Transcript

Let's find the Ramban here in Vayikra on פרק א פסוק ט. Several lines in where he quotes the Rambam from the Moreh. פרק א פסוק ט several lines in:

ואמר הרב במורה הנבוכים כי טעם הקרבנות בעבור שהמצרים והכשדים אשר היו ישראל גרים ותושבים בארצם מעולם היו עובדים לבקר ולצאן כי המצרים עובדים לטלה והכשדים עובדים לשדים אשר יבואו להם בדמות שעירים ואנשי הודו עד היום לא ישחטו בקר לעולם. בעבור כן ציווה לשחוט אלה השלושה מינים לשם הנכבד כדי שיוודע כי הדבר שהיו חושבים כי הם בתכלית העבירה הוא אשר יקריבו לבורא ובו יתכפרו העוונות כי כן יתרפאו האמונות הרעות שהם מדוי הנפש כי כל מדוי וכל חולי לא יתרפא כי אם בהפכו. אלה דבריו ובהם האריך והנה הם דברי הבאי ירפאו שבר גדול וקושיא רבה על נקלה יעשו שולחן השם מגואל שאיננו רק להוציא מלבן של רשעים וטיפשי עולם והכתוב אמר כי הם לחם אשה לריח ניחוח.

So the Torah describes korbanos as being lareiach nichoach. The Ramban says for the Rambam it seems to be just it's the whole thing is just la'afukei from avodah zarah.

וגם לפי שטותם של מצרים לא תתרפא מחלתם בזה אבל תוסיף מכאוב כי מחשבת הרשעים הנזכרים לעבוד למזל טלה ומזל שור שיש להם כוח בהם כפי מחשבתם ולכן לא יאכלו אותם לכבוד כוחם ויסודם אבל אם יזבחו אותם לשם הנכבד זה כבוד להם ומעלה והם עצמם כך הם נוהגים כמו שאמר ולא יזבחו עוד את זבחיהם לשעירים ועושי העגל זבחו לו.

So the Ramban says that the as it were the real avodah zarah that the what they really deified was the mazal was the constellation in the shape of the sheep or in the in the in the form of the ox. So if you single out those animals and davka use those for korbanos so adaraba that's That plays into their whole kefiradike scheme that they think that's something special about these animals because they're because they in some way mirror the mazallos.

והראב"ע משכיל שהיו מקריבים ללבנה בכל ראשי חדשיהם ולשמש בעלותה במזלות הידועים להם בספריהם ויוסיף תשרף המחלה ואכלנו מהם לשובע שהוא אסור להם ומגונה בעיניהם ולא יעשו כן לעולם אדרבה ויאכלו את הבהמות האלו. והנה נח בצאתו מן התיבה עם שלשת בניו אין בעולם כשדי או מצרי.

So Noach antedates both the culture of Kasdim and the culture of Mitzrayim. So clearly there's no need to - there isn't any avoda zara culture of the Kasdim or Mitzrim to be countered. And hikriv korban and vayitav be'einei Hashem.

ויאמר בו וירח ה' את ריח הניחוח וממנו אמר אל לבו לא אוסיף עוד לקלל את האדמה בעבור האדם.

Similarly even before Noach:

הבל הביא גם הוא מבכורות צאנו ומחלביהן. וישע ה' אל הבל ואל מנחתו.

And at this point not only didn't you have the specific avoda zara culture of Kasdim or Mitzrayim, you didn't have any avoda zara.

ולא היה עדיין בעולם שמץ עבודת גילולים כלל. ובלעם אמר את שבעת המזבחות ערכתי ואעל פר ואיל במזבח.

And his intention wasn't to remove from it some emunah that it's wrong as it wasn't commanded of you,

אבל עשה כן לקרבה אל האלקים כדי שיחול עליו הדיבור.

Ulshon hakorbanos: את קרבני לחמי לאשי ריח ניחוחי. That description of korbanos:

וחלילה שלא יהיה בהם שום תועלת ורצון רק שלילות לעבודת גילולים מדעת השוטים.

It can't be that there's no intrinsic value and that it's only a response to avoda zara. Veyoser ra'uy if one's going to explain al pi nigla what the inyan of korbanos is:

ויותר ראוי לשמוע הטעם שאומרים בהם כי בעבור שמעשי בני האדם נגמרים במחשבה ובדיבור ובמעשה.

