Israel and Humanity - The sacrifices of the Gentiles

From Hareidi English
Jump to: navigation, search

IV.

The sacrifices of the Gentiles.

§ 1.

What, in general, the purpose of worship that was celebrated in Jerusalem, according to the orthodox belief of Judaism? On this as on every other school seems to be the most special character, as rigorously as particularistic, is precisely that which is the body of theories boldest and yet most comforting. Kabbalah For indeed, the purpose of this worship is to harmonize the world below with other universes, to establish and maintain a community life and influence between our land and the higher worlds both spiritual and material, without which the world we live in would cut the great concert of creation as a body without a soul. Certainly such a belief is so selfish, so little ethnic, that one can imagine a more noble and grandiose religious worship. It takes us very far, not only individual interests even the most honorable and most legitimate, and that would be asking too much to the pagan worship more idealized, but even aspiration of race or nationality. Moreover, humanity itself is outdated. The universal religion, as understood by Judaism, extends well beyond the human race and the earth, it actually embraces the universe and the infinite.

The physical form of the cult of Jerusalem is one of the sacrifices, regardless of psychological reasons which justify or mystical, responding to ideas and customs General [1] the time. However, as the Gentiles in the Temple had a designated place, they were also allowed to participate in worship that celebrated there by making sacrifices themselves, and Jewish history proves it.

It must be distinguished from Israel, three different forms in the sacrifices offered by the Gentiles. We first find those they celebrate themselves the true God, without the intervention of Israel, which are part of worship Noachide. These sacrifices and offered without the participation of Israel and outside the Temple of Jerusalem in any place whatsoever, however, are pleasing to God according to Jewish doctrine, which proves quite eloquently that Judaism did not wait for the Coming of Jesus to proclaim the worship of God could be observed and celebrated everywhere and to bring its practices in this teaching. About the text of Moses, which forbids the sacrifice of sacrifice outside the venue chosen by the Lord, the Baraita says: "It is forbidden to the Israelites to sacrifice sacrifices outside the Temple, but Gentiles are not subject to this requirement. That's why every Gentile can build an altar to his own use and to offer sacrifices.

Come second in the sacrifices which, although they are famous outside the temple and the Mosaic ritual, the Israelite comes with an instructor and officiating. This, in our opinion, the kind of worship that reflects the most remarkable for Jewish universalism because Noachism not here simply accepted in theory as a legitimate religion alongside the Mosaic, but it seems like almost sanctioned, regulated and chaired by the direct intervention of the Jewish acting as a priest, rather than collectively as in Jerusalem, on behalf of humanity as a whole, but individually, in any place and behalf of a single Gentile whatsoever. The Talmud relates a number of similar cases very remarkable. The mother of Shapur, king of Persia, sends rabbis to a calf to be offered in sacrifice. This happened, as we see, far from the Holy Land and over two hundred years after the destruction of the Temple. Raba was the name of one of these doctors, supports two other colleagues to make a sacrifice for the Queen, in honor of the God of Israel. For those who know the pain of Karet (retrenchment) threatening every Jew who would be allowed to bid for [2] his own sacrifice in such circumstances, there is really only admire force that Noachism or design of universal religion must have with the Doctors of Israel, as it was able to silence any scruples on this occasion if justified. The truth was that the cult was Noachide the Jewish point of view as legitimate as the Mosaic worship, it had its particular rules and that Israel no less that the Gentiles were required to observe the requirements each time course , it was the latter. It is worthwhile to quote this entire valuable Talmudic text, "Raba said: As to instruct them (the Gentiles), it is something permissible. This happened for example Ormiz Ifra, the mother of Shapur, king of Persia. She sent a calf of three years to the Rabbis told them they had to sacrifice on behalf of the true God. Raba said to Rabbi Safra and Rabbi Aha, the son of Unna, Go pick up two young men of the same constitution and choose an alluvial soil, bring the new wood, pull the fire of a new object and treat the victim for her in honor of God [3] ".

