|
The Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit
Midrash
Introduction to Parashat Hashavua Yeshivat Har Etzion
PARASHAT TETZAVEH
The Bronze Altar, Part 2
By Rav Michael Hattin
INTRODUCTION
Last week, we began to consider the unique features of the bronze altar
that was prominently positioned in the exterior courtyard space that surrounded
the building proper of the Mishkan.
Recall that the bronze altar, alone among all of the vessels of the
Tabernacle, was mentioned in a preceding context to the lengthy Mishkan
narratives, namely in Parashat Yitro in the immediate aftermath of
the Decalogue:
God
said to Moshe: Thus shall you say to the people of Israel – you saw that I
addressed you from the heavens. You
shall not fashion besides Me gods of silver or gods of gold, do not make them
for yourselves. YOU SHALL FASHION
FOR ME AN ALTAR OF EARTH, and you shall sacrifice upon it your burnt offerings
and your peace offerings, your sheep and your cattle, for at whatever place that
I shall cause My name to be mentioned, there shall I come to you and bless
you. And if you fashion for Me an
altar of stones, then you shall not build it out of hewn stones, for by lifting
up your sword upon it you have defiled it.
You shall not ascend to My altar by stairs, so that your nakedness not be
uncovered upon it (Shemot 20:18-22).
Recall
also that the bronze altar, a large and imposing object fashioned out of boards
of acacia wood overlaid with bronze sheeting and approached from the southern
side by a long and gently sloping ramp, stood sentinel-like in the vast space of
the courtyard almost alone. No
other vessel, save for the small and brightly polished laver from which the
ministering priests would wash their hands and feet prior to undertaking the
Divine service, occupied the space, thus highlighting the altar's central place
in the scheme of things. When the
Mishkan was finally completed after some six months of intense work and the
diurnal ritual of Mishkan service began, no vessel was in greater or more
constant use than the bronze altar.
Upon its fiery top, the daily communal sacrifice smoldered morning and
evening on behalf of all of the people of Israel, while during the time in
between, the personal sacrifices of individuals – burnt offerings, guilt
offerings, sin offerings, and thanksgiving offerings – would be presented.
But most unusual of all, and with this we concluded our discussion last
week, the so-called bronze altar was really more like a bronzed casing, for it
emerged from last week's discussion that it had no top at all. Instead, the boards would be joined to
form an uncovered and open cubic frame and then earth would be poured into the
mold until it was completely filled.
Thus it was that the bronze altar was in reality an earthen mound encased
with bronzed boards, for the sacrificial fire actually burned directly upon the
dust that was heaped up in their midst.
Why is it, that alone among all of the vessels of the Mishkan, only the
bronze altar was organically attached to the earth, emerging out of it as
naturally as a hillock or a knoll?
And what could be the significance of a sacrificial service that was
performed upon a summit of dust, so that no expression of human contrivance
intervened between the consuming fire and the hallowed ground of the
Tabernacle's courtyard?
SACRIFICES
AS SECONDARY
In past years, I advanced the bold theory that the strict hierarchy
underlying the entire organization and structure of the Mishkan, expressed in
terms of its spaces, materials and utility, argued for a secondary status for
the sacrificial service performed upon the bronze altar. That is to say that the most sanctified
volumes of the Mishkan complex were those associated with the building proper –
the Holy of Holies and the Holy – and not the space of the exterior
courtyard. The most precious
materials – the gold and silver, the sky blue, purple and crimson – were
utilized in the fashioning of the vessels and curtains that occupied and
partitioned off the interior spaces of the building, while the more prosaic and
mundane bronze and simple white linen were reserved for this external altar and
for the curtains that surrounded the courtyard. Correspondingly (and here we introduced
an implication), the most noble and exalted services – the offering of the
incense, the kindling of the lights and the presentation of the loaves – were
performed in the Tabernacle itself, while the exterior courtyard was reserved
for the more coarse and vulgar service of the animal sacrifices.
