Texts: Leviticus 6:1 – 8:36 || Jeremiah 7:21-8:3; 9:22-23 (Malachi 3:4-24)
NOTE: Kol HaTor, in its commentaries on the weekly Parashot, endeavours to search for and accentuate the Torah Messages contained in the Parashot as applicable to the main Theme of Tanach of the Return of the House of Israel, i.e. the Lost Ten Tribes of Northern Israel and their Reconciliation with Judah to form the reunited 12-Tribed Kingdom of Israel.
– – – – – –
DISCLAIMER – The authors whom we quote from for this Commentary are not associated with KOL HA’TOR and need not agree with our views expressed herein or in our other publications. While we publish their views for its relative value to the interpretation of the Parashah, KOL HATOR does not necessarily agree with the views expressed by these authors.
This year, Parashat Tzav coincides with Shabbat HaGadol, the Shabbat preceding Pesach. The Parashah describes the sacrificial offerings and rituals to be performed in the Tabernacle or Temple by the nation, in order to maintain a close relationship with G-d. When Tzav coincides with Shabbat HaGadol, the normal Haftarah from Jeremiah 7:21-8:3; 9:22-23 is replaced by Malachi 3:4-24 (which is Malachi 3:24-4:6 in non-Hebrew Version).
This Haftarah from Jeremiah is disturbingly condemning of Judah, specifically. It raises perplexing questions about the entire Sacrificial System and, of course, the problem that for the last 2.000 years Judah was not able to bring Sacrifices, due to the destruction of the Temple and the Jewish Exile.
Jeremiah 7: 28 “The people of Judah have done evil in my eyes, declares HaShem. They have set up their detestable idols in the house that bears my Name and have defiled it. 31 They have built the high places of Topheth in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to burn their sons and daughters in the fire – something I did not command, nor did it enter my mind. 32 So beware, the days are coming, declares HaShem, when people will no longer call it Topheth or the Valley of Ben Hinnom, but the Valley of Slaughter, for they will bury the dead in Topheth until there is no more room. 33 Then the carcasses of this people will become food for the birds and the wild animals, and there will be no one to frighten them away. 34 I will bring an end to the sounds of joy and gladness and to the voices of bride and bridegroom in the towns of Judah and the streets of Jerusalem, for the land will become desolate.
Jeremiah 8 “At that time, declares HaShem, the bones of the kings and officials of Judah, the bones of the priests and prophets, and the bones of the people of Jerusalem will be removed from their graves. 2 They will be exposed to the sun and the moon and all the stars of the heavens, which they have loved and served and which they have followed and consulted and worshiped. They will not be gathered up or buried, but will be like dung lying on the ground. 3 Wherever I banish them, all the survivors of this evil nation will prefer death to life, declares HaShem Almighty.”
Jer. 7: 22-23, “When I brought your forefathers out of Egypt and spoke to them, I did not give them commands about burnt offerings and sacrifices, but I gave them this command: “Obey me, and I will be your G-d and you will be My people. Walk in all the ways I command you, that it may go well with you.”
“Commentators have been puzzled by the glaring contradiction between these words and the obvious fact that G-d did command the Israelites about sacrifices after bringing them out of Egypt. Several solutions have been offered. According to Maimonides, the sacrifices were a means, not an end, to the service of G-d. Radak argues that sacrifices were not the first of G-d’s commands after the exodus; instead, civil laws were. Abarbanel goes so far as to say that initially G-d had not intended to give the Israelites a code of sacrifice, and did so only after the sin of the Golden Calf. The sacrifices were an antidote to the Israelites’ tendency to rebel against G-d.
“The simplest explanation is to note that the Hebrew word ‘lo’ does not invariably mean “not”; sometimes it means “not only” or “not just”. According to this, Jeremiah is not saying that G-d did not command sacrifices. He did, but they were not the sole or even most important element of the religious life. The common denominator of the prophetic critique of sacrifices is not opposition to them as such, but rather an insistence that acts directed to G-d must never dull our sense of duty to mankind. Micah gave this idea one of its most famous expressions:
“With what shall I come before HaShem
And bow down before the exalted G-d? . . .
Will HaShem be pleased with thousands of rams,
With ten thousand rivers of oil? . . .
He has shown you, O man, what is good.
What does HaShem require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy,
And to walk humbly with your G-d.” (Micah 6: 6-8).
