If there is an option to choose, I like the symbolic (3) and the rational (4) option the most. To me a mixture of the two seems the most likely. But I'm not a talmid chacham (is there such a thing as talmidas chachamah?:)), so my choice is only based on what speaks to me.
>"That absence of explanation opens the door for Biblical critics. They point out that animal sacrifice was a widespread form of worship across the Ancient Near East. This, in and of itself, isn’t suspicious. But coupled with the lack of a clear internal rationale, it starts to look like the Torah was simply borrowing rituals from the surrounding cultures, a detail that Bible critics ise to point tohuman authorship."
First of all, unclear what you mean by 'critics'. Do you mean academic scholarship, or do you mean critiques of Bible?
And re "it starts to look like the Torah was simply borrowing rituals from the surrounding cultures" -
Not necessarily. Even from a purely human authorship perspective, it's likely that this is a basic (primitive) human impulse. Animal (and human) sacrifice arose independently in many societies. For example, Aztec human sacrifice
I second this approach that sacrifice is a basic human impulse. And I don't think it's primitive because we praise sacrifice when it is done for causes we understand--like soldiers sacrificing their lives in defense of their country or parents sacrificing their lives to save their children from lethal danger.
But I think we don't appreciate sacrifices today because of our materialism- we are not keenly in touch with our Source of our existence. The soul yearns to get closer to its source and when G-d tells you (Or Adam and Kayim and Hevel and Noach intuited) that when you offer up an animal sacrifice, your soul gets closer to G-d vicariously through the animal body's experience, then it makes all the sense in the world.
It's not really materialism. We don't interact with animals very much, and so it's hard to get in the vibe. If we were asked to sacrifice money, we'd probably get it better.
There's also the issue of all the poo and blood everywhere that would gross us out, but that's not materialism per se, it's just what you are used to go.
Really disagree. The whole point of the animal is the ability to offer a real living nefesh through its blood. דם הוא הנפש. This allows us to have a vicarious experience through the animal. No offering of inanimate objects--no matter how expensive-- gives that same potential for transference.
You're conflating the original and later meanings of the word 'sacrifice'. This piece is about the original meaning of the word, not the later/modern/figurative sense.
See Wiktionary:
"(religion)
Originally, the killing (and often burning) of a human being or an animal as an offering to a deity; later, also the offering of an object to a deity.
[...]
(figurative)
The destruction or surrender of anything for the sake of something else regarded as more urgent or valuable; also, the thing destroyed or surrendered for this purpose
Well, if so, I don't think the concept of an offering in Judaism was ever in the original sense--to appease an angry or demanding G-d. It was always about relationship and closeness or communion. קרבן=קרב.
That's a popular modern drush (first found in medieval sources) not pshat. The pshat is simply that קרבן is the animal being "brought near" to the deity
That this is the pshat is clear from context throughout the Bible. For example:
וְהִקְרַבְתֶּם קָרְבָּנְכֶם אִשֶּׁה לַה׳ —
'You shall bring your korban, a fire-offering to YHWH'
(Lev 23:8)
Clearly, the korban is simply the object being offered to the deity:
והקרבתם קרבן
"You shall bring near the thing that is brought near"
And it's also clear from a comparative perspective, that this is the basic concept of a 'sacrifice', as I mentioned in my previous comment.
There's no indication whatsoever in the Bible or comparative texts of a psychological element of being "close to God". The entire concept of "being close to God" is primarily a post-Biblical one. The point of a korban is an offering/gift/tribute to God, who is a fearsome, all-powerful king. If you don't give him gifts, terrible consequences may occur. This is the primary assumption in חז"ל as well.
Compare also the synonymous מִנְחָה לַה׳... Found a number of times in the Bible. Which clearly means "offering/gift to YHWH".
Compare also at Sukkot, and Solomon, offering dozens or hundreds of bulls in sacrifice at a time
The late Jacob Milgrom explains the entire system of the korbanos and the moral and other implications therein. His writings on the topic are a must-read. While some of his opinions (such as a critical belief in multiple sources) are non-traditional, he was a rabbi and his findings regarding Korbanos are culled from close reading of the Torah. Even the rabbis of the Koren tanach admit that korbanos cannot be understood without his commentary.
I used to look after a family friends' cat sometimes. He would kill birds and arrange them on the front doorstep and then pester me to come look. Fundamentally, that's what a korban is, but it's also just obvious that the specific form has a lot of cultural conditioning to it, and our culture is very different from the Bronze Age Middle East.
Personally, I think studying korbanos in their halachic minutiae is fun, and Hazal were correct in saying that this is kind of like offering korbanos today. Doubtless, it's not the highest level, but we should re-learn how to walk before we try to run.
