Q&A: Mentioning Sacrifices in the Musaf Prayer by a Vegan
Mentioning Sacrifices in the Musaf Prayer by a Vegan
Question
Hello Rabbi,
I’m vegan, and therefore I’m not interested in the Temple being rebuilt, and certainly not in the restoration of the sacrificial order (although in my opinion even meat-eaters shouldn’t long for such a thing). One can try to convince me of the importance of sacrifices, but let’s assume, reasonably enough, that I wasn’t convinced.
My question is: what am I supposed to say in the Musaf prayer — “May it be Your will… that we offer before You the sacrifices of our obligations…” etc.? That’s a falsehood that I can’t say, and seemingly based on the Talmudic passage in Yoma about Jeremiah and Daniel, who did not say “awesome and mighty,” there is proof that one should not ask for this?
And I heard that our Conservative cousins use the wording “that we offered and brought before You.”
What does the Rabbi think?
Answer
The term “the sacrifices of our obligations” could also be interpreted as sacrifices as they will be defined then (from plant matter, or perhaps not at all). So that doesn’t seem problematic to me. “May their blood be sprinkled on the wall of Your altar for favor” sounds more problematic to me.
I, unfortunately, am not strong enough, so I’m only vegetarian, but I struggle with the same question. I’ll just say that I don’t see killing animals in the same way as torturing them. Killing them can be justified for sufficiently good reasons, but not the torment they undergo in the industrial process.
What I answer myself is this: right now it means nothing to me, and I even oppose it. It may be that when I live in a time in which there is a Temple, I’ll understand from personal experience why it is so essential. In that situation it might be justified (the killing, not the torment). It may be that in such a state the Holy One, blessed be He, will see to it that there are no animal sacrifices (as Rabbi Kook writes). So in prayer I mean that the Divine Presence should return, and whatever the Holy One, blessed be He, decides should exist then is what ought to exist. I don’t make decisions, from my present perspective, about a state of affairs unfamiliar to me. My assumption is that if that is what the Holy One, blessed be He, wants, then it has justification.
Discussion on Answer
First of all, evasion is not a dirty word. There are situations in which we engage in evasion. For example, when there is difficulty changing the wording of a prayer, even a strained explanation can suffice.
But here it isn’t evasion, because I’m aware of my current state and of the fact that I have no ability to grasp what will happen then. If the state of redemption is an improved state (that is the meaning of redemption), then I am certain that whatever prevails then will be a better state, whatever its content may be. And that is what I am asking for: to bring redemption and restore the service. What that service will be then will be decided then, as I wrote. There is no problem at all in asking for that in my current state.
To tell you that I pray for this with deep devotion — that would of course be a lie. But that isn’t the question.
1. In my opinion evasion is very much a dirty word, and honestly I’m surprised to hear that you think it’s acceptable. If there’s a problem, you deal with it straightforwardly and honestly. You can also say there’s no choice, there’s some limitation that prevents us from acting logically, etc. — but not give an unconvincing apologetic excuse.
2. Why didn’t Jeremiah and Daniel adopt the same methodology you’re presenting here, swallow hard, and say the full text?
Avishai, what kind of aggadic example is this from Jeremiah and Daniel? What does that have to do with anything? Does that midrash obligate anyone in Jewish law? Was that even a historical reality? And was there even a prayer text in their time? There is not, was not, and will not be any connection.
That Talmudic passage comes to teach exactly this principle — a person must speak truth in his prayer.
As for “was there even a prayer text in their time?” — the Talmud assumes that there is a default wording and shows that it should be changed in accordance with reality. If there were no such wording, then the whole passage would be pointless and unclear.
By the way, a similar discussion was held about the Nachem prayer on Tisha B’Av. The only difference is that there it is objective, whereas here, regarding sacrifices, it is subjective. But what they all have in common is that one does not ask for something false.
That sounds like evasion — you’re asking God for something based on your current state. If you don’t want it now, then you can’t say now that you do want it. Jeremiah and Daniel too could have said the full text on the strength of your argument, and they chose not to.