“Yet the question remains. Why sacrifices? To be sure, they have not been part of the life of Judaism since the destruction of the Second Temple, almost 2,000 years ago. But why, if they are a means to an end, did G-d choose this end? This is, of course, one of the deepest questions in Judaism, and there are many answers. Here I want explore just one, first given by the early fifteenth century Jewish thinker, R. Joseph Albo, in his Sefer ha-Ikkarim.
“Albo’s theory took as its starting point, not sacrifices but two other intriguing questions. The first: Why, after the flood, did G-d permit human beings to eat meat? (Gen. 9: 3-5). Initially, neither human beings nor animals had been meat-eaters (Gen. 1: 29-30). What caused G-d, as it were, to change His mind? The second: What was wrong with the first act of sacrifice — Cain’s offering of “some of the fruits of the soil” (Gen. 4:3-5). G-d’s rejection of that offering led directly to the first murder, when Cain killed Abel. What was at stake in the difference between Cain and Abel as to how to bring a gift to G-d?
“Albo’s theory is this. Killing animals for food is inherently wrong. It involves taking the life of a sentient being to satisfy our needs. Cain knew this. He believed there was a strong kinship between man and the animals. That is why he offered, not an animal sacrifice, but a vegetable one (his error, according to Albo, is that he should have brought fruit, not vegetables – the highest, not the lowest, of non-meat produce). Abel, by contrast, believed that there was a qualitative difference between man and the animals. Had G-d not told the first humans: “Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves in the ground”? That is why he brought an animal sacrifice. Once Cain saw that Abel’s sacrifice had been accepted while his own was not, he reasoned thus. If G-d (who forbids us to kill animals for food) permits and even favours killing an animal as a sacrifice, and if (as Cain believed) there is no ultimate difference between human beings and animals, then I shall offer the very highest living being as a sacrifice to G-d, namely my brother Abel. Cain killed Abel not out of envy or animosity but as a human sacrifice.
“That is why G-d permitted meat-eating after the flood. Before the flood, the world had been “filled with violence”. Perhaps violence is an inherent part of human nature. If there were to be a humanity at all, G-d would have to lower his demands of mankind. Let them kill animals, He said, rather than kill human beings – the one form of life that is not only G-d’s creation but also G-d’s image. Hence the otherwise almost unintelligible sequence of verses after Noah and his family emerge on dry land:
“Then Noah built an altar to the Lord and, taking some of all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it. The Lord smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart, “Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood …” Then G-d blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them … “Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything … Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of G-d, has G-d made man.” (Gen. 8: 29 – 9: 6)
“According to Albo the logic of the passage is clear. Noah offers an animal sacrifice in thanksgiving for having survived the flood. G-d sees that human beings need this way of expressing themselves. They are genetically predisposed to violence (“every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood”). If, therefore, society is to survive, human beings need to be able to direct their violence toward non-human animals, whether as food or sacrificial offering. The crucial ethical line to be drawn is between human and non-human.
“The permission to kill animals is accompanied by an absolute prohibition against killing human beings (“for in the image of G-d, has G-d made man”). It is not that G-d approves of killing animals, whether for sacrifice or food, but that to forbid this to human beings, given their genetic predisposition to violence, is utopian. It is not for now but for the end of days. In the meanwhile, the least bad solution is to let people kill animals rather than murder their fellow humans. Animal sacrifices are a concession to human nature (on why G-d never chooses to change human nature, see Maimonides, Guide for the Perplexed, Book III, ch. 32). Sacrifices are a substitute for violence directed against mankind.
“The contemporary thinker who has done most to revive this understanding (without, however, referring to Albo or the Jewish tradition) is Ren’ Girard, in such books as Violence and the Sacred, The Scapegoat, and Things Hidden since the Foundation of the World. The common denominator in sacrifices, he argues, is:
“… internal violence – all the dissensions, rivalries, jealousies, and quarrels within the community that the sacrifices are designed to suppress. The purpose of the sacrifice is to restore harmony to the community, to reinforce the social fabric. Everything else derives from that.” (Violence and the Sacred, 8).