I think 3 and 4 kind of go together. The Rambam says korbanos were standard at the time, and thus were included in the Torah, and to be done in a way that specifically countered the idolatrous practices. I haven't learned Abrabanel, but the symbolism R' Hirsch talks about counter (what he considered) idolatrous opinions.
Just want to point out that even if it's borrowed from other ancient cultures (which I think it certainly is) that doesn't strip it of meaning and that also doesn't answer the why, it just broadens the discussion to other cultures. Only once those questions are answered and the specific way it is integrated into the biblical religion is also analyzed after the rough concept is understood only then can you analyze whether it's a meaningful theological idea.
I don't have a full answer, but I think the idea of giving up from ones material possessions to incorporate the perspective of needs which transcend nature is part of the answer. (And yes, that is compatible with the idea of food of the gods.)
You left out a rationale, which is that one ideally isn’t supposed to eat meat for their personal satisfaction. After Sinai the emphasis is not on suppressing animal instincts, but channeling them to something positive. So we are given an avenue to rededicate the impulse to consume meat into another connection to the divine. If you want a rationale for the details of the laws, one would be to indicate the gravity of killing living being, another would be to connect it to life events and symbolism to help the individual kohen and owner of the Korban to have spiritual rather than base intentions.
Korban Oleh still needs a rationale, but even in that case the skins are still used by kohanim so you could say something similar.
"When you offer up an animal sacrifice your sould gets closer to G-d vicariously through the animal body's experience'.
Why should it? Do doctors get that experience when a patient dies? Do the chevra kedisha get that experience when being present at yetzious neshonomo? Sacrifice is a bloody messy business. Does a person idendify so much with an animal?
As one who is currently enjoying a daily chavrusa in Menachos (20 months and only up to כד!) , I find that the Rambam was stating the philosophical reason as to why korbanot will not be brought again in the future.
From a practical engineering perspective? Impossible. Given the amount of Kohanim (per weekly shift!!!) and people bringing various sacrifices, no matter how machine like the kohanim are, one cannot explain systems processes without invoking multiple miracles (no flies, 18 inch walkway around the top of the מזבח 9 feet high with the red line 1.5 feet below their walkway…)
You cannot find any non Yom Kippur drawings that have more than 20 kohanim in any picture. The pictures from the מכון המקדש are great and they should be praised for their attention to detail of the Talmud.
That being said: There is no mesora (mesoira for frumkeit) about what exactly happened on any given day.
Think about Korean Pesakh and potentially millions of people….it would have been nice to see someone say: this is the way my grandfather did things…
The other choice would be that only very few people came.
Option 4 seems impossible to me based on the following.
1. Principle 9 of the Rambam 13 principles is - The Torah is unchangeable. No one may add to or remove from the Torah. It is eternally true.
2. There are over 100 mitzvos out of 613, that relate directly to korbanos. To say that those will no longer be observed directly contradicts principle 9 that the Torah is unchangeable. The unchangeable part applies to korbanos as well.
IIRC we have many historical testimonies about masses of Jews coming to the Temple for Passover in the late years of the second Temple (i.e. after Herod's Renovation and expansion) such as philo, joesphus, an account from a roman procurator and they all emphasize was a massive logistical feat it was plus how many priests were involved. This is echoed in many Talmudic memories as well.
Given the square footage and the amounts of people and the absolute requirements (זריקה etc.) and the shifts? כפלים כיוצאי מצרים???
Seriously impossible which is why the miracles had to happen each time.
And- please send me source about how this was done with the crowds that came daily. - let alone during the רגלים. You will not find it
Now add contradictory statements about actual procedures and something is amiss! Introduce obese the possibility of more than 10 bulls being brought in one day….let alone 100.
Double those who left Egypt is obviously an exaggeration. But masses came (for this late period) and all Jerusalems infrastructure and resources were mobilized to accomodate the pilgrims. Most historians agree the tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands visited Jerusalem at least on Passover and Sukkot. Not sure why there couldn't have been thousands of sacrifices brought in Herod's massive temple or about 300,000 square meters (of if youre counting just the azara even though the whole temple was used for different parts of the process were still at probably at least the size of a football field. Then with possibly thousands of kohanim and efficient logistics they got the job done (albeit surely in a chaotic fashion, as reflected in the sources).
Of course 12 million people is impossible, but that number is clearly an exaggeration. There were probably somewhere around 100,000 people at the fullest years which probably means maybe 5,000 sacrifices. The 3 and a half hour time slot I'm not sure if actually dates to the temple period, so we're talking either that or maybe up to six hours in 50,000 sq feet just of azarah plus most the work being done in other rooms. Needs logistics, but definitely possible
Here is another point. The azara has one entrance that is approximately 20 feet wide. So about 8 people can enter simultaneously. If we take 3.5 hours which is 12,600 seconds and we take yout very low number of 5000 people that still means that 625 rows of 8 needed to enter. That’s 20 rows per second, clearly impossible. Additionally that entrance was also the exit and you had to exit walking backwards. So even 5000 people bringing a korban pesach is impossible.
