Israel and Humanity - The prayers and sacrifices

 Share 

III.

Prayer and sacrifice.

§ 1.

To the question of monotheism is naturally connected with that of the kind of worship that we must render to God including prayer and sacrifice. We see this as further proof, if proof were needed, that the doctors, speaking of the Seven Commandments Noachides, simply intended to indicate seven main classes of precepts or general ideas, each with a more or less equally mandatory details.

At any time in its history mankind has prayed. The prayer had to be before Moses, as since the advent of the Hebrew lawgiver, a religious duty sometimes subject to specific rules, sometimes left to the inspiration of each. It is certain however that there are times of day when nature seems particularly invite the man to send his worship the Creator. On the other hand, as it is likely that all peoples, at least on certain occasions, the prayer was done together, it could hardly happen then pre-established rituals and formulas generally adopted. It is also unacceptable that we did not pray with the family and that, in this domestic worship, each prayed in his own way without following any rule. We had to eventually comply with the purposes set for common prayer. We also find in Scripture the names by which they invoked the Deity and obviously had to express the popular belief. Thus we read about Abraham's stay in Beer-Sheba: "And then he invoked the name of the Lord, God of eternity ( El olam laws) ".

The forms of worship were much less left to the individual imagination we might be tempted to believe. If certain acts, certain actions were prescribed, such as the one accompanying the oath of Eliezer or as the ablution which alludes , it is likely that there were also forms required for prayer. In that the Semites were not different from the Aryans of the Vedas, which from the earliest times, sang hymns in honor of their gods.

We do not have to go back to what we said earlier sacrifices of the Gentiles and the law which required the Israelites to receive their offerings and determined the form in which they were to be presented at the altar of Jerusalem. There is one very curious peculiarity already reported that should attract our attention again. Because while the apostate Jew was not allowed to offer sacrifices in Jerusalem, those Gentiles were always received and the more he requires that they do for any Noachides distinction between the faithful and the heretics. This provision is unusual and somewhat enigmatic is contained in a Baraita which says: "It is written (Leviticus , I, 2) about the Jewish sacrifice "Among you" has <super> and not "you all" is that the words "you "exclude the apostate and this means I can see you, while I make no distinction between the Gentiles." What is the meaning of this Baraita ? Rashi takes care to teach us: "I can see you," he said, to exclude the apostate, but I do not distinguish among the Gentiles, as the heretics themselves are admitted. "

Obviously this is kind of heretics. There is therefore, according to Judaism, the heretics among the Gentiles or unbelievers and Noachides alongside believers. But what is a heretic Noachide? It is tempting to believe that this is the kind who does not obey the law Noachide and, as we have already said, however, was allowed to offer sacrifices in Jerusalem. If this is the meaning, strictly acceptable, this text of the Baraita , it tells us nothing new. What makes this interpretation doubtful, however, is the word min used to describe this heretic Noachide. It is even less consider taking the term as synonymous goy or simply pagan it is equated with that of moumar by which one indicates the apostate Israelites who could well have been applied instead of the word min , or Noachide renegade. We know that a Talmudic passage where he discussed the book of the Law, written either by a < i> goy </i>, or by a min , appeared to confuse the two names, but it is by no means certain that this text refers specifically Noachide the infidel, rather than any pagan, the priest, for example, spent more completely polytheistic worship. We believe, for us, that Baraita which we are now date from a time when the world had already many Christians commonly referred to as and this would be the Christian or Jewish birth or pagan origins that this text would give favor to celebrate sacrifices in the name of the true God according to the rite Noachide. This explanation raises It is true, a serious objection. The Jew by birth who became a Christian in this system would be regarded as a mere insoluble. Yet this is precisely what is in formal contradiction with the principles of Judaism's most undisputed, according to which the Jew can never lose its uniqueness and become a mere Noachide, while the latter is contrary to able to acquire quality real Jew. You could probably limit the meaning of the word Christian to a pagan, but then the difficulty is only changing its nature, because what is needed Christian would there be a special permit, since there is no Israelite title? The objection, in our view, however, is not decisive. It is certain that we have in the Christian view is not Jewish in the sense of traditional Judaism, but by the mere fact of being a Christian, he believes, however, Jewish and even one true Israelite. This is hardly doubtful, if one considers the transition state and imprecision then presented the Christian faith. The Baraita so just teach us that we should not regard him as a proselyte of justice, that is to say as a Jew to whom adoption is not permitted to sacrifice outside Jerusalem and other than as the Mosaic ritual, and furthermore, the fact of belonging to a sect of Jewish apostates, as were Jews in the eyes of the Christian Church ought not be an obstacle for him to the exercise of his rights recognized Judaism as it was a pagan birth and had never been properly converted.

The conditions were imposed in this case more stringent than when the Gentile sacrifice for its own account and on his own altar, the animal would indeed be free of any defects that rendered him unfit for the Jewish sacrifice, while when the Noachide sacrificed directly by the victim's particular rite, the only cause of incapacity, according to Jewish doctrine, was the mehussar eber , that is to say, the loss of a limb. We read in the Talmud: "For the Gentiles there was no other defect known to the victim that the deprivation of a limb. R Eliezer said: Whence do we learn that the absence of a member renders the animal unfit for sacrifice in Noachides? From this verse: "In every living creature of all flesh ". The Act means: any animal whose members are healthy. " And Rashi says its next: The Gentiles, in their sacrifices to idols, following the custom observed by their fathers in their sacrifices to the true God ". These words are valuable because they are an impartial trial of high against the polytheistic religion that is considered an image of the old and also because they provide a source of information on the trail that polytheism retained Noachide primitive worship.

