Bar-Ilan University
Parashat Vayikra 5772/April 1, 2012
Parashat Hashavua Study Center
Lectures on the weekly Torah reading by the faculty of Bar-Ilan University in Ramat Gan, Israel. A project of the Faculty of Jewish Studies, Paul and Helene Shulman Basic Jewish Studies Center, and the Office of the Campus Rabbi. Published on the Internet under the sponsorship of Bar-Ilan University's International Center for Jewish Identity. Prepared for Internet Publication by the Computer Center Staff at Bar-Ilan University.
906
Amichai Cohen[1]
Meal Offerings and Passover Eve
Leviticus begins by describing burnt offerings (Lev. 1:2):
Speak to the Israelite people, and say to them: When any of you presents an offering of cattle to the Lord, he shall choose his offering from the herd or from the flock. If his offering is a burnt offering from the herd, he shall make his offering a male without blemish. He shall bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, for acceptance in his behalf before the Lord.
The text continues with the details of sacrifices from the flock, from the herd, of birds, etc. But after dealing with the laws of burnt offerings, instead of continuing naturally with the laws of sacrifices of well-being, Chapter 2 skips abruptly to a totally different type of offering: "When a person presents an offering of meal to the Lord, his offering shall be of choice flour; he shall pour oil upon it, lay frankincense on it" (Lev. 2:1). Not until the passage on meal offerings has been completed does Scripture return to offerings of well-being (chapter 3), beginning the passage with a verse which appears a direct continuation of the passage on burnt offerings, both in style and structure: "If his offering is a sacrifice of well-being—if he offers of the herd, whether a male or a female, he shall bring before the Lord one without blemish" (Lev. 3:1).
Why was the passage on meal offerings inserted in the midst of passages dealing with animal offerings, between burnt offerings and offerings of well-being? Perhaps this structure deliberately juxtaposes the two basic types of offerings, from the animal world and from the plant world, in order to point out a contrast between them.
Placing the text on meal offerings and their specific characteristics in between burnt offerings and offerings of well-being is intended to bring us back associatively to the ancient conflict between animal offerings and plant offerings which took place in the dawn of history, in the story of Cain and Abel (Gen. 4:3-5):
In the course of time, Cain brought an offering to the Lord from the fruit of the soil; and Abel, for his part, brought the choicest of the firstlings of his flock. The Lord paid heed to Abel and his offering, but to Cain and his offering He paid no heed. Cain was much distressed and his face fell.
The story of Cain and Abel itself raises a question which Scripture does not answer: why did the Lord not pay heed to Cain's offering? What was bad about his offering? The questions that arise due to the missing details in the verse describing Cain's offering become doubly poignant in the context of the grave and fateful consequences of the tension between Cain and Abel.
Was the problem with Cain's offering that it came from the fruit of the earth? Again, in an attempt to fill in the blanks in the verse describing Cain's offering we are alerted by the words, "Cain brought an offering…from the fruit of the soil," as the memory of another event connected with sacraments and the sanctuary rises before us (Deut. 26:1-2):
When you enter the land that the Lord your G-d is giving you as a heritage, and you possess it and settle in it, you shall take some of every first fruit of the soil, which you harvest from the land that the Lord your G-d is giving you, put it in a basket and go to the place where the Lord your G-d will choose to establish His name.
Here we have proof from the commandment of first fruits, which revolves around bringing "fruit of the soil", that the problem with Cain's offering was not that it came from the soil; rather, the problem lay elsewhere. Our understanding of the flaw in Cain's offering comes to us precisely from the passage on first fruits. There we have a depiction which actually relates to Cain's offering: "you shall take some of every first fruit" (Deut. 26:2)—"and Abel, for his part, brought the choicest of the firstlings" (Gen. 4:4). The element of first, which appears in the commandment of first fruits, and of firstlings, which appears in the description of Abel's offering, is absent in the case of Cain's offering.