“The worst form of violence within and between societies is vengeance, “an interminable, infinitely repetitive process”. Hillel (whom Girard also does not quote) said, on seeing a human skull floating on water, “Because you drowned others, they drowned you, and those who drowned you will in the end themselves be drowned” (Avot 2: 7). Sacrifices are one way of diverting the destructive energy of revenge. Why then do modern societies not practice sacrifice? Because, argues Girard, there is another way of displacing vengeance:
“Vengeance is a vicious circle whose effect on primitive societies can only be surmised. For us the circle has been broken. We owe our good fortune to one of our social institutions above all: our judicial system, which serves to deflect the menace of vengeance. The system does not suppress vengeance; rather, it effectively limits itself to a single act of reprisal, enacted by a sovereign authority specializing in this particular function. The decisions of the judiciary are invariably presented as the final word on vengeance.” (Ibid., 15)
“Not only does Girard’s theory re-affirm the view of Albo. It also helps us understand the profound insight of the prophets and of Judaism as a whole. Sacrifices are not ends in themselves, but part of the Torah’s programme to construct a world redeemed from the otherwise interminable cycle of revenge. The other part of that programme, and G-d’s greatest desire, is a world governed by justice. That, we recall, was His first charge to Abraham, to “instruct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing what is right and just.” (Gen. 18: 19).
“Have we therefore moved beyond that stage in human history in which animal sacrifices have a point? Has justice become a powerful enough reality that we need no longer need religious rituals to divert the violence between human beings? Would that it were so. In his book The Warrior’s Honour (1997), Michael Ignatieff tries to understand the wave of ethnic conflict and violence (Bosnia, Kosovo, Chechnya, Rwanda) that has scarred the face of humanity since the end of the Cold War. What happened to the liberal dream of “the end of history”? His words go the very heart of the new world disorder:
“The chief moral obstacle in the path of reconciliation is the desire for revenge. Now, revenge is commonly regarded as a low and unworthy emotion, and because it is regarded as such, its deep moral hold on people is rarely understood. But revenge – morally considered – is a desire to keep faith with the dead, to honour their memory by taking up their cause where they left off. Revenge keeps faith between generations …
“This cycle of intergenerational recrimination has no logical end . . . But it is the very impossibility of intergenerational vengeance that locks communities into the compulsion to repeat …
“Reconciliation has no chance against vengeance unless it respects the emotions that sustain vengeance, unless it can replace the respect entailed in vengeance with rituals in which communities once at war learn to mourn their dead together. (The Warrior’s Honour, 188-190)
“Far from speaking to an age long gone and forgotten, the laws of sacrifice tell us three things as important now as then:
- first, violence is still part of human nature, never more dangerous than when combined with an ethic of revenge;
- second, rather than denying its existence, we must find ways of redirecting it so that it does not claim yet more human sacrifices;
- third, that the only ultimate alternative to sacrifices, animal or human, is the one first propounded millennia ago by the prophets of ancient Israel. No one put it better than Amos:
“Even though you bring Me burnt offerings and offerings of grain,
I will not accept them . . .
But let justice roll down like a river,
And righteousness like a never-failing stream.” (Amos 5: 23-24)
(End of Quote).
Shabbat HaGadol and the Healing Message of the Malachi Parashah
Shabbat HaGadol (The Great or Awesome Sabbath), has its own reflection on the pending Redemption. The Malachi Parashat portion brings a more promising Message.
Ismar Schorsch, the chancellor of The Jewish Theological Seminary, writes
“Malachi, who lived in Judea some time after the return from the Babylonian exile, was the last of the prophets to make it into the Hebrew canon. We have but a few specimens of his message. His final words, which constitute our haftarah, relate to the end of days, a devastation that will spare only those who have remained faithful to God. The return of Elijah, the prophet who never died, will both foretell the impending doom as well as provide salvation from it. In speaking of that day, Malachi uses the Hebrew word “gadol (great):” So, I will send the prophet Elijah to you before the coming of the awesome (gadol), fearful day of the Lord (Malachi 3:23). According to Malachi, when Elijah appears, “He shall reconcile parents with children and children with their parents, so that when I (the Lord of Hosts) come, I do not strike the whole land with utter destruction (3:24).” In short, the onset of the Messianic era begins at home with familial reconciliation.“ (End of Quote).
In these Times of the reawakening and Return of the House of Israel, we can look at these “familial reconciliations” also as applying to the Greater Family of Israel: The House of Judah and the House of Israel; the proverbial ‘Prodigal Son” and the “faithful Son”.
Similarly, we can apply the following recommendations to the desperately poor relationship between the two Houses of the Family of G-d.