There are no other rooms. The Gemara clearly describes the 3.5 hour window. The gemara doesn’t just throw out that number it says that they counted. Anyway it was t 12 million it was 1.2 million.
I am well aware of this. My point was that the Rambam’s philosophical statement is possibly (I think probably) based on practical reality.
The proof is that when you look at Talmudic passages on the korbanot, there are no ‘Halachic’ links: no Rif, Rosh, Mordechai, Nimukay Yosaif…..
However, if someone bases their opinions on Josephus and Philo,- it may be correct that only a minority came to the Temple regularly. That itself is telling.
Don’t get me started on טומאה וטהרה ….. very confusing, although Ezra Brand has organized it into very well done charts.
I enjoyed your debate above. It is difficult to engage one so quite condescending, but I expect no less from products of Charedi education.
The area and the amount of people then suggest that only a minority of the entire Jewish population came. If that is the case, I would agree. But if all showed up? Again, impossible.
The procedural law is contradictory. While שחיטה is an exception because of its universal application, the same cannot be said about קמיצה or מליקה- its cognates.
While the pictures of those processes are indeed helpful, there are great arguments about their mechanisms- as no one- and I mean no one- says: this is how my zaida dis it! Even with something as simple as קמיצה- no one knows exactly how it was done. (Yes you have to do a קמיצה, but as Bill Cosby flight have said decades ago: “Riiiiiight…what’s a kmitza?”
I'm gonna be blunt, but you're basically arguing from ignorance. We have works describing the temple worship such as the temple scroll, the descriptions in Josephus, and many memories recorded in rabbinic literature. We have a pretty decent understanding of how things were done, at least in Herod's temple.
Regarding the numbers of people, common estimates of the population of Judea in that century is about a quarter of a million people, plus some pilgrims from further areas such a the Galilee, Alexandria, or even further. If tens of thousands of people or maybe even at times over 100,000 showed that's a pretty nice percentage of the population, and seems pretty reasonable given the value privilege seems to have held combined with the economic and other realities which may have made it difficult.
(In the preherodian era evidence suggests that Jerusalem, the temple, and the population was vastly smaller.)
I am well aware of those texts; no, there is no testimony as to systems procedure, especially where it counts- the Talmud.
I suspect that the numbers were smaller than hoped for, a problem that persisted from first Temple times. (וכי ירחק…).
In addition to that, the Diaspora communities were likely larger (see Malka Simkovitch- great work)
….so are you correct? Only very few per day except for the ‘pilgramages’? Not sure. Certainly, if you follow the implication of the mesora and Shlomo’s Temple, you need a lot of miracles to explain systems process.
Additionally, the text is so different, such that in the ninth inning of the first chapter of Menakhot, a ‘closer’ is brought in for Rashi- his mechutan!- Rav Meir Ben Rav Shmuel (Rashbam’s dad) - who has a very different text.
There is no Halachic resolution to these issues.
Here’s another simple one for you: והזר הקרב יומת : which line is crossed? baseball? Tennis? Basketball? Soccer? What is inbounds? Offsides?
That’s not to say - we are enjoying this so much- yet we often leave very confused as to how these things were done.
The Herodian Temple was made to address the volume issues.
The Talmud dates to centuries after the temple, and there's no reason to assume that significant Traditions survive outside what was already in the tannaitic works. The tannaitic works indeed do quote traditions, but even there it's not going to be fully because there was 150 years between the two (at a time when there was almost no writing and severe social, political, national, and every other kind of upheaval imaginable). In earlier sources we do find more eyewitness testimony.
I'm not sure what you mean by a problem the persistent from first temple times, but it is clear that at least from the time the second temple was rebuilt until at least the middle of the hasmonean period, Jerusalem was absolutely tiny and the Jewish settlements in the area were also very limited. We're talking maybe a few thousand people. So it doesn't have to accommodate very much. Other than that, the were obviously logistics involved, but I'm not sure where you get this weird confidence to say that it is impossible. And yes, the worship was not millions of people you made that up. The only time we have reason to believe it was very large was after herod's Temple and even there we're talking about probably something around 100,000 people on Passover, and obviously a lot less every other day. These numbers are remarkable but feasible given the information we know about it.
Rashi and rashbam have nothing to do with it. I'm not sure why you are assuming that memories that were not written down should be remembered a thousand years after the destruction of the temple when no sacrifices we're brought in the interim.
I think I'm done with this back and forth so have a great day.
