COMMAND THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL AND SAY TO THEM: MY OFFERING, MY FOOD FOR MY FIRE OFFERINGS, A SPIRIT OF SATISFACTION FOR ME, YOU SHALL TAKE CARE TO OFFER TO ME AT ITS APPOINTED TIME. AND YOU SHALL SAY TO THEM: THIS IS THE FIRE OFFERING WHICH YOU SHALL OFFER TO THE LORD: TWO UNBLEMISHED LAMBS IN THEIR FIRST YEAR EACH DAY AS A CONTINUAL BURNT OFFERING. THE ONE LAMB YOU SHALL OFFER UP IN THE MORNING, AND THE OTHER LAMB YOU SHALL OFFER UP IN THE AFTERNOON.

(Bamidbar 29:2-4)

 

The Sacrifices - Slaughtering "Sacred Cows" Within the Framework of the Struggle against Idol Worship

Scripture tells us, according to the Version of Onkelos, that the Egyptians worshipped Aries, and therefore abstained from killing sheep, and held shepherds in contempt. It is written, Behold we shall sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians etc. (Shemot 8: 26); and it is written, For every shepherd is an abomination to the Egyptians (Bereishit 46: 34). Some sects among the Sabeans worshipped demons, and imagined that these assumed the form of goats, and called them therefore "goats" [se‘irim]. This worship was widespread. It is written, And they shall no more offer their sacrifices unto demons, after whom they have gone a whoring (Vayikra 17: 7). For this reason those sects abstained from eating goats' flesh. Most idolaters objected to killing cattle, holding this species of animals in great estimation. Therefore the people of Hodu [Indians] up to this day do not slaughter cattle even in those countries where other animals are slaughtered. In order to eradicate these false principles, the Law commands us to offer sacrifices only of these three kinds: You shall bring your offering of the cattle [viz.], of the herd and of the flock (Vayikra 1:2). Thus the very act which is considered by the heathen as the greatest crime, is the means of approaching God, and obtaining His pardon for our sins. In this manner, evil principles, the diseases of the human soul, are cured by other principles which are diametrically opposite.

(RaMBaM, Guide For The Perplexed III, 46, based on Friedländer tr )

 

Then the offerings [minhat] of Judah and Jerusalem shall be pleasing to the Lord -

...In the future, an abundance of knowledge will spread and will penetrate even animals. They will not do evil nor will they destroy on the mount of My holiness, because the earth will be full with knowledge of the Lord and that offering which will then be the minha offering - from the vegetable - shall be pleasant to the Lord as in the days of yore.

(Rabbi Avraham Yitzchak HaKohen Kook, Olat R'IYaH p. 282)

 

 

"I can exempt the entire world from judgment, from the day the Temple was destroyed until now"

Yael Levine

The Babylonian Talmud (Eruvin 64b-65a) raises the question of how the commandments should be observed in the age following the Temple's destruction. The discussion begins with a dictum of Rav Sheshet transmitted in the name of R. Elazar ben Azariah: ""I can exempt the entire world from judgment, from the day the Temple was destroyed until now, for it is said, Therefore, hearken now to this, you poor one, and who is drunk but not from wine (Isaiah 51:21)."¹

R. Elazar, one of R. Yohanan ben Zakai's students, expresses recognition of the difficulties involved in observing the commandments in the complete and perfect fashion that was previously possible now that the world is battered by calamities. Those who do not succeed in maintaining earlier levels of observance are to be treated forgivingly, even if that forgiveness is only post factum. While R. Elazar's dictum speaks of acquitting "the entire world," it clearly seems to be referring to Israel, as can be understood from Rashi's commentary. R. Azariah claims that Israelites are not to be held to judgment, since they afflicted, harassed and despised,² and they sinned involuntarily. R. Elazar was sure that he could plead for their sakes before the Holy One blessed be He and that his case for the defense would be accepted. The proof text comparing Israel with a drunken man is taken from Isaiah.³ Although it relates to the destruction of the First Temple, it can still be projected upon the catastrophes suffered by the people following the destruction of the Second Temple, which occurred close in time to the Tanna's own days.

R. Elazar's dictum relates to the entire system of Torah observance; his is a total approach. Other sages seem to have found his approach too theologically radical and problematic. Thus, the Talmudic narrator cites a braita to challenge the dictum: "The sale or purchase made by an intoxicated person is valid. If he committed a transgression involving the penalty of death he is to be executed, and if he committed one involving flogging he is to be flogged; the general rule being that he is regarded as a sober man in all respects except that he is exempt from prayer." A variant of the braita can be found in Tosefta Terumot: "Why did they say that an intoxicated person should not give the terumah? Because he is not mentally competent. Although he is intoxicated, his purchase is a purchase and his sale is a sale, his vow is a vow, his dedication [of a gift to the Temple] is a dedication, and his gift is a gift. If he commits a sin that requires a sin offering he is required to bring a sin offering, if he is sentenced with stoning he is stoned. The general principle is that he is considered to be sober for all intents and purposes."⁴ A comparison of the two versions demonstrates that the Tosefta includes a few elements absent from the Talmud, and that the words "Except that he is exempt from prayer" found in the Talmud are an addition.