In a commentary on Parashat Tzav, Jill Minkoff of The Acadamy of Jewish Learning notes as follows (ajrsem.org):
“Malachi’s verses also speak to this relationship (with G-d, as attained through rituals of Sacrifice) and are as poignant today as during his lifetime. Rev. Dr. A. Cohen, in commentary on The Twelve Prophets, describes the Jewish community of Malachi’s era as negligent: the Temple service was in disrepute, Temple priests were careless with their duties, people were not tithing appropriately, there was general skepticism and indifference with regard to religion, morals were lax, and divorce and intermarriage were common (335). Gunther Plaut, in The Haftarah Commentary, likens this to contemporary times: we often doubt G-d’s presence and justice, there is instability within communities, and the rate of divorce and intermarriage has increased (576). With these similarities across time, Malachi’s messages are still important and meaningful to us.
In Malachi 3:6-7, G-d states:
“I am HaShem – I have not changed – From the very days of your fathers you have turned away from My laws ‘Turn back to Me, and I will turn back to you'”
[These are very comforting assurances after the Divine Condemnations and utter Rejections of the normal ‘Jeremiah Haftarah’].
“These are words of hope. G-d does not and has not changed; yet G-d can and is willing to “turn back”, make teshuvah, just as humans can. Cohen emphasizes that G-d wants (us) to turn from apathy and “rekindle” the spirit of religion; G-d is not necessarily concerned with the specific detail of ritual (as found in Parashat Tzav), but with ritual spirit that shows reverence to G-d (336). This ritual spirit, a process of teshuvah, is not easy.
“How shall we turn back?” [3:7]), one is able to uncover the following seven-step process for teshuvah:
Acknowledge that one has turned away from G-d (3:4-5).
Determine whom the problem involves and who will need to take the corrective action (3:5-7).
Determine how to take the corrective actions (3:8-9).
Know the reward for changing back to G-d’s ways (3:10-12).
Know that G-d is aware of the current realities and barriers to change (3:13-16).
Know the consequences of not changing (3:17-21).
Know what to do and do it (3:22-24).
“When Elijah appears (and hopefully before), reconcile relations between parent and child into a vision of family “unity and affection” (Plaut 579). Yet, family reconciliation is difficult. Rabbi Missaghieh points out the immense nature of this challenge. There are no demonstrations of this teshuvah in biblical narration; so there are no “good old days” to look back upon and from which to learn (288).
“For us, other additions to this process may include being aware that a change is needed, understanding the laws of Moses and Israel, determining how to live according to these laws and rules, embracing the need to foster family unity, and living accordingly. It is not an easy task. It never has been.
“We, the children of Jacob, must make the first action in the process of teshuvah; then God will also turn and we will finally be face-to-face enjoying the radiance and blessings that are our due.”
(End of Quote).
This portion from Malachi, the final paragraphs of the Tanach, therefore ends with the admonition: “Remember the law of my servant Moses, the Decrees and Laws I gave him at Horeb for all Israel.“
This Divine Admonition is directed at the ‘faithful Remnant’:
Mal. 4:16-18, “Then those who feared HaShem talked with each other, and HaShem listened and heard. A scroll of remembrance was written in his presence concerning those who feared HaShem and honored His Name. 17 “On the day when I act”, says HaShem Almighty, “they will be my treasured possession. I will spare them, just as a father has compassion and spares his son who serves him. 18 And you will again see the distinction between the righteous and the wicked, between those who serve G-d and those who do not.”
And, under the apt heading inserted into the English Translation of this Final Admonition:
Breaking Covenant by Withholding Tithes
Malachi 4:6, “I HaShem do not change. So you, the descendants of Jacob [ALL 12 Tribes, both Houses of Israel], are not destroyed. 7 Ever since the time of your ancestors you have turned away from My Decrees and have not kept them. Return to me, and I will return to you,” says HaShem Almighty.
But you ask, “How are we to return?”
8 Will a mere mortal rob G-d? Yet you rob me.
‘But,’ you ask, “How are we robbing you?”
“In tithes and offerings. 9 You are under a curse – your whole nation – because you are robbing Me. 10 Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in My House. Test Me in this,” says HaShemAlmighty, “and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of Heaven and pour out so much blessing that there will not be room enough to store it. 11 I will prevent pests from devouring your crops, and the vines in your fields will not drop their fruit before it is ripe,” says tHaShem Almighty. 12 “Then all the nations will call you blessed, for yours will be a delightful Land,” says HaShem Almighty.”
It should be significant to all those interested in, and striving for the Reconciliation of the Two divided Houses of Israel, that a Divine Call for Tithing underlies the Final Call of the Bible for the Final Days towards Redemption, i.e. the re-uniting in Peace of the Two divided Houses of Israel, to establish the Kingdom of the G-d of Israel!