Mary Douglas, in one of her books, points out that in most societies in the Ancient Near East and the classical world sacrifices were associated with - and maybe even performed for - soothsaying (extract the liver and ...). Neither Tanach nor Hazal, as far as I've noticed, has even a hint that there's a protocol missing from animal sacrifice. Could the replacement of soothsaying with teshuvah be the point?
Ive had the same thoughts as you about Animal Sacrifice. The animals were Elohim's perfect creations as well as the vegetation and earth itself (commentary to The Stone Chumash 1:25) Man never was. By sacrificing Animals are we proving our Superiority to his perfect creation or showing our imperfection by carrying on regional customs?
I think a well-designed, reasonable MO Korbanot-for-the-modern-age curriculum would *probably* benefit from dialogue with Bible-critical sources, but it would **definitely** benefit from dialogue with the great Conservative and Conservadox exegetes and theologians on the topic, if not Conservative, liberal Orthodox, and Conservadox biblical scholars (including critics) and secular historians, archeologists, scientists, etc., who *just
I find the rationalist view, as you've described it, of the Rambam, his most difficult to understand.
Aside from the challenges you've mentioned, we also see sacrifices by Kayin/Hevel, Noach, Avot etc. Long before Israelites are separated from surrounding cultures.
I've yet to see a defence against the Ramban's scathing takedown of this approach.
Ramban's approach also doesn't fit with the Tanach, because the Tanach explicitly rejects theurgy, and especially sacrificial theurgy. He was a talented commentator, but should have thrown fewer stones.
The truth is that if you are a refined and educated person living in high civilization, you are probably going to think killing animals and throwing their blood is pretty lame. Rambam was honest about it (within his elite circles), Ramban wasn't honest about it and created a whole intellectual fantasy system to get round it. Best just to admit that it's for the masses.
When you say 'for the masses' are you suggesting that the most of Vayikra is essentially prescribing performative ritual to keep society engaged. But there's no inherent religious purpose?
I think we should clarify here that no-one takes the position that korbanos have no 'inherent religious purpose'. Inculcating monotheism is not only an 'inherent religious purpose' it is the highest and most important one. Without wanting to be overly antagonistic, the way you phrase the Maimonidean approach as if it is 'just' or 'merely' sees korbanos as inculcating monotheism instead of some purportedly more 'religious' goal is reflective of your Zoharistic stance.
However, I am more moderate the Rambam and saying something more moderate. It is likely the case that korbanos achieve all sorts of positive spiritual outcomes for the general run of mankind, especially if they are from an appropriate cultural background, while leaving an intellectual elite unmoved, and perhaps even a little disgusted. To make an analogy. Take a club for at risk teens. They play football, cards, do group-bonding exercises etc. All this may be superfluous to more naturally academic children, but that doesn't mean they have no value.
In many cases, such as Chabad messianism or Kookism, it's the job of the intellectual elite to step in and be the party poopers because these things are radically destructive of the core goals of Judaism. However, in other cases, they should not be party poopers and let people have their religious experiences, and perhaps they should even recognize that, in some respects, the common people are superior to them. They should neither deride these experiences (Rambam) nor try to create some fake justification for them (Ramban), but just be good stewards.
The issue I have with this is that Moshe, Aharon, the Avos, David, Sholomo etc very much involve Korbanos in their practice.
You might say that moshe/aharon were doing so for the sake of the rest, but that doesn't work for the Avos who didn't have a nation to impress anything upon.
We don't know what the korbanos of Kayin and Hevel consisted of, see Netziv. Noach and the Avos are already after AZ developed.
Alternatively, (Ritva, R Schwab) Rambam doesn't deny that there is objective value to korbanos as a natural behavior based on psychology of the religious experience, but the mitzvos of korbanos are specifically tailored to address and counter idolatrous notions
But they aren't commanded. They intuitively offer sacrifices out of devotion.
There's a lot more in the Ramban's critique I haven't mentioned. But it's essentially that the pesukim are so explicitly worded so that this approach stretches their interpretation much too far.
Why then, does no-one today crave the psychological experience that Korbanos are said to offer. Have we evolved, do we have a more spiritually attuned conscious than say Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov?
I appreciate one can say yes, but must recognise how different that is to the standard Orthodox approach
I’m into the messianic veganism and while the Kookian way seems like the best of the bunch, I don’t really get it at all.
If there is an option to choose, I like the symbolic (3) and the rational (4) option the most. To me a mixture of the two seems the most likely. But I'm not a talmid chacham (is there such a thing as talmidas chachamah?:)), so my choice is only based on what speaks to me.
I think the framing here could be more precise:
>"That absence of explanation opens the door for Biblical critics. They point out that animal sacrifice was a widespread form of worship across the Ancient Near East. This, in and of itself, isn’t suspicious. But coupled with the lack of a clear internal rationale, it starts to look like the Torah was simply borrowing rituals from the surrounding cultures, a detail that Bible critics ise to point tohuman authorship."