The third category includes those of the Gentiles sacrifice they brought to the Temple of Jerusalem and Israel, as an intermediary between God and the Gentile, offered to the God of Israel is the God of all mankind. In terms of traces of the universal religion in worship mosaic that is where we put here, this class is certainly the most important. A surprise can only increase our admiration for Judaism awaits us in this study. What is indeed the Gentile question? One would think that if fully converted to the pagan Mosaic, at least, one who abjured the worship of idols professed religion Noachide. It is not. Strange as it may seem, it is still the Gentile polytheism. It is the latter that the text mosaic has in mind when, speaking of the imperfections that make victims unworthy of the altar, he said: "You would not foreign to these victims, to offer sacrifice to your God, for they are maimed, they have drawbacks: they will not be approved for you [4] ". And be it observed: the admission of the sacrifice of polytheism is not even formally taught, Moses speaks as [5] of something already known and merely determine the conditions . But what proof do we have that the real issue here is pagan? If this were the proselyte of the gate or proselyte of justice, any special law would be superfluous, since they are similar, each in his particular sphere, the Jewish birth. The name of bin néchar "Son of the stranger" that gives it unsuitable for its meaning to designate any one proselyte, but in the language of Moses he is most eminently unsuitable for this question, since not only the Pentateuch constantly uses an entirely Another name, that of gher , to designate the proselyte, but this phrase néchar bin "son of the foreigner" there is always applied to the real foreign c that is to say, the polytheist. Moreover, and this consideration is decisive evidence, earlier this Act relating to perfection for victims, converts are already mentioned in conjunction with the original Israelites, "The Lord spoke to Moses and said Speak unto Aaron and to his son, and all the children of Israel, and say to them: Every man of the house of Israel or the proselytes who are in Israel, which will offer a holocaust to the Lord .. . [6]. If so few verses later he is spoken of the son of alien, it can be that the polytheistic worship of Israel abroad, and not that of the proselyte in question.

The tradition has, as everyone knows, an overriding authority to Jewish orthodoxy, is categorical on this subject. The good guys, even idolatrous, in complying with certain rules, however, are allowed to submit their offerings to the Temple. This is what the Talmud says explicitly [7] Thus the word "you [8]" that ends the text of Moses, the Gentile, whatever, is certainly included with Israel. Is it possible to imagine a more beautiful consecration of the unity of mankind? Israel and humanity are combined here and God speaks to them in such a way that does not perhaps discover a similar example in the Bible.

§ 2.

Le Gentil, even polytheistic, was therefore allowed to present the victims at the Temple of Jerusalem, is unquestionable. But [9] what kind of victims was it? It is here that discussions begin between the rabbis, this is also proved that the zeal with which the minds of doctors was concerned about everything concerning the religion of humanity, a memorable example of their noble self-sacrifice a time when their personal interests should absorb all their attention.

The question is studied in the Talmud to the treaty Menahot . For R. Jose the Galilean authorization extends to peace offerings ( schelamim ), the sacrifices of thanksgiving ( toda ), poultry, libations of wine, incense and wood. According to R. Akiba the contrary, this authorization is limited only to the burnt offerings and is the doctrine that Maimonides followed [10]. It is worth mentioning here a passage of Josephus seems to agree with R. Akiba and consequently to Maimonides and therefore confirms the legitimacy of Talmudic rules, according to which the opinion of R. Akiba must be preferred to that of other doctors. Josephus says explicitly that it was the sacrifice for sin that the pagans were allowed to offer the Temple. It was not possible to add the scent to the offering of such victims, but in order not to put off the pagan, we accepted everything offered and the priest ran his intention to sin, though the sacrifice had been offered to another title [11]. This is the explanation given by Josephus and that seems entirely consistent with the doctrine and especially the rabbinic system of R. Akiba. The sin in question in this passage is, as is the doctor, not a violation of the Act ( hattat ), but the inner sin for which the Holocaust ( ola ) was intended, according to the maxim: "The Holocaust is offered in expiation of evil thoughts." Josephus says that the perfume is also true and reflects the rabbinic tradition, provided it is applied to libations accompanying the Jewish sacrifice and were excluded from that of pagan or, rather, should be in this case added to the sacrifice by Israel, as long as we are to believe the opinion of R. Akiba maintains that precisely cons R. Jose as incense ( Lebonah ) does not appear in the sacrifice of the pagan. Finally the words of Josephus on the intention of the priest in any capacity, moreover, that the victim was presented, are an exact equivalent in this [12] Rabbis' decision: "If the Gentile brings sacrifices peaceful, as they offer burnt offerings, because the intention of the Gentile is directed toward heaven (the true God), that is to say that he wants nothing but what God has allowed and as such that God has for him is only the Holocaust, it was under this title that will offer the victim [13] ".