Right, we engage in thought, speech, and action. And often they converge, that what we're doing is a product of machshava, dibbur, and ma'aseh. So therefore:

ציווה ה' כי כאשר יחטא ויביא קרבן ישמוך ידיו עליו כנגד המעשה. ויתוודה בפיו כנגד הדיבור. וישרוף באש הקרב והכליות שהם כלי המחשבה והתאווה. והכרעיים כנגד ידיו ורגליו של אדם העושים כל מלאכתו ויזרוק הדם על המזבח כנגד דמו בנפשו כדי שיחשוב אדם בעשותו כל אלה

as each of these things is karev on the mizbei'ach. Or again, prior to the korban on the mizbei'ach when he does the smicha, when he's misvadeh over the chatas, over the asham:

כדי שיחשוב אדם בעשותו כל אלה כי חטא לאלקיו בגופו ובנפשו.

And the emes is that really:

וראוי לו שישפך דמו וישרף גופו לולי חסד הבורא שלקח ממנו תמורה וכפר הקרבן הזה שיהיה דמו תחת דמו נפש תחת נפש. וראשי איברי הקרבן כנגד ראשי איבריו והמנות החיות בהן מורי התורה שיתפללו עליו.

Right, the cheilek which is to the kohanim, the kohanim all year long is את עמי יורו בין קודש לחול. All year long the kohanim were teachers of Torah. Sheyitpalelu alav.

וקרבן התמיד בעבור שלא יינצלו הרבים מחטאת תמיד ואלו דברים מסתבשים מסתבלים מושכים הלב כדברי אגדה.

And then he goes on to say that al pi kabbalah there's another understanding of avodas hakorbanos. So for the Ramban, korbanos are sort of a vehicle where we vicariously sacrifice ourselves. The Torah provides for a substitute. So this explains—I think the—I think maybe the Sforno has this at the beginning of Vayikra also like this. Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch also has along the same lines. There are psukim in Navi you have where Hakadosh Baruch Hu says I'm not interested in your korbanos. It's true the Rambam writes that in general, the Rambam writes in Hilchos Teshuvah that it is true in general about mitzvos, if a person is

כמה מעולה מעלת התשובה אמש היה זה מובדל מהשם אלהי ישראל שנאמר עונותיכם היו מבדילים ביניכם לבין אלהיכם צועק ואינו נענה שנאמר גם כי תרבו תפלה עושה מצות וטורפין אותן בפניו.

