Vayikra Rabbah (22:08) R. Phinehas in the name of R. Levi said: The matter may be compared to the case of a king's son who thought he could do what he liked and habitually ate the flesh of nebeloth and.terefoth. Said the king: ' I will have him always at my own table and he will automatically be hedged round.’ Similarly, because Israel were passionate followers after idolatry in Egypt and used to bring their sacrifices to the satyrs, as it is written, And they shall no more sacrifice their sacrifices unto the satyrs (Vayikra 17:07) --and these satyrs are nought but demons, as is borne out by the text which says, They sacrificed unto demons, no-gods (Deut. 32:17), these demons being nought but satyrs, as it says, And satyrs shall dance there (Isa. 13:21)1--and they used to offer their sacrifices in the forbidden high places, on account of which punishments used to come upon them, the Holy One, blessed be He, said: ‘Let them offer their sacrifices to Me at all times in the Tent of Meeting, and thus they will be separated from idolatry and be saved from punishment.’ Hence it is written, WHAT MAN SOEVER THERE BE OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL THAT KILLETH AN OX... AND HATH NOT BROUGHT IT UNTO THE DOOR OF THE TENT OF MEETING, etc.
Bechor Shor [1](Vayikra 17:7)
[1] ולא יזבחו עוד את זבחיהם. כלומר, איני אומר מפני שאני צריך לזבחיהם, אלא מפני שלא ירגילו להקטיר לע"ז וזהו: ולא צויתים ביום הוציאי אותם מארץ מצרים על דברי עולה וזבח, כי איני לא רעב ולא צמא, ולא עשיתי אלא כדי שישמעו לקולי, ולא ירגילו לע"ז ואיתכפרו מעונם ולהנאתם נתכונתי ולא להנאתי:
That's quite clear that rambam has a posuk in the Torah upon which to base his statement.
ReplyDeletewhich is?
ReplyDeleteIt is referenced in the midrash above -
ReplyDeleteVayikra 17:
ז וְלֹא-יִזְבְּחוּ
עוֹד, אֶת-זִבְחֵיהֶם, לַשְּׂעִירִם, אֲשֶׁר הֵם זֹנִים אַחֲרֵיהֶם:
חֻקַּת עוֹלָם תִּהְיֶה-זֹּאת לָהֶם, לְדֹרֹתָם.
7 And they shall no more sacrifice their sacrifices unto the
satyrs, after whom they go astray. This shall be a statute for ever unto them throughout their generations.
This means that one explicit function of Korbanot in the Torah is to ween us off the sacrifices made to the "satyrs".
Torah thought this week’s parsha פנחס: “The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: Command the Israelite people and say to them: The offerings of food due me [lit. my offerings, my food] את קרבני לחמי as offerings by fire לאשי of pleasing odor ריח ניחוחי, be punctilious in presenting to me at stated times תשמרו להקריב במועדו.” (Numbers 28:1-2).
ReplyDeleteבמדבר כ"ח ב'
צַו אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם אֶת קָרְבָּנִי לַחְמִי לְאִשַּׁי רֵיחַ נִיחֹחִי תִּשְׁמְרוּ לְהַקְרִיב לִי בְּמוֹעֲדוֹ:
Pesachim 77a:
“Shall we say that all of them [i.e., those mentioned in the Mishnah that may be offered in uncleanness] are derived from mo'ed [appointed time]? How do we know it? For our Rabbis taught: “The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: Command the Israelite people and say to them: The offerings of food due me [lit. my offerings, my food] את קרבני לחמי as offerings by fire לאשי of pleasing odor ריח ניחוחי, be punctilious in presenting to me at stated times תשמרו להקריב במועדו.” (Numbers 28:1-2). For what purpose is this stated [seeing that all the Festivals are individually treated in that chapter]? Because we have learnt only of the daily offering and the Passover-offering [that they override the Sabbath and uncleanness], since in its appointed time is stated in connection with them [Num. XXVIII, 2; IX, 2. In its appointed time implies that the sacrifice must be offered in all circumstances, as explained in the text.], In its appointed time [implying] even on the Sabbath, in its appointed time implying even in uncleanness. Whence do we know it of other public sacrifices? Because it is said, “All these you shall offer to the Lord at the stated times במועדיכם, in addition to your votive and freewill offerings, be they burnt-offerings, meal offerings, libations, or offerings of well being ולשלמיכם.” (Numbers 29:39). [This verse ends the section (chs. XXVIII-XXIX) dealing with the public additional sacrifices on New Moon, the Sabbath and Festivals, and its effect is that the whole section is to be so understood as though in its appointed season were explicitly written in connection with each.]”
במדבר כ"ט ל"ט
אֵלֶּה תַּעֲשׂוּ לַיקֹוָק בְּמוֹעֲדֵיכֶם לְבַד מִנִּדְרֵיכֶם וְנִדְבֹתֵיכֶם לְעֹלֹתֵיכֶם וּלְמִנְחֹתֵיכֶם וּלְנִסְכֵּיכֶם וּלְשַׁלְמֵיכֶם:
Beautiful. Wow. All the daily required sacrifices and the three Festival required sacrifices override the Sabbath and override uncleanness. Wow to override the Sabbath: “On Six days work may be done; but on the seventh day there shall be a sabbath of complete rest שבת שבתון, a sacred occasion מקרא קדש. You shall do no work כל מלאכה לא תעשו; it shall be a sabbath of the Lord שבת הוא לה' throughout your settlements.” (Leviticus 23:3). Chapters 38 and 39 Numbers detail the daily required sacrifices and the three Festival required sacrifices in addition to the details in chapter 23 Leviticus. Wow sacrifices override the Sabbath!
does he cite this verse?