The Talmudic narrator considers R. Elazars's comparison of Israel to an intoxicated man to be relevant, and, following the appropriate halakhic principles, limits the force of R. Elazar's dictum to a single area of observance. As the Talmud states, "By the expression, 'I could justify the exemption' that he used he also meant exemption from judgment [for the lack] of [devotion in] prayer."

Earlier in Eruvin 44a we find a discussion of an intoxicated person's obligation to pray. Rava bar Rav Huna is cited as saying: "One who has drunk should not pray, but if he does pray his prayer is counted as a prayer. One who is intoxicated should not pray, and if he does pray his prayer is an abomination." A variant of this dictum can be found in J. Terumot (1:6, 40b): "One who has drunk should not pray and if he did pray his prayer counts as a plea for mercy. One who is intoxicated should not pray, and if he does pray his prayer is blasphemy." Perhaps the inclusion of Rava bar Rav Huna's dictum in Eruvin led to the phrase being added to the end of the braita. In any case, there is a clear difference between the two dicta: according to the dictum of the Amoraim, it is improper for an intoxicated person to pray, while the Talmudic braita comes to tell us that the intoxicated man is relieved of his obligation to pray. While the plain meaning of the discussion in Eruvin relates to the intoxicated person's release from the obligation to pray, Rashi will connect it with the problem of prayer unaccompanied by proper intention.

It might be that the later sages found it difficult to accept R. Azariah's statement due to the fact that they lived at a greater historical distance from the destruction of the Temple; this possibility jibes with the notion that grief for the Temple's destruction lessened with the passing years, a view reflected in several different sources from the Talmudic literature.⁵ Rav Sheshet, a leading Amora of the third generation, chose to preserve and transmit R. Elazar's dictum (he also transmits one of R. Elazar's dicta in Pesahim 118a). It is his general practice to preserve the dicta and rulings of Tannaim.⁶ It is especially interesting to see him transmitting this dictum, given the fact that he was blind; according to sources from the Gaonic period he became blind in the course of his life.⁷ Many Talmudic discussions deal with the obligation of blind people to observe the commandments; in some places in the Babylonian Talmud this very sage takes part in those debates.⁸ It does not seem surprising that the approach expressed by R. Azariah's dictum was of special interest to him.

Later in the discussion in Eruvin, the following distinction is brought in the name of R. Hanina, who was R. Yohanan's teacher: "They only ruled in relation to one who had not reached Lot's degree of intoxication, but one who has reached Lot's degree of intoxication is exempt from all [the commandments]." R. Hanina's opinion relates directly to the braita, rather than to the dictum of Rav Sheshet, who lived later than him. Afterwards an additional dictum of R. Hanina is cited: "Anyone who passes by the ‘Shield’ in the time of haughtiness, troubles will be closed and sealed from him." Rashi explains that that this dictum praises the drunk who abstains from saying the benediction Magen Avraham ["Shield of Abraham"], which is taken to represent the entire Amida prayer, i.e., one who abstains from reciting the Amidah while intoxicated will gain merit that will rescue him from his troubles. Next comes R. Yohanan's statement that the dictum "was said in regard to one who does not utter." Rashi thinks that this is conceptually identical to R. Hanina's dictum, and that the sense of the thing is that, "one who does not reveal prayer while drunk, that is to say, one who does not pray" will have his troubles pass away. Later we find this statement brought in Rav's name: "Anyone whose mind is not at peace should not pray," a view that jibes conceptually with Rava bar Huna's opinion that a drunk person should not pray. The principle behind these views is that peace of mind, sobriety, and proper intentions are necessary conditions for prayer.⁹

J. Berakhot (4:1, 7a) and B. Berakhot 31a both cite a ruling derived from the story of Hannah, that "a drunk is prohibited from praying." This ruling is cited in the Jerusalem Talmud in the name of R. Yossi beRav Hanina, a student of R. Yohanan who belonged to the second generation of Amoraim in Eretz Yisrael. The Babylonian Talmud cites it in the name of R. Hamnuna, a student of Rav, and there is reason to believe that the tradition derives there from R. Yohanan and his teachers. The discussion in Eruvin does not relate to this explicit ruling. In the course of an aggadic statement of R. Elazar, the friend of R. Yossi BeRabbi Hanina, B. Berakhot brings a dictum that relies on the ruling relating to drunken people and it states that praying while intoxicated is like worshiping strange gods, a conclusion reached through the application of the gzera shava rule of interpretation.¹⁰ The verse from Isaiah brought as a proof text for R. Azariah's positions is cited in the Jerusalem Talmud (Brakhot 5:1, 8d) in support of two additional rules of prayer. These are: a ruling transmitted by R. Yirmiyah in the name of R. Abba: "One who arrives from a journey is prohibited from praying," and the ruling following it: "R. Zrikan and R. Yohanan in the name of R. Elazar the son of R. Yossi HaGalili [said]: "One who is distressed is prohibited from praying."¹¹ These rulings may have served as parallels supporting R. Elazar's statement regarding prayer.