First of all, unclear what you mean by 'critics'. Do you mean academic scholarship, or do you mean critiques of Bible?
And re "it starts to look like the Torah was simply borrowing rituals from the surrounding cultures" -
Not necessarily. Even from a purely human authorship perspective, it's likely that this is a basic (primitive) human impulse. Animal (and human) sacrifice arose independently in many societies. For example, Aztec human sacrifice
I second this approach that sacrifice is a basic human impulse. And I don't think it's primitive because we praise sacrifice when it is done for causes we understand--like soldiers sacrificing their lives in defense of their country or parents sacrificing their lives to save their children from lethal danger.
But I think we don't appreciate sacrifices today because of our materialism- we are not keenly in touch with our Source of our existence. The soul yearns to get closer to its source and when G-d tells you (Or Adam and Kayim and Hevel and Noach intuited) that when you offer up an animal sacrifice, your soul gets closer to G-d vicariously through the animal body's experience, then it makes all the sense in the world.
It's not really materialism. We don't interact with animals very much, and so it's hard to get in the vibe. If we were asked to sacrifice money, we'd probably get it better.
There's also the issue of all the poo and blood everywhere that would gross us out, but that's not materialism per se, it's just what you are used to go.
Really disagree. The whole point of the animal is the ability to offer a real living nefesh through its blood. דם הוא הנפש. This allows us to have a vicarious experience through the animal. No offering of inanimate objects--no matter how expensive-- gives that same potential for transference.
You're conflating the original and later meanings of the word 'sacrifice'. This piece is about the original meaning of the word, not the later/modern/figurative sense.
See Wiktionary:
"(religion)
Originally, the killing (and often burning) of a human being or an animal as an offering to a deity; later, also the offering of an object to a deity.
[...]
(figurative)
The destruction or surrender of anything for the sake of something else regarded as more urgent or valuable; also, the thing destroyed or surrendered for this purpose
"
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/sacrifice
Well, if so, I don't think the concept of an offering in Judaism was ever in the original sense--to appease an angry or demanding G-d. It was always about relationship and closeness or communion. קרבן=קרב.
"relationship and closeness"
That's a popular modern drush (first found in medieval sources) not pshat. The pshat is simply that קרבן is the animal being "brought near" to the deity
Why is your interpretation "pshat" while the medieval one "drash"? Maybe it's the other way around? Or maybe both are possible pshat?
That this is the pshat is clear from context throughout the Bible. For example:
וְהִקְרַבְתֶּם קָרְבָּנְכֶם אִשֶּׁה לַה׳ —
'You shall bring your korban, a fire-offering to YHWH'
(Lev 23:8)
Clearly, the korban is simply the object being offered to the deity:
והקרבתם קרבן
"You shall bring near the thing that is brought near"
And it's also clear from a comparative perspective, that this is the basic concept of a 'sacrifice', as I mentioned in my previous comment.
There's no indication whatsoever in the Bible or comparative texts of a psychological element of being "close to God". The entire concept of "being close to God" is primarily a post-Biblical one. The point of a korban is an offering/gift/tribute to God, who is a fearsome, all-powerful king. If you don't give him gifts, terrible consequences may occur. This is the primary assumption in חז"ל as well.
Compare also the synonymous מִנְחָה לַה׳... Found a number of times in the Bible. Which clearly means "offering/gift to YHWH".
Compare also at Sukkot, and Solomon, offering dozens or hundreds of bulls in sacrifice at a time
The late Jacob Milgrom explains the entire system of the korbanos and the moral and other implications therein. His writings on the topic are a must-read. While some of his opinions (such as a critical belief in multiple sources) are non-traditional, he was a rabbi and his findings regarding Korbanos are culled from close reading of the Torah. Even the rabbis of the Koren tanach admit that korbanos cannot be understood without his commentary.
I used to look after a family friends' cat sometimes. He would kill birds and arrange them on the front doorstep and then pester me to come look. Fundamentally, that's what a korban is, but it's also just obvious that the specific form has a lot of cultural conditioning to it, and our culture is very different from the Bronze Age Middle East.
Personally, I think studying korbanos in their halachic minutiae is fun, and Hazal were correct in saying that this is kind of like offering korbanos today. Doubtless, it's not the highest level, but we should re-learn how to walk before we try to run.
I think 3 and 4 kind of go together. The Rambam says korbanos were standard at the time, and thus were included in the Torah, and to be done in a way that specifically countered the idolatrous practices. I haven't learned Abrabanel, but the symbolism R' Hirsch talks about counter (what he considered) idolatrous opinions.
Just want to point out that even if it's borrowed from other ancient cultures (which I think it certainly is) that doesn't strip it of meaning and that also doesn't answer the why, it just broadens the discussion to other cultures. Only once those questions are answered and the specific way it is integrated into the biblical religion is also analyzed after the rough concept is understood only then can you analyze whether it's a meaningful theological idea.
