PARSHAT TETZAVEH

The Inauguration Ram (Exodus 29:31-34) Questions by Joel Cohen
This week we begin what will probably become, for a period time, a weekly discussion of issues relating to animal sacrifice. So, by way of full disclosure while I, as do you, yearn for the rebuilding of the Temple, I do not long for the return of animal sacrifice or, frankly, believe that animal sacrifices by the Children of Israel will ever reoccur. That reality, the baggage of my idosynctatic bias, will be a given over the coming parshas.
That said, I accept the traditional precepts about sacrifices that held sway at the time of the Tabernacle and then the Temple. Troubling, though, is the role of the sacrificed animal’s flesh in the sacramental process. Aaron and his sons were directed to eat of the ram (and the bread) at the entrance to the Tabernacle. The priests “who received atonement through them,” were directed to eat from the flesh and bread in order to inaugurate and sanctify them -- an alien, however, could not, as the flesh and bread were holy. If any of the flesh or bread were left over until the morning not having been eaten by the priests, they were to be burned in the fire. There was a specific injunction against anyone eating of them any longer, as they were holy.
How does this make sense? This was food that, in God’s regime, could be eaten by humans – meaning, the priests. Surely, though, there were widows and orphans who hungered in the desert, who would have been well served to come to the Tabernacle and eat the leftover scraps. But no! If the priests, who were hardly at a loss for food, didn’t finish the food, no one could. Was God going to eat it?
Today, poor people daily come to synagogues -- today’s tabernacles -- and happily we “sacrifice” by giving them charity in the form of cash or food. But the Torah, at the time of the Tabernacle, directed instead that the food go up in smoke -- God’s regime did not incorporate helping the starving poor with the food leftover at the Tabernacle. One can easily understand sacrificing the entire ram to God. But since eating the flesh of the ram was indeed permissible – in fact, required by the Torah – the restriction on precisely who could eat of it is lost on me. Surprising, especially since you know my last name.
Please explain.

Rabbi Adam Mintz

Joel---or this week should I address you as Yoel ben Natan ha-Kohen---you have raised such an important question that it was already asked over 2500 years ago by the prophet Isaiah. In the first chapter of Isaiah, the haftorah that we read on Shabbat Chazon, the prophet criticizes the people for religiously bringing sacrifices while ignoring the needs of the poor. Isaiah tells the people that God does not want their sacrifices if they will not treat the poor and disadvantaged properly.
However, the verses from Isaiah beg the question---did the poor have a role in the sacrificing of the korbanot? The answer must be divided into two sections: First, regarding the communal sacrifices that were brought every day in the Temple on behalf of the Jewish people, everyone was represented equally. This representation was established by the donation of a half shekel by each person once a year. The half shekel was the smallest coin at the time---it was like donating a nickel to the Temple and guaranteed that even the poorest person would be given the chance to be an equal participant in the communal sacrifices.
The second piece of the answer relates to the private sacrifices that were brought by individuals. You are correct that there were several different kinds of sacrifices; the Olah, which was burned in total and the shelamim, which was eaten by the owner of the animal and the kohen. But, what about the poor person? Shouldn’t they have a portion of the sacrificial meal? The Torah is sensitive to their plight in two different ways. First, the Torah commands everyone to include the poor and the orphan and widow in their celebration of the holidays in Jerusalem. This was accomplished by making these disadvantaged people partners in the sacrifice thus allowing them to eat from the sacrificing. What a wonderful form of charity to include these people as equal partners in the sacrificial rite. Second, in several places the Torah gives the person a choice of sacrificing different kinds of animals or birds depending on their financial ability. Again, the Torah shows compassion by including the disadvantaged in the sacrificial process.
Yoel ben Natan ha-Kohen, an excellent question, to which the Torah was appropriately responsive!

Eli Popack

Bringing a sacrifice in no way exempts anyone from feeding the poor, hence, the words of the prophet Isaiah 1:11-17 "Of what use are your many sacrifices to Me?.....Learn to do good, seek justice, strengthen the robbed, perform justice for the orphan, plead the case of the widow."

The Torah does, however, instruct us to do both, feed the poor and bring sacrifices, and where the Kohen is meant to eat the sacrifice giving it to the poor won't fly. This brings us to our Priestly Litigator's question, why not?

There are two ways one can understand the fact that some of the sacrifices are given to the Kohen for his consumption. One approach would be that these sacrifices are less holy, so they may be eaten, and this is a practical way to provide the Kohen with food on his table. From this angle one could ask, if the Kohen wants to share with the poor, why can't he?

But perhaps the Kohen's consumption of the sacrifice is more than a default way of getting rid of it. Perhaps the Kohen's consuption of the sacrifice was in no way less important than all the other details which make a sacrifice "do its thing" like sprinkling the blood, and the Levites singing during the process. To quote the Talmud (Pesachim 59b), "the Kohanim eat, and the owners are atoned for." In other words, the Kohen eating the sacrifice is actually a part of the atonement process, like all the others, and is not just a source of income for the otherwise unemployed Priestly family.

The unique detail in the process that the Kohen accomplishes is perhaps beyond the scope of this post; maybe we can discuss it in the comments. But suffice it to say, that from this perspective, as important as feeding the poor is in Jewish life, it can not replace the important role that the Koehen plays through eating the sacrifice, just as donating to your local synagogue won;t exempt you from laying the Tefilin or making Kiddush.