The Babylonian Talmud discusses acquittal from judgment in three additional locations. In Sukka 45a we find a dictum of R. Shimon bar Yohai: "I am able to exempt the whole world from judgment from the day that I was born until now, and were Eliezer, my son, to be with me [we could exempt it] from the day of the creation of the world to the present time, and were Jotham the son of Uzziah with us, [we could exempt it] from the creation of the world to its final end."¹² In Bava Batra 16a a dictum is brought in the name of Rava, stating: "Job sought to exculpate the whole world. He said: Sovereign of the Universe, You have created the ox with cloven hoofs and you have created the ass with whole hoofs; you have created Paradise and you have created Gehinnom: you have created righteous men and you have created wicked men, and who can prevent you? His companions answered him: Yea, you do away with fear and restrain devotion before God. If God created the evil inclination, He also created the Torah as its antidote."¹³ Sanhedrin 91a-b tells that Antoninus made the claim to Rabbi that the body and the soul can acquit themselves of judgment: the sinning body can say, "Since the day [the soul] left me I lie like a lifeless stone in the grave," and the sinning soul can say, "From the day I left it, I am flying in the air like a bird." Rabbi answered with a parable whose explication is that God takes the soul and throws it into the body and judges them as a single entity.¹⁴

All of these discussions concerning exemption from judgment ask for a categorical and comprehensive exemption. Chronologically, R. Elazar ben Azariah was the first to speak of it, followed by R. Shimon bar Yohai, Rabbi, and Rava. Despite the superficial similarity between their various pleas, the statement from Eruvin is essentially unique. R. Shimon bar Yohai and Job did indeed want to exempt the entire world from judgment, as did R. Elazar. However, R. Elazar bases Israel's broad exemption upon their unfortunate situation, while R. Shimon bases his claim upon the merit of a few outstanding people. There is no indication that his dictum is connected to the conditions following the Temple's destruction. R. Elazar pleaded for Israel in the light of new circumstances, while Job and Antoninus point to problems that seem to be built into the very creation of the world and of man. Their approaches are completely dismissed. It is only in Eruvin that we find an attempt to limit the dictum's application by way of an interpretation that does not jibe with its plain meaning.

Our discussion shows that R. Elazar thought that the Temple's destruction created conditions in which Israel's failure could be excused after the fact, since the Israelites were like drunks. The later Talmudic discussion explained that the Tanna was only referring to an exemption from prayer. Two laws regarding drunken prayer appear in both the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds. J. Terumot states that it is improper for a drunken person to pray and if he does his prayer is blasphemy, and in a parallel passage B. Eruvin states that his prayer is an abomination. In both Talmuds, tractate Berakhot contains a ruling prohibiting the drunk from praying. If R. Elazar's dictum reflects a broad approach, the Talmudic narrator reflects a less categorical and absolute approach by comparing it with the laws of the drunken person's prayer.

Study of the Talmudic discussions treating exemption from judgment teaches us that the destruction of the Temple, which brought with it systematic upheaval and which undermined to an extent the practical observance of the Torah, was the only event up until the completion of the Talmud to generate discussions of this question.

[1]      Some manuscripts and other documents render "I can [yakhol ani] exempt" as yekholni. That reading is further evidenced by the word being quoted later in the Talmudic discussion. See below.

2      These terms are borrowed from Yevamot 47b. Compare it with Massekhet Gerim (Higar ed.) 1:1, pg. 68.

3      The passage comes from the haftara for parashat Shoftim, which is one of the "Seven [haftarot] of Consolation."

4      Tosefta Terumot, Lieberman ed., 3:6, pg. 116. See Tosefta KiPshuto, Seder Zra'im Part I, pp. 319-321.

5      See Y. Levin, "Holekh UPohet o Mosif veHolekh? Letokpo shel Zikhron Ha Hurban," Kolekh 11 (5759), pg. 3.

6      See, among other, B.S. Cohen, Rav Sheshet UDarkhei Limudo Bemisgeret Tekufato (Doctoral dissertation), Bar Ilan University, 5763.