It almost seemed as if we had found circumstantial evidence for the
Rambam's controversial claim that animal sacrifice at the Mishkan was but a
Divine concession to the primitive and prevalent conventions that attended human
worship of the gods, conventions that were familiar and dear to the ancient
Israelites as well and not easily surrendered by them in favor of more
"advanced" expressions of devotion such as prayer or meditation. So sacrifices would be tolerated, albeit
under the watchful eyes of the stern priests, while the real service that spoke
of worshipping God with the heart and with the mind would be performed in the
enclosed space of the Mishkan proper where the ignorant masses dared not
tread. The pageant of the
sweet-smelling incense that ascended from the miniature golden altar like a
wispy and delicate prayer, the kindling of the bright and steady flames upon the
menora's seven branches that proclaimed God as the source of all wisdom, and the
placement of the twelve sturdy loaves that weighed down the golden table and
asserted that "not by bread alone doth man live but by all of the words of God…"
(Devarim 8:3), were rituals that were all celebrated by the ministering
priests within the sheltered and hushed inner space of the Mishkan proper. The loud and loutish ceremonies of the
animal sacrifices, in contrast, were daily carried out under the plebeian gaze
of the Israelite throngs that noisily milled beyond the richly embroidered
entrance curtain, filling the outer courtyard with their excited chatter.
ANOTHER
APPROACH
There is, of course, another way to approach the matter and here we
return to the earth that filled the bronze altar. Rather than regarding the service of the
bronze altar as being somehow inferior to the services performed within the
building proper and viewing the former as a concession to the immature masses
while the latter spoke to the more refined and select devotees, perhaps we might
regard both services as necessary, intertwined and part and parcel of the very
same spiritual progression. The
matter of serving God might more accurately be regarded as a process rather than
an event, as a series of incremental steps of approach that were meant to
culminate in an authentic encounter with the Divine. And while the ultimate objective of the
recipient might in fact be intimate and unfiltered communion (i.e. the entrance
of the High Priest to the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement), the
architectural ordering of the Mishkan's spaces implies that there is much work
to be done along the way and that there is no more direct approach that can
sidestep the critical preliminary steps.
In other words, the service of sacrifices performed upon the bronze altar
may very well relate to the initial stages of the service of God, the
internalization of which are absolutely needed for any and all subsequent
progress. It is as if the Mishkan
was organized conceptually like a series of concentric circles, each one of
which represented an additional level of spiritual advancement. The service of the bronze altar was
therefore the critical first step in the process, and the prerequisite for
everything that followed.
We
turn now to the remarkable commentary of the Ibn Ezra, as amplified and expanded
upon by the Ramban:
…It
is preferable to accept the reason for the sacrifices that is advanced by those
that say that the matter relates to the fact that all human deeds are
accomplished through the exercise of thought, speech and action. Thus, God commands that when a person
transgresses and offers a sacrifice to atone, that he must place his hands upon
it as an expression of the action, confess with words as an expression of the
speech and burn in the fire the innards and the kidneys that are the vehicles of
one's thoughts and desires. The
limbs of the animal are expressions of the person's arms and legs that do all of
his bidding, and the blood sprinkled upon the altar is an expression of the
supplicant's own lifeblood. Thus, a
person should ponder, having performed this service, that he transgressed the
will of his God with his body and with his soul and ought to accordingly suffer
a similar fate, if not for the compassion of the Creator that accepted a
substitute in his place – a soul for a soul and sacrificial limbs of the animal
in place of his own! The portions
for the priests are so that these teachers of the Torah are preserved through
his efforts so that they might pray on his behalf… (commentary to Vayikra
1:9, middle section).
In
the passage above, the Ramban suggests the provocative and startling idea of
substitution to explain the matter of the sacrificial service. Acknowledging the obvious argument (at
least from the standpoint of Jewish tradition) that an absolute and incorporeal
God has no need for physical sustenance, the Ramban avers that the purpose of
sacrifice relates more to the needs of the devotee rather than to those of the
Divine. Slaughtering the animal,
dismembering its limbs, sprinkling its blood upon the altar and offering the
flesh upon the fire, the supplicant is supposed to feel the gravity of his
misdeeds, as if he were deserving of a similar, sorry end were it not for Divine
compassion. While the Ramban's
explanation might strike us as uncomfortably grotesque and gratuitous, his main
point is well taken: the sacrificial cult is calculated to elicit a powerful
spiritual response from the supplicant and not simply to assuage his guilty
conscience.