I don't have a full answer, but I think the idea of giving up from ones material possessions to incorporate the perspective of needs which transcend nature is part of the answer. (And yes, that is compatible with the idea of food of the gods.)
Is it really giving up a possession though, if the sacrifice is eaten by the owner?
Ok. My terminology was focused on the olha, but the shlamim/zevach achieves the same concept albeit more symbolically
Look at the end of Rambam in Hilcos Meilah-Clearly, Rambam sees a positive values in Korbanos well beyond that of a means of eradicating AZ.
You left out a rationale, which is that one ideally isn’t supposed to eat meat for their personal satisfaction. After Sinai the emphasis is not on suppressing animal instincts, but channeling them to something positive. So we are given an avenue to rededicate the impulse to consume meat into another connection to the divine. If you want a rationale for the details of the laws, one would be to indicate the gravity of killing living being, another would be to connect it to life events and symbolism to help the individual kohen and owner of the Korban to have spiritual rather than base intentions.
Korban Oleh still needs a rationale, but even in that case the skins are still used by kohanim so you could say something similar.
"When you offer up an animal sacrifice your sould gets closer to G-d vicariously through the animal body's experience'.
Why should it? Do doctors get that experience when a patient dies? Do the chevra kedisha get that experience when being present at yetzious neshonomo? Sacrifice is a bloody messy business. Does a person idendify so much with an animal?
Besides, only the cohen sees that anyway.
'All the sense in the world'. Really?
As one who is currently enjoying a daily chavrusa in Menachos (20 months and only up to כד!) , I find that the Rambam was stating the philosophical reason as to why korbanot will not be brought again in the future.
From a practical engineering perspective? Impossible. Given the amount of Kohanim (per weekly shift!!!) and people bringing various sacrifices, no matter how machine like the kohanim are, one cannot explain systems processes without invoking multiple miracles (no flies, 18 inch walkway around the top of the מזבח 9 feet high with the red line 1.5 feet below their walkway…)
You cannot find any non Yom Kippur drawings that have more than 20 kohanim in any picture. The pictures from the מכון המקדש are great and they should be praised for their attention to detail of the Talmud.
That being said: There is no mesora (mesoira for frumkeit) about what exactly happened on any given day.
Think about Korean Pesakh and potentially millions of people….it would have been nice to see someone say: this is the way my grandfather did things…
The other choice would be that only very few people came.
Option 4 seems impossible to me based on the following.
1. Principle 9 of the Rambam 13 principles is - The Torah is unchangeable. No one may add to or remove from the Torah. It is eternally true.
2. There are over 100 mitzvos out of 613, that relate directly to korbanos. To say that those will no longer be observed directly contradicts principle 9 that the Torah is unchangeable. The unchangeable part applies to korbanos as well.
IIRC we have many historical testimonies about masses of Jews coming to the Temple for Passover in the late years of the second Temple (i.e. after Herod's Renovation and expansion) such as philo, joesphus, an account from a roman procurator and they all emphasize was a massive logistical feat it was plus how many priests were involved. This is echoed in many Talmudic memories as well.
Given the square footage and the amounts of people and the absolute requirements (זריקה etc.) and the shifts? כפלים כיוצאי מצרים???
Seriously impossible which is why the miracles had to happen each time.
And- please send me source about how this was done with the crowds that came daily. - let alone during the רגלים. You will not find it
Now add contradictory statements about actual procedures and something is amiss! Introduce obese the possibility of more than 10 bulls being brought in one day….let alone 100.
Double those who left Egypt is obviously an exaggeration. But masses came (for this late period) and all Jerusalems infrastructure and resources were mobilized to accomodate the pilgrims. Most historians agree the tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands visited Jerusalem at least on Passover and Sukkot. Not sure why there couldn't have been thousands of sacrifices brought in Herod's massive temple or about 300,000 square meters (of if youre counting just the azara even though the whole temple was used for different parts of the process were still at probably at least the size of a football field. Then with possibly thousands of kohanim and efficient logistics they got the job done (albeit surely in a chaotic fashion, as reflected in the sources).
See https://ajewwithquestions.blogspot.com/2016/08/the-surpisingly-small-size-of-beis.html
It was absolutely impossible to bring thousands of korban pesachs
Of course 12 million people is impossible, but that number is clearly an exaggeration. There were probably somewhere around 100,000 people at the fullest years which probably means maybe 5,000 sacrifices. The 3 and a half hour time slot I'm not sure if actually dates to the temple period, so we're talking either that or maybe up to six hours in 50,000 sq feet just of azarah plus most the work being done in other rooms. Needs logistics, but definitely possible
Here is another point. The azara has one entrance that is approximately 20 feet wide. So about 8 people can enter simultaneously. If we take 3.5 hours which is 12,600 seconds and we take yout very low number of 5000 people that still means that 625 rows of 8 needed to enter. That’s 20 rows per second, clearly impossible. Additionally that entrance was also the exit and you had to exit walking backwards. So even 5000 people bringing a korban pesach is impossible.