7      Kohen op cit pp. 31-33.

8      See, among other places, Pesahim 116b; Ketuvot 36a; Sotah 27a; and Cohen ibid.

9      See Y. Rosen-Tzvi, "Ha-Isha Nitzevet - Tefillat Hanah Bidrashot HaZaL" in Tarbut Yehudit Be'Ein HaSe'ara, A. Sagi & N Alon, eds. Ein Tzurim 6762, pp. 675-6.

10    See Rosen-Tzvi pp. 675-680; and Y. Levin "'Vatitpalel Hannah': al Parashat Hannah Utefilata BaLiturgika," Massekhet 4 (5766), pp. 88-93.

11    A parallel version can be found in Midrash Shemuel 2:10, Buber ed., pg. 51, which states "One who is distressed is prohibited from making rulings." This seems to be influenced by the dictum in Eruvin 65a, "

12    For parallels see Bereishit Rabbah 35: 2, pp. 328-9 and the citations listed there.

13    See H. Mack, "Ela Mashal Haya: Iyyov baSifrut HaBayit HaSheini UvEinei HaZaL, Ramat Gan 5765, pp. 163-4.

14    This passage has parallels in the Tannaitic literature. See a. Meir, Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi, Tel-Aviv 1999, pp. 262-299, 388-395.

Dr. Yael Levine published studies dealing mostly with various aspects of woman in Judaism and also authored a number of prayers

 

Zealotry Is A Complex Matter, and the Zealot Needs God's Blessing for Protection

It is written, And Pinchas, son of Elazar, son of Aaron the priest, saw...

What did he see? He saw the act and recalled the halakhah: "He who cohabits with an Aramean, zealots strike them." A Baraita elaborates: "Not in keeping with the wishes of the Sages, Pinchas acted not in accordance with the will of the Sages." Rabbi Yuda ben Pazi said: They wanted to excommunicate him, but the Holy Spirit descended upon him, declaring: He and his descendents after him shall have a covenant of everlasting priesthood.

(J. Sanhedrin 9:7)

 

Since this must be done in true spirit for the glory of God, who, then, can know whether the zealot has no ulterior motive, saying that he acts in a spirit of zealousness for God; subsequently he kills one who is - according to the law - not actually deserving of death.

(Rabbi Barukh Epstein, Torah Temimah)

 

Rabba bar bar Hanna said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: Whoever comes to take advisement [from a rabbinical court as to the permissibility of killing in such a situation], permission is not granted. Even more, had Zimri ceased [his cohabitation] and then been killed by Pinchas, Pinchas would have been sentenced to death. If Zimri were to turn about and kill Pinchas [in self-defense], he would not be sentenced to death, because Pinchas was a rodef [= a pursuer].

(Sanhedrin 82a)

 

I will grant him My pact of peace - The gift of peace as reward or as a "preventive treatment" against corruption of character.

Peace is an unsurpassed good because it includes al types of spiritual accomplishments and eternal happiness. That is why the priests' blessing to Israel ends with peace. No one achieves peace through his own efforts alone, but rather he requires help from heaven. That is why it is referred to as something given - it is the goodly gift which the Holy One blessed be He gives to those who fear Him. Pinhas won the attribute of peace thanks to his willingness to perform a great deed, a deed which was one of righteousness, as the Psalmist said, It was reckoned to him as righteousness (Psalms 106:31). We know that peace is the reward for righteousness, as it is written, For the work of righteousness shall be peace (Isaiah 32:17), and so it is said in Pirkei Avot: "He who increases righteousness increases peace."

(Rabbi Yitzhak Shemuel Regio on Bamidbar 25:12)

 

As reward for pacifying God's wrath and anger, He blessed him with the quality of peacefulness, i.e., that he not be strict or upset. This was necessary because the act committed by Pinhas, of killing someone, naturally leaves a strong emotional impression, but since it was performed for the sake of Heaven, he received the blessing that he always be calm and peaceful, and that this matter [of having killed] should not affect his heart.

(Ha-Amek Davar 25:12)

 

 

 

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.

In Israel, checks made out to Oz VeShalom may be sent to Oz VeShalom-P.O.B. 4433, Jerusalem 91043. Unfortunately there is no Israeli tax-exemption for local donations.

US and British tax-exempt contributions to Oz VeShalom may be made through:

New Israel Fund, POB 91588, Washington, DC 20090-1588, USA

New Israel Fund of Great Britain, 26 Enford Street, London W1H 2DD, Great Britain

PLEASE NOTE THAT THE NEW ISRAEL FUND IS NO LONGER ACCEPTING DONATIONS UNDER $100.

PEF will also channel donations and provide a tax-exemption. Donations should be sent to P.E.F. Israel Endowment Funds, Inc., 317 Madison Ave., Suite 607, New York, New York 10017 USA

All contributions should be marked as donor-advised to Oz ve'Shalom, the Shabbat Shalom project.

 

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.