ReplyDeleteThats it exactly what it says
ReplyDelete"and that they may offer their sacrifices no more to the goat-demons after whom they stray"
Its like those dummy cigarettes which wean smokers off real tobacco.
your problem is the Rambam, Chazal and most commentaries to that verse don't agree with you
ReplyDeleteI looked at Rav Kapach's index, and he cites the verse of Vayikra 17:7 3 times in Part 3:46 (Mem-vav) of Moreh Hanevuchim.
ReplyDeleteIt is a long chapter, so I did not go through it.
In any case, Devarim is a restatement of earlier chapters of the Torah, so the citation above of 32:17 is perhaps referring to Vayikra 17:7.
having a problem as good as the Rambam is not a bad thing
ReplyDeletenope!
ReplyDeleteThat is very poor scholarship
you made a claim which is simply wrong. To try to avoid admitting it is nonsense!
ReplyDelete3. 46
ReplyDeleteOur Sages say that the offering for the eighth day of dedication was “a calf, a young bullock, for a sin-offering” (Lev. xi. 2), in order to atone for the sin of the Israelites in making a golden calf. The sin-offering, which was brought on the Day of Atonement (ibid. xvi. 3), was likewise explained as being an atonement for that sin. From this argument of our Sages I deduce that he-goats were always brought as sin-offerings, by individual persons and also by the whole congregation, viz., on the Festivals, New-moon, Day of Atonement, and for idolatry, because most of the transgressions and sins of the Israelites were sacrifices to spirits (se‘irim, lit., goats), as is clearly stated, “They shall no more offer their sacrifices unto spirits” (Lev. xvii. 7). Our Sages, however, explained the fact that goats were always the sin-offerings of the congregation, as an allusion to the sin of the whole congregation of Israel; for in the account of the selling of the pious Joseph we read, “And they killed a kid of the goats” (Gen. xxxvii. 31). Do not consider this as a weak argument; for it is the object of all these ceremonies to impress on the mind of every sinner and transgressor the necessity of continually remembering and mentioning his sins. Thus the Psalmist says, “And my sin is ever before me” (Ps. li. 3). The above-mentioned sin-offerings further show us that when we commit a sin, we, our children, and the children of our children, require atonement for that sin by some kind of service analogous to the sin committed. If a person has sinned in respect to property he must liberally spend his property in the service of God; if he indulged in sinful bodily enjoyments he must weary his body and trouble it by a service of privation and fasting, and rising early before daybreak.
-~-~
He brings the verse, and makes a developed argument for weaning off idolatry argument.
See how he Completes the paragraph:
Every one will then be careful that he should not sin, and require a protracted and burdensome atonement; he will be afraid he might not be able to complete it, and will therefore altogether abstain from sinning, and avoid it. This object [of the laws under discussion] is very clear, and note it likewise.
Read all of 3:46
ReplyDeleteI just posted excerpt , including the verse in question about satyrs.
What aspect of my claim is wrong?
ReplyDeleteYou said the Rambam relied on Vayikra 17:7 for his viws - but he didn't.
ReplyDeleteYou are simply saying what the Rambam could have done - but in fact he didn't
ReplyDeleteYes, it is a different psychological mechanism, that he brings in this chapter. the function is the same - to wean us off idoltrous offerings - but not as psychological compensation, but in this case as a financial deterrent.
ReplyDeleteThat's true - but the verse actually inspires this interpretation.
ReplyDeleteNo it doesn't.
ReplyDeleteI am glad to hear it inspired you - but clearly not the Rambam - which was your false claim
You are correct - his controversial claim that sacrifices had the function of compensation and weaning off idolatry was not based on this verse.
ReplyDeleteBut he did use the verse as a deterrent, to wean us off idolatry. Perhaps it is less controversial, or perhaps not.
Where does he cite the verse and does he understand it differently than Chazal?
ReplyDelete3. 46
ReplyDeleteOur Sages say that the offering for the eighth day of dedication was “a calf, a young bullock, for a sin-offering” (Lev. xi. 2), in order to atone for the sin of the Israelites in making a golden calf. The sin-offering, which was brought on the Day of Atonement (ibid. xvi. 3), was likewise explained as being an atonement for that sin. From this argument of our Sages I deduce that he-goats were always brought as sin-offerings, by individual persons and also by the whole congregation, viz., on the Festivals, New-moon, Day of Atonement, and for idolatry, because most of the transgressions and sins of the Israelites were sacrifices to spirits (se‘irim, lit., goats), as is clearly stated, “They shall no more offer their sacrifices unto spirits” (Lev. xvii. 7). Our Sages, however, explained the fact that goats were always the sin-offerings of the congregation, as an allusion to the sin of the whole congregation of Israel; for in the account of the selling of the pious Joseph we read, “And they killed a kid of the goats” (Gen. xxxvii. 31). Do not consider this as a weak argument; for it is the object of all these ceremonies to impress on the mind of every sinner and transgressor the necessity of continually remembering and mentioning his sins. Thus the Psalmist says, “And my sin is ever before me” (Ps. li. 3). The above-mentioned sin-offerings further show us that when we commit a sin, we, our children, and the children of our children, require atonement for that sin by some kind of service analogous to the sin committed. If a person has sinned in respect to property he must liberally spend his property in the service of God; if he indulged in sinful bodily enjoyments he must weary his body and trouble it by a service of privation and fasting, and rising early before daybreak.
-~-~
He brings the verse, and makes a developed argument for weaning off idolatry argument.
See how he Completes the paragraph:
Every one will then be careful that he should not sin, and require a protracted and burdensome atonement; he will be afraid he might not be able to complete it, and will therefore altogether abstain from sinning, and avoid it. This object [of the laws under discussion] is very clear, and note it likewise.
---
It's his perush and takes into account chazal.