There are no other rooms. The Gemara clearly describes the 3.5 hour window. The gemara doesn’t just throw out that number it says that they counted. Anyway it was t 12 million it was 1.2 million.
See https://ajewwithquestions.blogspot.com/2016/08/the-surpisingly-small-size-of-beis.html for a comprehensive analysis.
I am well aware of this. My point was that the Rambam’s philosophical statement is possibly (I think probably) based on practical reality.
The proof is that when you look at Talmudic passages on the korbanot, there are no ‘Halachic’ links: no Rif, Rosh, Mordechai, Nimukay Yosaif…..
However, if someone bases their opinions on Josephus and Philo,- it may be correct that only a minority came to the Temple regularly. That itself is telling.
Don’t get me started on טומאה וטהרה ….. very confusing, although Ezra Brand has organized it into very well done charts.
I enjoyed your debate above. It is difficult to engage one so quite condescending, but I expect no less from products of Charedi education.
The area and the amount of people then suggest that only a minority of the entire Jewish population came. If that is the case, I would agree. But if all showed up? Again, impossible.
The procedural law is contradictory. While שחיטה is an exception because of its universal application, the same cannot be said about קמיצה or מליקה- its cognates.
While the pictures of those processes are indeed helpful, there are great arguments about their mechanisms- as no one- and I mean no one- says: this is how my zaida dis it! Even with something as simple as קמיצה- no one knows exactly how it was done. (Yes you have to do a קמיצה, but as Bill Cosby flight have said decades ago: “Riiiiiight…what’s a kmitza?”
I'm gonna be blunt, but you're basically arguing from ignorance. We have works describing the temple worship such as the temple scroll, the descriptions in Josephus, and many memories recorded in rabbinic literature. We have a pretty decent understanding of how things were done, at least in Herod's temple.
Regarding the numbers of people, common estimates of the population of Judea in that century is about a quarter of a million people, plus some pilgrims from further areas such a the Galilee, Alexandria, or even further. If tens of thousands of people or maybe even at times over 100,000 showed that's a pretty nice percentage of the population, and seems pretty reasonable given the value privilege seems to have held combined with the economic and other realities which may have made it difficult.
(In the preherodian era evidence suggests that Jerusalem, the temple, and the population was vastly smaller.)
I am well aware of those texts; no, there is no testimony as to systems procedure, especially where it counts- the Talmud.
I suspect that the numbers were smaller than hoped for, a problem that persisted from first Temple times. (וכי ירחק…).
In addition to that, the Diaspora communities were likely larger (see Malka Simkovitch- great work)
….so are you correct? Only very few per day except for the ‘pilgramages’? Not sure. Certainly, if you follow the implication of the mesora and Shlomo’s Temple, you need a lot of miracles to explain systems process.
Additionally, the text is so different, such that in the ninth inning of the first chapter of Menakhot, a ‘closer’ is brought in for Rashi- his mechutan!- Rav Meir Ben Rav Shmuel (Rashbam’s dad) - who has a very different text.
There is no Halachic resolution to these issues.
Here’s another simple one for you: והזר הקרב יומת : which line is crossed? baseball? Tennis? Basketball? Soccer? What is inbounds? Offsides?
That’s not to say - we are enjoying this so much- yet we often leave very confused as to how these things were done.
The Herodian Temple was made to address the volume issues.
I'm not really sure what you're talking about.
The Talmud dates to centuries after the temple, and there's no reason to assume that significant Traditions survive outside what was already in the tannaitic works. The tannaitic works indeed do quote traditions, but even there it's not going to be fully because there was 150 years between the two (at a time when there was almost no writing and severe social, political, national, and every other kind of upheaval imaginable). In earlier sources we do find more eyewitness testimony.
I'm not sure what you mean by a problem the persistent from first temple times, but it is clear that at least from the time the second temple was rebuilt until at least the middle of the hasmonean period, Jerusalem was absolutely tiny and the Jewish settlements in the area were also very limited. We're talking maybe a few thousand people. So it doesn't have to accommodate very much. Other than that, the were obviously logistics involved, but I'm not sure where you get this weird confidence to say that it is impossible. And yes, the worship was not millions of people you made that up. The only time we have reason to believe it was very large was after herod's Temple and even there we're talking about probably something around 100,000 people on Passover, and obviously a lot less every other day. These numbers are remarkable but feasible given the information we know about it.