With good reason, a homily of the Sages describes Cain as a "bad tenant who would eat the first fruits and treat the King to the dregs."[2] Another homily describes Cain as bringing "what was left over after he had eaten."[3] The Sages emphasize the dichotomy between the brothers' behavior; they describe Cain as bringing his meal offering from what was left over, from what was superfluous for him, as if he were placing his own needs and well-being before all else. He felt himself master and owner of his wealth, and viewed his obligation to bring an offering to the Creator as a burdensome duty. Cain was not grateful for what had been given him, and was not swept by a sense of recognition of the beneficence bestowed upon him, even though according to Scripture it was he who initiated bringing an offering. In his consciousness he had no experience of direct or indirect influence of the Lord of the Universe in the bounty that had been placed in his hands or the well-being that encompassed him. Cain forgot that he was a "tenant" and held himself in his relationship to G-d as the sole owner of his property. Therefore the Sages described him as a "bad tenant."[4]
It seems that the commandment of bringing first fruits is entirely directed at regulating this matter, at reminding and raising the awareness of the land holder regarding the proper attitude towards one's possessions and holdings in the land. Concrete expression of this notion is found in the passage that is recited aloud by the person bringing the first fruits (Deut. 26:5-10):
My father was a fugitive Aramean. He went down to Egypt with meager numbers and sojourned there… The Egyptians dealt harshly with us… We cried…and the Lord heard our plea… The Lord freed us from Egypt… He brought us to this place and gave us this land, a land flowing with milk and honey. Wherefore I now bring the first fruits of the soil which You, O Lord, have given me.
How much humility, submission, and acknowledgement of the Lord's beneficence are reflected in this public declaration.[5]
Now let us return to the passages on the burnt offerings, meal offerings, and offerings of well-being: meal offerings come from the "fruit of the soil" and as such we should expect them to include the same element of being the first, as amends for Cain's offering. Indeed, the need to break a person's hubris and pride stands out here. Scripture, in describing the person bringing the meal offering, does not use the Hebrew word ish (a person, but denoting distinction), and instead says nefesh (a person or soul).
Again note the submission and humility that are expressed by the word nefesh; what humility, submission and acknowledgment of the Lord's beneficence is required of the person bringing a meal offering! What is more, Scripture goes on to command: "No meal offering that you offer to the Lord shall be made with leaven… You may bring them to the Lord as an offering of choice products (lit. 'first products')" (Lev. 2:11-12).
By forbidding leaven the Torah removes from the offering that which symbolizes being sated and rich, and turns the meal offering into "poor bread." This modest offering is supposed to reflect an inner sense of being lowliness, humility, and deeply appreciation.
Again various associations are evoked: we have a prohibition against leaven—from the world of ideas of Passover—a proscription which applies in parallel to meal offerings. We also have the passage, "My father was a fugitive Aramean," which comes from the world of ideas associated with the commandment of first fruits and which also is expounded on the first night of Passover.
On the first night of Passover, perhaps more than on any other night of the year, we are called upon to experience as best we can the point at which all began, to be grateful to the Lord and acknowledge His central place in the cycle of our lives and our economic well-being.
May it be Your will, my G-d and G-d of my fathers, that you break and subdue the burden of the evil impulse that weighs on our hearts, for You have created us to do Your bidding, and we are obliged to do Your bidding. You desire us and we, You; but what interferes is the leaven in the dough. It is revealed and known before You that we have not the strength to withstand it, unless it be Your will, O my G-d and G-d of my fathers, that you remove it from us and subdue it; and we shall do Your bidding wholeheartedly, as our own.[6]
Translated by Rachel Rowen
1
[1] Dr. Cohen teaches at the Center for Basic Jewish Studies.
[2] Genesis Rabbah (Vilna ed.), ch. 22, s.v. "va-yavo Cain."
[3] Tanhuma (Warsaw ed.), ch. Bereshit, par. 9.
[4] See various homilies of the Sages in which they portray Cain as materialist and haughty, by means of their account of an argument that developed between him and Abel and which ultimately led to the latter being murdered.
[5] Rashi, loc. cit.: "You shall then recite—this means say aloud."
[6] Jerusalem Talmud, Berakhot 4.2.