But what is more important is the spirit which dictated these provisions. Obviously in this regulation sacrifices of the Gentiles in the Temple of Jerusalem, was inspired by the nature of their religious faith, or rather their belief Noachide unfettered mosaic. Efforts were made to these rules agree with the moral and religious Judaism itself imposes. Hence the acceptance of some sacrifices and the exclusion of others. It will be admitted after R. Jose, sacrifices and votive offerings of thanksgiving, all that is in short be a freewill offering, for the Gentile, not being subject to the Mosaic worship, it is required to make any sacrifice legal. For R. Akiba, we accept the Holocaust as the Holocaust itself may be votive and if the doctor feels obliged to exclude other offerings of this kind, we will see the reason. But how to explain, will say it, the treaty provision Schekalim by Maimonides which would authorize the pagan to offer sacrifices for sins, because if he is not subject to the requirements of the Mosaic law, his sins does not cause him any guilt? Does this mean that according to this doctrine, the Gentile would be in a state of sin as he does not keep the Mosaic Law which is binding on him as for Israel? Such a claim would reverse from top to bottom our religious building, we are not saying that we have raised, but he who follows the mighty all teachings of Judaism. The problem, quite serious as it seems, is far from being solved. We said that the heathen may voluntarily undertake the execution of certain precepts of Torah ; therefore, when he transgresses the rules he himself has drawn as an expression of his personal religion, he is guilty and liable to sin, if vis-à-vis the Mosaic Law, at least by his own conscience. It is also possible that the sacrifices for sins are the eyes of the doctors in question, likely to be [14] also presented as a fulfillment of a vow. The Talmud does not he say that the ancient Hasidim brought every day one of that kind, without specific object?

Assuming that this is the correct explanation of the passage of Mishnah in question, how is it if we stick to the special nature of religion Noachide that R. Akiba would enable the Gentiles as burnt offerings to the exclusion of all other sacrifices votive? The answer is provided by a controversy over the Talmud and Midrash, echoed the previously existing forms of sacrifice, the oldest one to be so characteristic of the religion of humanity, the others being considered as new forms introduced by the Mosaic [15] Hesiod in his Theogony seems to confirm this ancient practice. He says any animal sacrificed at the beginning was completely burned. It was Prometheus who, seeing that the expense was excessive, Jupiter got only part of the victim was now consumed by fire and no one continued to burn more completely than victims offered to the gods infernal. </Ref > Now, according to some doctors, it is the Holocaust which is the original form so there is nothing surprising in what R. Akiba, conforming to this view, is limited to the burnt sacrifices of the Gentiles.

The importance of these special provisions relating to the Gentile also increases when we consider those for the apostate Jew. While even the pagan idolater is free to make sacrifices in the Temple, the Jewish apostate who can no longer submit any kind. Was it possible to demonstrate more eloquently than the Mosaic Law is only for Israel, the Gentiles are there any subject, without result, far from it, rejected God as their offerings are approved? Monotheism itself is not taxed them, idolize being admitted to the Temple as the true Noachide, and perhaps touch us by the first application of this principle that we find expressed in the later books of the Talmud Although the idea already exists in this monument of tradition: "It was not forbidden to children of Noah associating (other deities in the true God) [16] ".

The same distinction will also renews about gifts and this rule is still observed today in practice [17] synagogue: the gift of the renegade is dismissed. The most memorable of the acceptance of gifts from Gentiles is perhaps the Philistines. They sent, as an offering, with the ark which they had temporarily seized, a box filled with precious objects [18] which was filed in the most secret and most venerable of the sanctuary, next to the vase of manna and the rod of Aaron.


References

  1. Page 540
  2. Page 541
  3. Zebachini 116
  4. Leviticus xxii 25
  5. Page 542
  6. Leviticus xxii, 17
  7. אפילו עובד עבודה זרה Treaty Hullin chap. 1. Maimonides, MAAC akkorbanot, ch. III 2.
  8. לכם
  9. Page 543
  10. Menahot 73 <super> b </super>
  11. Judaico De Bello, lib. II, chap. XVII, 808
  12. Page 544
  13. Maimonides
  14. Page 545
  15. Zebahim 116 <super> a </super> Midrash Schir aschirim; Bereschith Rabba, 22, § 9.
  16. See footnote p. 242.
  17. Page 546
  18. I Samuel, VI, 8.