Rashi and rashbam have nothing to do with it. I'm not sure why you are assuming that memories that were not written down should be remembered a thousand years after the destruction of the temple when no sacrifices we're brought in the interim.
I think I'm done with this back and forth so have a great day.
Mary Douglas, in one of her books, points out that in most societies in the Ancient Near East and the classical world sacrifices were associated with - and maybe even performed for - soothsaying (extract the liver and ...). Neither Tanach nor Hazal, as far as I've noticed, has even a hint that there's a protocol missing from animal sacrifice. Could the replacement of soothsaying with teshuvah be the point?
Yes.
Go to India & witness actual animal sacrifice.
Until you actually witness actual animal sacrifice, don't claim that you could understand or not understand it.
Ive had the same thoughts as you about Animal Sacrifice. The animals were Elohim's perfect creations as well as the vegetation and earth itself (commentary to The Stone Chumash 1:25) Man never was. By sacrificing Animals are we proving our Superiority to his perfect creation or showing our imperfection by carrying on regional customs?
I think a well-designed, reasonable MO Korbanot-for-the-modern-age curriculum would *probably* benefit from dialogue with Bible-critical sources, but it would **definitely** benefit from dialogue with the great Conservative and Conservadox exegetes and theologians on the topic, if not Conservative, liberal Orthodox, and Conservadox biblical scholars (including critics) and secular historians, archeologists, scientists, etc., who *just
happen* to be Conservative or Conservadox.
I find the rationalist view, as you've described it, of the Rambam, his most difficult to understand.
Aside from the challenges you've mentioned, we also see sacrifices by Kayin/Hevel, Noach, Avot etc. Long before Israelites are separated from surrounding cultures.
I've yet to see a defence against the Ramban's scathing takedown of this approach.
Ramban's approach also doesn't fit with the Tanach, because the Tanach explicitly rejects theurgy, and especially sacrificial theurgy. He was a talented commentator, but should have thrown fewer stones.
I'd argue no-one's approach does on many issues. But for me, the Rambam is most disconnected with what it's essentially saying
The truth is that if you are a refined and educated person living in high civilization, you are probably going to think killing animals and throwing their blood is pretty lame. Rambam was honest about it (within his elite circles), Ramban wasn't honest about it and created a whole intellectual fantasy system to get round it. Best just to admit that it's for the masses.
When you say 'for the masses' are you suggesting that the most of Vayikra is essentially prescribing performative ritual to keep society engaged. But there's no inherent religious purpose?
I think we should clarify here that no-one takes the position that korbanos have no 'inherent religious purpose'. Inculcating monotheism is not only an 'inherent religious purpose' it is the highest and most important one. Without wanting to be overly antagonistic, the way you phrase the Maimonidean approach as if it is 'just' or 'merely' sees korbanos as inculcating monotheism instead of some purportedly more 'religious' goal is reflective of your Zoharistic stance.
However, I am more moderate the Rambam and saying something more moderate. It is likely the case that korbanos achieve all sorts of positive spiritual outcomes for the general run of mankind, especially if they are from an appropriate cultural background, while leaving an intellectual elite unmoved, and perhaps even a little disgusted. To make an analogy. Take a club for at risk teens. They play football, cards, do group-bonding exercises etc. All this may be superfluous to more naturally academic children, but that doesn't mean they have no value.
In many cases, such as Chabad messianism or Kookism, it's the job of the intellectual elite to step in and be the party poopers because these things are radically destructive of the core goals of Judaism. However, in other cases, they should not be party poopers and let people have their religious experiences, and perhaps they should even recognize that, in some respects, the common people are superior to them. They should neither deride these experiences (Rambam) nor try to create some fake justification for them (Ramban), but just be good stewards.
The issue I have with this is that Moshe, Aharon, the Avos, David, Sholomo etc very much involve Korbanos in their practice.
You might say that moshe/aharon were doing so for the sake of the rest, but that doesn't work for the Avos who didn't have a nation to impress anything upon.
So how does that work in your analogy?
We don't know what the korbanos of Kayin and Hevel consisted of, see Netziv. Noach and the Avos are already after AZ developed.
Alternatively, (Ritva, R Schwab) Rambam doesn't deny that there is objective value to korbanos as a natural behavior based on psychology of the religious experience, but the mitzvos of korbanos are specifically tailored to address and counter idolatrous notions
But they aren't commanded. They intuitively offer sacrifices out of devotion.
There's a lot more in the Ramban's critique I haven't mentioned. But it's essentially that the pesukim are so explicitly worded so that this approach stretches their interpretation much too far.
Why then, does no-one today crave the psychological experience that Korbanos are said to offer. Have we evolved, do we have a more spiritually attuned conscious than say Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov?
I appreciate one can say yes, but must recognise how different that is to the standard Orthodox approach