Divre Shelomoh (The Words of Solomon)

[When any man brings] of you an offering to the Lord (Leviticus 1:2).

The mishnah writes at the end of tractate Menaḥot: It is stated regarding an animal burnt-offering: an offering made by fire, of a sweet savor (Leviticus 1:9), and regarding a bird burnt-offering: an offering made by fire, of a sweet savor (Leviticus 1:17), and regarding a meal offering: an offering made by fire, of a sweet savor (Leviticus 2:2).

This comes to say to you that one who brings a large offering and one who brings a paltry offering are equal, provided that his intention is to heaven [m. Menaḥot 13:11]. The Gemara [b. Menaḥot 110a] states as follows:

The early and later commentaries have disputed the underlying meaning of the offerings. The master [Maimonides] in the Guide [of the Perplexed] argued at length that they serve as a means to an end, to prevent us from sacrificing offerings to idolatry. Many verses apparently support his interpretation. For example, the prophet states: Add your burnt-offerings [to your sacrifices, and eat meat] (Jeremiah 7:21). This verse, as Rashi also explains, is saying the following, “Why do you sacrifice burnt-offerings, which are entirely burned, to the Lord? Instead: add your burnt-offerings to your sacrifices,” which in this context refers to nonsacred animals that one slaughters for his own consumption, “and eat meat, for I do not want your burnt-offerings.” Rashi maintains that your sacrifices is referring to peace offerings, which are partly eaten by the owners. The prophet continues: For I did not command about this or that (Jeremiah 7:22). The verse states [I did not] speak in reference to burnt-offerings, which entirely belong to God, and nor did I command regarding sacrifices, i.e., peace offerings, which partly belong to the priests. Accordingly, the verse ends with concerning burnt-offerings or sacrifices, as it is referring to both of them. In my opinion, these sacrifices [zevaḥim] are nonsacred, as in the verse: [If the place which the Lord your God shall choose to put His name will be too far from you,] then you shall kill [ve-zavaḥta] of your herd (Deuteronomy 12:21), but it is also possible that the sacrifices in the phrase concerning burnt-offerings or sacrifices (Jeremiah 7:22) are peace offerings.

When it says but this thing I commanded (Jeremiah 7:23), it means: “if I commanded them concerning burnt-offerings or sacrifices, that was as a means to an end, so that they should listen to My voice.” You will find that the cantillation note on the word them indicates that commanded them, saying is all one phrase, in accordance with the main interpretation of the commentaries. However, in our opinion, the verse means that My intent when I commanded them was in order to say to them, “Listen, etc.³ and I will be your God.” You shall not go after other gods, but be only Mine. If you say: why, then, did God command so many details regarding the sacrifices and their performance; wouldn’t it have been enough to give a general command? This was in order that you should earn a reward for following everything that He commanded you, that you should be diligent and be worthy for it to be well with you.⁴ In other words, God commanded us about the details so that He could reward us for every step and for the performance of each and every detail, not because they are important for their own sake. The master [Maimonides], of blessed memory, provided a similar interpretation of other commandments; see [Guide for the Perplexed] III:26. The master [Judah Halevi], author of the Kuzari, was willing to state only that we see from experience that the sacrifices enable God to cleave to us, even though we do not know the reason for it, just as we do not know why the soul remains with us by means of our consumption of food [see Kuzari 2:26].

We likewise find that when our forefather Abraham asked: Whereby shall I know that I shall inherit [the land of Israel]? (Genesis 15:8), the Holy One responded that it would be through the merit of the sacrifices [see b. Ta‘anit 27b]. For the sages were puzzled over how our forefather Abraham could have doubted God’s word, and therefore they explained that he was only asking about the method through which the bond between his descendants and God would be maintained. God therefore responded that this would be achieved by means of the sacrifices of Israel. Similarly, the sages relate that when Jerusalem was under siege a certain elder communicated to them⁵ that as long as they are engaged in the Temple service, they will not be conquered. Accordingly, they sent up a pig to them instead of a sheep [b. Sotah 49b].

Those who contend that the reason for the sacrifices is to provide benefit to God’s ministers, who are the priests, will have great difficulty accounting for burnt-offerings, which are entirely burnt upon the altar. However, there is no doubt that many commentaries are correct when they explain the meaning of the sacrifices as follows. Man is comprised of two parts, the rational and the material. When he commits a sin, whether in thought, speech, or deed—especially if it is an unwitting sin—these two separate aspects become distinguishable. For just as they cannot be differentiated when a person is perfect, since the body is subordinate to the intellect, so too, when one is a wholly wicked, purposeful sinner, the intellect is subjugated to the body. By contrast, when one overcomes his inclinations or fails to overcome them, the two parts can clearly be seen in opposition to each other. When we speak of someone who has failed to overcome his inclinations, we mean that his body has triumphed over his rational intellect, and he has thereby separated the two parts of his being and they have become as rivals to each other. Just as he has caused a separation below, on the physical level, he has likewise caused a separation above, within the lofty powers that have influence over him—for in the image of God made He man (Genesis 9:6). Indeed, the numerical value of adam [“man”] is forty-five, and the numerical value of the Tetragrammaton is likewise forty-five. Here, however, he has separated himself from the Holy Name, and this separation prevents the letters from having their influence. Consequently, when he returns to God he must first prepare himself with the proper thoughts, intentions, and desire to restore his parts to a state of complete unity, by drawing them close to each other until the body is subjugated to the intellect. He will thereby form the bond and cleave to the lofty forces, as is known to the true scholars. This is why the verse says an offering to the Lord, as stated in many places in the Zohar. [ . . . ]

Now the teaching of the Mishnah—“It is stated regarding an animal burnt-offerings: an offering made by fire etc.”—can be understood as follows. One would think that a change in the subject of the command should lead to a corresponding change in the relevant action. Why, then, are the actions described in the same terms in each case? Rather, it seems that they are one and the same, whether one brings a large offering or a meager one, i.e., they are precisely the same, and there is no difference between them. Since the intention in both instances is solely for the sake of heaven, in order to bring the forces together, as explained above, they are therefore exactly the same and are essentially indistinguishable. For the only reason that one person brought a sizable offering and the other individual brought a small one is due to the fact that the first individual has many resources at his disposal whereas the second person has but few. In order that the wealthy person should be considered equal to the pauper he must give a lot more, but this is not considered “a lot,” nor is the gift of the poor man treated as “a little,” just as it is stated: The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less (Exodus 30:15).

The sages related a story involving a certain wealthy individual who brought a meal offering of flour, considering himself a poor person, but the priests refused to accept it and informed him that this was not the suitable offering for him and that he had to bring a bull. He vowed not to think in such a manner again from that point onward etc., as they explained. For the Lord is only interested in one’s intention and desire, as explained, although in order that all should be equal it is necessary for the rich to give more and the poor to give less.

R. Zera inquired into the verse that is the source of this teaching, for we find regarding the half-shekel that all give the same amount [see Exodus 30:15], whereas here they bring different sacrifices, and yet they are still considered equal. He therefore cited the verse: sweet is the sleep of a laboring man—i.e., the respite and satisfaction afforded to one who brings a sacrifice, who is called “a laboring man”—is sweet and tranquil, as he is assured that God is pleased with his offering whether it is little or much, and He is likewise pleased with his intention whether he brought a large offering or a small one. However, if the wealthy person thinks that he is providing more satisfaction to God with his large offering—heaven forfend—as a result of this error he will be unable to find sleep and rest [see Ecclesiastes 5:11], nor will he receive benefit from his offering.