This is not to say that paganism is kept intact posterior at least the form of worship ancient Jewish tradition that has nothing to teach us on this chapter, the qualifications for the victims in sacrifices Noachides. One condition was the most notable distinction was made between clean beasts and unclean animals, because the Gentiles, who could freely eat the flesh of any animal, without observing any food law in Under the words of Genesis IX, 3: "Every moving thing that lives will be food, would instead choose victims for their sacrifices among the clean animals. Thus the provisions that regulated their worship were those who controlled the food of the Israelites, the priests of mankind. It would be wrong to see this legislation devised to give the awards after the seal mosaics of antiquity. One such intention appears nowhere in the Pentateuch. In addition, criticism that would support such an assertion would be committing a shocking anachronism carrying on a time and in an environment that may not come to that, ideas that can only be explained in orthodox minds of our time. So many in fact they naturally want to return at any time in their religion the universalistic tendency, as the mentality of the old Jew had to be alien, even repugnant to these kinds of assimilation in the same rank which placed the Israelites and the Gentiles .

If the sacred writer had obeyed the concerns that we assume would not it also sought to match point by point the Mosaic law with that which preceded it, instead of suffer to exist among the they are striking similarities, differences no less sensitive? There is clear evidence that this is not a systematic spirit which presided to such arrangements. Regarding this issue, for example the choice of victims, all clean animals, which could be on the table and that the Israelite Gentiles were allowed to sacrifice on their altars, were not received so far is for the Mosaic sacrifices, only certain species could be selected as the preferred victims among the Jews. We can not therefore, once again, to reconcile our various arrangements with the hypothesis of a predetermined system.

§ 2.

We have said that opinions are divided on the question of whether to see the sacrifice Noachide a holocaust, a sacrifice of thanksgiving or a sin offering. This issue apparently is related to that discussed in the Bereschith Rabba and in the Talmud about the story of Cain and Abel. One wonders what was before Moses Noachide form of sacrifice. The opinion of those who claim that the burnt alone were known to the ancients is confirmed by some historians and we know that, according to Hesiod, Prometheus, who was obtained from Jupiter the option not consume only part the victim to avoid excessive expenditure. This doctrine represented in the Talmud by R. R. Akiba cons Jose the Galilean, who instead allowed the kind offer all sacrifices in Jerusalem can be the object of a wish or an offering, has prevailed thereafter, at least in Maimonides

He is very remarkable that while any kind of sacrifice was strictly forbidden for the Jew outside of Jerusalem and its temple, the Noachide, while having the ability to sacrifice in Jerusalem, could also, as we have already established, offer sacrifices anywhere whatsoever . Thus Judaism, over a thousand years before the advent Christianity had already made on behalf of the Gentile, the ideal of religious universalism that they wanted to see, quite wrongly, the first foundation in the words of Jesus to the Samaritan . Only Catholicism of the Pharisees, in this very different from that of Jesus, do not sacrifice the idea of patriotism with that of humanity, especially as the Jewish homeland they loved was to them the religious metropolis of humanity. Jerusalem and its temple were open to all peoples, as well as Jews, but no particular place, not even so revered Jerusalem, was imposed on the Gentiles for the celebration of their worship. Here, on this matter, a decisive text of Baraita : "It is the children of Israel not to offer sacrifices outside the temple of Jerusalem, but it has nothing to Gentiles been ordered similar. therefore, any kind can raise an altar for his own use and sacrifice victims of his choice. " And the Talmud, about the religious condition of the Hebrews before the Mosaic law, adds: The situation of non-Jews are still the same, that is to say they can do everything allowed the Israelites before the erection of the tabernacle, so they sacrificed wherever they wanted ". "Indeed, says Rashi, the altar, private ( bamot ) do not have not been banned."

We will observe in passing that if the position of the Gentiles are the same as that of Israel before the construction of the tabernacle, it is the firstborn had to be at home as among the ancient Hebrews, invested with priestly functions.

This catholicity of worship Noachide, will it be believed? date of the Bible. The famous passage from Malachi is sufficient to instruct us. Events prior or subsequent to tell Moses that the Scriptures testify to the need already, but the proclamation of the principle, in the form it assumes in the last prophet, was something striking. Malachi who, by the perpetual punishment of the Mosaic law establishes definitively Jewish particularism, devotes the same time the universalism of punishing Israel admirable in terms of legitimacy Noachide worship: "For, he says, from the east until the West, my name is great among the Gentiles in every place incense is burned in honor of my name and this is pure offerings, because my name is great among the nations, says the Lord Zebaot ".

Regarding the worship or Noachide universal, it is important to note that Judaism is believed possession of which rules were followed. Although it was forbidden to participate in the Jewish sacrifice of Noachide, because the diversity of ritual laws which they were respectively subject, however, expressly authorizes the Talmud at the Jewish leadership in the non-Jewish celebration of worship and to teach the particular laws of sacrifice Noachide. We have mentioned in a previous chapter the example quoted by the Talmud, the mother of Shapur, king of Persia, who sent to a victim for Raba he's in my Immolate to the true God and we have seen how the Dr. delegated two other rabbis, Rab and Rab saphre Ahu, son of Rab Unna, responsible for resolving details of the execution of sacrifice . We believe that this opportunity, which may be repeated frequently enough, marked a solemn moment in the destiny of Judaism, which then became an indelible character of universality. In the presence of this central fact, the circumstances have more than secondary importance. However it is of interest to note that the purity, remoteness from any contact or mixture of idolatry is the dominant idea, anything that was not used for sacrifice to have previously served another purpose. We find this idea in the conduct of the Philistines when they return the ark of the covenant they had captured.

The Bible also provides other examples of knowledge of the Mosaic rites that kept the heathen and of Balaam is one of the most salient . In any case, we have established links that connect the rites Noachides to the Mosaic religion and demonstrated, contrary to general opinion, that Israel was never believed to be only worship acceptable to God.