That speaking generally about mitzvos, that there are times when Hakadosh Baruch Hu says that if a mitzvah is in the context of rishus, so at times that only is an act of hypocrisy. At times it's you see a nitzotz of kedusha that's still that's still burning, but at times it's no, it's it's considered an act of hypocrisy, and עושה מצוות וטופחן על פניו. So it's true that that there is such a bechina about mitzvos in general, but the pesukim in Navi single out avodas hakorbanos. So the teretz is, and again, this is implicit, again, the Ramban just doesn't apply it to say pshat in these pesukim. It's implicit in the Ramban, again, I think kamidomeh that the Sforno and Shimshon Raphael Hirsch say it explicitly. Avodas hakorbanos more than more than any other mitzvah has to correlate. No, a person benches, he benches. For the benching to to be a mitzvah, it doesn't really have to correlate with, obviously he has to believe the words he's saying, he has to believe in the Ribono Shel Olam, he has to be thanking the Ribono Shel Olam, but it doesn't need to correlate with anything. Avodas hakorbanos has to mirror an inner sense of charata, an inner sense of contrition. It only serves as a vicarious form of kappara when the person genuinely recognizes and feels כי חטא לאלוקיו בגופו ובנפשו. And and in that sense, avodas korbanos differ from from virtually all other mitzvos in that they are dependent upon a a certain context. And a person is a baal aveiros, but he he makes a Seder. I don't know so obviously that he's a baal aveiros is a terrible thing, but but that doesn't negate the the good of the fact that he makes a Seder. But korbanos depend, zevach rishaim toeva, it's not only that that it doesn't hit the mark, but but... And and the Ramban's explanation accounts for again the need for that broader context by avodas korbanos, which doesn't exist necessarily by by other kiyum hamitzvos. The Ramban's hasagos on the Rambam basically split into two parts. Number one, I guess most fundamentally, the Ramban understands the Rambam to think that the entire institution of avodas korbanos exists, was was introduced, was enacted to counteract avoda zara. And then B, he says even if if that even if one were to grant that yesod, he just doesn't he doesn't see how the how that works. He says aderaba, singling out those minim... for korbanos, the minim which the avoda zara of the Kasdim and the Mitzrayim also elevate, so doesn't that just play into their hands rather than counteracting it? Okay, so those are two very different hassagos. When you look in the Rambam, it's not in the perek that the Ramban is quoting, it's in a different perek. But it seems clear that, I don't know, it could be that the translation the Ramban had obscured this point and and that's what generated the the misunderstanding. But it seems clear that what the Rambam is is that what the Rambam actually says is the following. I think the Ibn Ezra comments, I think it's the Ibn Ezra, on the pasuk ויביא קין מפרי האדמה מנחה לה'. Right, and so we don't really think of anything, but okay, you bring a korban, right? That's the idiom. And but the Ibn Ezra says no, the only reason the idiom is to bring a korban is because you bring a korban to a specific place. That's why you have the idiom to bring a korban. It's not otherwise the idiom would be lehakriv korban. It just wouldn't have been vayaivei Kayin, it would just be vayakreiv Kayin. The idiom lehovi korban means that you bring the korban to a particular place. So what did that mean in the context of Kayin? So I think this is the Ibn Ezra who says all this. The Ibn Ezra says that it means that Kayin brought the korban to to the place where he used to davven. So what does it mean? Means like this. It means that naturally a person has there are two sort of natural impulses that that a person has to be oveid Hashem. A person has a natural impulse to to davven, to reach out, to talk to Hakadosh Baruch Hu, but a person also has it's a natural impulse to bring a korban. And that's why we find that that Kayin and Hevel brought korbanos, Noach brought a korban, according to the midrashim, it's not mefurash in the Torah she-b'ksav, the Ramban is just quoting what's in the psukim, but according to the medrash, so Adam ha-Rishon already brought a korban. And that's why you find that they they all brought korbanos. Again, as the Ramban says, nothing to do with serving as a polemic as a as a counterweight to avoda zara. It's a natural impulse. Now the vort is like this. Of those two impulses, the impulse to be oveid Hashem derech t'filla and derech korbanos, the Rambam says the one which is really preferable, the one which is closer to the ideal is davvening. That's the one that's closer to the ideal because ultimately the highest form of avoda is through seichel and through machshava. And because of that, of those two natural forms of avoda, the higher form of avoda is really is really t'filla. Ella mai, says the Rambam, heyos that that people were so, because they had been steeped in this avoda zara culture, so they couldn't be weaned so drastically from avodas korbanos, so instead the Torah restricts and and the Torah maintains it, not not that the Torah is maintaining an avoda zara-dicke institution. No, the institution, like the Ramban points out, is something which antedates avoda zara. It's a natural impulse. Right, if if you look at the by avoda zara, so a person in order to be person has to be oveid the avoda zara ki'darko. If he's oveid shelo ki'darko, if you do the avoda of one avoda zara to another avoda zara, so you're not chayav. It has to be ki'darko. But then there are dalet avodos that a person is chayav whether it's ki'darko or shelo ki'darko. So if a person does nisuch, a person pours, pours nesachim, a person is shechts, a person does haktara, dehynu avodas korbanos, so that he's chayav even if it's shelo ki'darko of the avoda zara. Why? Because it's a natural form of avoda. So avada, it's not some crazy tuma-dik institution which was conjured up by ovdei avoda zara. No, it's a natural form of avodas Hashem, which is why Hevel brought, Noach brought, even Adam HaRishon. The Torah maintained it and used it, even though of the two natural forms of avoda, avodas hatfilla is a higher form of avoda. The Torah maintained it and uses it טאקע לאפוקי מעבודה זרה, but that's not what the, but that's not the basis of the whole practice and institution of avodas hakorbanos. That's why the Ramban says because avodas hakorbanos is of the two, not the lower form, and avodas hatfilla is the higher form, that's why the Torah makes possible that tfillah is possible anywhere and the Torah restricts opportunities for hakravas korbanos davka in Mikdash. But the Rambam never said the entire institution is be'atzmouso an avoda zara-dik institution. No, he says it's a natural form of avodas Hashem as reflected by the fact that Hevel, Noach brought korbanos. It's not as optimal a form of avodas Hashem as avodas hatfilla, but the Torah maintained it because again, A, we were so accustomed to that form of avoda, and then the Torah uses it takeh la'afukei, the Torah then uses it also la'afukei me'avoda zara. That's what the Rambam holds. Again, apparently in the translations the Ramban had it didn't come across. In the menachos and other non-animal korbanos reflect that initial korban from the pri and that's why also it's not nothing to do with avoda zara, just that's more the natural instinct? All korbanos I think is a natural thing that a person, whether it's a chatas when a person needs kapara, whether it's bikurim. Obviously the Ribbono Shel Olam doesn't need it, but we need to express and yeah, that's the pshat. Yeah, okay, we'll stop here for today and we'll continue later.