MODIFYING
THE RAMBAN
Perhaps we ought to tastefully modify the Ramban's theory by suggesting
that rather than sacrifices starkly and literally speaking of substitution, they
more meaningfully and symbolically speak of personification. In other words, it is not the hapless
devotee that is being metaphorically consumed by the flames for his gross
misdeeds but rather HIS ANIMAL NATURE.
The sacrifice of the animal upon the altar is really a way of indicating
that connection with God can be accomplished only if a person is willing to
restrain his animalistic passions and submit his coarser character traits to the
refining flames. The baser
instincts – the selfishness and self-centeredness, the greed, the lust and the
hubris – that we gleefully exercise to our great detriment and subsequently to
our dismay, must be overcome if we are to spiritually mature so that we might
meaningfully acknowledge and revere God.
A man who is enslaved to his base passions so that he is deliberately and
uncontrollably inconsiderate of his fellow's body or things, cannot be ushered
into His awesome presence. And so
these strivings must be harnessed and directed, their baser matter consigned to
the proverbial and purifying flames so that the supplicant might yet
advance.
In this context, an altar of earth is eminently reasonable, for the earth
is symbolic of our material selves, the material bodies that we inhabit and
animate. But here, the earth is
heaped up high, not as some artificial mountain but rather as a powerful
embodiment of our desire to escape its desirous grip and soar heavenwards to
God. While we are undoubtedly
creatures of the earth, fashioned by the Creator out of "dust of the earth"
(Bereishit 2:7), still we seek to transcend, to rise above stifling
physicality and the coarser desires that hold us back. And thus it is that the bronze altar is
open topped, so that the animal sacrifices that so powerfully speak of
overcoming coarse and base desire might take place upon the very earth that
vigorously proclaims our terrestrial origins while simultaneously pointing us
towards higher accomplishment.
While we are, like all other creatures, of this world, we are also,
unlike all of them, capable of surpassing its limitations.
So it is that the ritual of the animal sacrifices takes place upon the
earth that is heaped up high inside the frame of the bronze altar. The effect of the whole is to at once
declare our humble connection with the lower creatures – by dint of our common
physiological functions and needs – while yet intimating that we might succeed
in rising above that base state by directing our gaze to God. The animal self is offered to Him, the
base passions are overcome, and the lowly earth from which we were fashioned is
exalted. Surely this was the intent
of the Sages when they proclaimed, according to Rambam's immortal formulation,
that:
The
location of the altar must be very precise, and can never be moved. As the verse states: 'This shall be the
altar of burnt offering for Israel' (I Divrei Ha-yamim 22:1). At the very location of the Temple, the
binding of Yitzchak had taken place (centuries before), for God had commanded
Avraham to 'go to the land of Moriah, to offer Yitzchak upon one of the
mountains that I will show you' (Bereishit 22:2). and in the Book of
Divrei Ha-yamim (2:3:1) it states that 'Shelomo commenced the building of
God's House at Jerusalem on Mount Moriah where God had appeared to David his
father, at the place that David had prepared…'
It
is a well-established tradition that the place where David and Shelomo erected
the altar at the threshing floor of Ornah the Yevusi was the very place where
Avraham had prepared his altar upon which to sacrifice Yitzchak. It is the same place where Noach had
built an altar when he disembarked from the ark, and the same location where
Kayin and Hevel had sacrificed to God.
The first man, Adam, there offered sacrifice after he had been created,
and in fact was created from earth drawn from that very place. As the Sages put it: 'MAN WAS FASHIONED
FROM THE PLACE OF HIS ATONEMENT' (Book of Service, Laws of the Temple, Chapter
2:1-2).
Shabbat
Shalom |