in its place, and its substitute, do not require the bread-offering.
(14) A man consecrated a pregnant beast as a thank-offering and it later brought forth its young. The young must be
offered as the same sacrifice as the mother-beast; v. Tem. III, 2. (15) In which case both the consecrated beast and the substitute are holy. cf. Lev 27:10; and the latter must be offered as the same sacrifice as the former. (16) And which was eventually found. It is immaterial which beast was offered, the other must also be offered as a thank- offering.
(17) Lev 7:12.
*** End quote***
All the footnotes accompanying the translation are copied from the Soncino translation of the Talmud, now in the public domain.
*************************
Several centuries after the composition of the Mishnah, the sages of the Babylonian Talmud discussed its contents and tried to resolve problems they noted in it. Sometimes they used other sources to clarify the Mishnah–the best known of these is called the Tosefta (which means “Additional” or “Supplemental”) and is a compilation which rivals in length the Mishnah itself. Sometimes the Talmud quotes sages known from the Mishnaic period (the Tanaim) which are not found either in the Mishnah nor in the Tosefta. These are called “baraitot,” a word which means, “external.” But the key factor for all these quotations is that they are attributed to sages who lived in the same era as the sages of the Mishnah. It is a key component of rabbinic Jewish theology that sources devolve in sanctity with time. The Bible is the oldest and most sacred, the Mishnah comes after, and the Gemara after that. Biblical sources trump all others, the Tanaim are regarded as more knowledgeable and reliable than the Amoraim–the term used for the sages of the Gemara.
The Talmud, on page 80a, quotes a sage named Samuel. Samuel is on the border between the Mishnah and the Gemara, and he is accorded greater respect than the later sages of the Gemara. Samuel, and his counterpart Rav, were said to have established two yeshivot (academies) in Babylonia, so they represent the first generation of the Amoraim–and in some ways the last generation of the Tanaim.
[80a] Samuel said, whatever in the case of a sin-offering must be left to die7 in the case of a thank-offering does not require the bread-offering.8 And whatever in the case of a sin-offering must be left to pasture9 in the case of a thank-offering requires the bread- offering.
(7) This is the ruling in the following five cases: (i) The young of a sin-offering; (ii) the substitute of a sin-offering; (iii)
a sin-offering whose owner died; (iv) a sin-offering which was lost and its owner had obtained atonement with another;
and (v) a sin-offering more than a year old. The animal in these cases was locked up and starved to death.
(8) Thus the young of the thank-offering (or any of the other cases enumerated in the prec. n., with the exception of (v),
for a thank-offering may be more than a year old) is offered as a thank-offering but does not require the bread-offering.
(9) Until it becomes blemished and is then redeemed.
*** End quote***
And here we have a text which will not doubt disturb many readers! Not that there is any problem with the case of animals “left to pasture.” But see footnote (7) above for a list of animals which have been reserved for various reasons and therefore cannot (in the mind of the sages) be allowed to roam free. Instead, they are penned up and starved to death–not sacrificed, not freed.
The religious reason(s) behind such a conclusion seem to bind the hands of the sages of the Talmud. And this caused me to reflect on something I read this weekend in social media. A gentleman (who I greatly respect for all sorts of reasons) photographed himself embracing a new lamb. He spoke eloquently of the upcoming Passover holiday and expressed his emotional desire to fulfill the words of the Torah and once again follow the instructions of the Torah. He never mentioned the Third Temple, but I note that there is a Third Temple Institute in Jerusalem created to study how to accomplish such a goal.
My own relationship to Judaism, and forgive me for a personal sermonic note, precludes any desire to return to this form of worship. The sages, over a period of centuries, developed a theology of substitution. We no longer need physical sacrifice, we can accomplish the goal of communicating our acknowledgment of the Creator by words. Our central prayer, the Amidah, is offered in place of sacrifice. And if we need not physically sacrifice animals, that abrogates any requirement to starve them to death.
Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai was a Tanna who lived through the period of the Jewish War against Rome and therefore experienced both the ritual of the Temple and the aftermath. A story about him is related in a book written several centuries later, Avot d’Rabbi Natan, 4:5:
פעם אחת היה רבן יוחנן בן זכאי יוצא מירושלים והיה רבי יהושע הולך אחריו וראה בית המקדש חרב [אר”י אוי לנו על זה שהוא חרב] מקום שמכפרים בו עונותיהם של ישראל. א”ל בני אל ירע לך יש לנו כפרה אחת שהיא כמותה ואיזה זה גמ”ח שנאמר כי חסד חפצתי ולא זבח שכן מצינו בדניאל איש חמודות שהיה מתעסק בגמ”ח ומה הן גמ”ח
“It happened once that Rabban Yohanan b. Zakkai was coming out of Jerusalem, followed by R. Joshua, and he beheld the Temple in ruins. ‘Woe to us,’ cried R. Joshua, ‘for this House lies in ruins, the place where atonement was made for the sins of Israel!’ Rabban Yohanan said to him, ‘My son, be not grieved, for we have another means of atonement which is just as effective and that is kindness, as it is stated, For I desire kindness and not sacrifice’”. [after Soncino]
If the quote is authentic, R. Yohanan was elaborating on the words of the prophet Hosea,
כִּי חֶסֶד חָפַצְתִּי וְלֹא־זָבַח וְדַעַת אֱלֹהִים מֵעֹלוֹת:
“For I desire kindness more than sacrifice, knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.” [Hosea 6:6]
For our purposes, it need not matter whether R. Yohanan really made this statement, what is clear is that it reflects a sentiment of the earliest promoters of rabbinic Judaism. And that is the sentiment of the religion I personally observe: while it is important to study how our ancestors approached the Divine, we have moved on. We have something better than sacrificing animals and burning wheat, we have the ability to seek and provide hesed, kindness.
I hope you are all enjoying this week of celebrating our liberation from Mitzrayim!