Q&A: Sacrifices Nowadays
Sacrifices Nowadays
Question
Hello Rabbi,
We ended up talking during reserve duty about the Temple and the anticipation for its rebuilding, and the secular guys there raised the well-known question about offering sacrifices. I’d like to sharpen it and present it also from my own point of view as a religious person:
The service in the Temple is perceived today, in the eyes of modern people, as something very coarse and pagan — slaughtering an animal, throwing its blood onto the altar, and then burning its internal organs on the fire; in gentle terms, it doesn’t sound very pleasant.
According to the Torah’s command, it would seem that there is no way to avoid the act of sacrifice when the Temple exists, because although there are sacrifices that one is not obligated to bring, such as a sin-offering, which comes only for a sin, and a burnt-offering, which a person volunteers of his own will, after all there are communal offerings (such as the daily offering and the additional offerings on Sabbaths and festivals) that the Torah commands must be offered regardless.
As for the peace-offering, one could seemingly say that it is not difficult, because it is no worse than ordinary animal slaughter today, which is accepted by all meat-eaters of every kind, and the Torah simply says to do it in the Temple and eat the meat in holiness. Nachmanides explains that this was the situation in the wilderness with the Tabernacle — only the meat of peace-offerings was permitted, and when they entered the Land, ordinary non-sacred meat was also permitted. But on second thought, the difficulty does not stem from eating the meat itself, but from the divine demand to perform an act that involves, so to speak, this “dirty” dealing with blood and flesh. The question is, so to speak: is this really what God expects us to do? The Holy One, blessed be He, is perceived today at least as a humane and merciful God who has nothing to do with such things! On the other hand, I thought that perhaps our perspective today is mistaken, because if this is the animal’s role, then it reaches its rectification and purpose, and that is good for it.
One of the religious guys in reserve duty raised the possibility that perhaps the offering of sacrifices really was intended only for that period, when idolatry dominated the world in a similar way (as in Maimonides’ approach in The Guide for the Perplexed), and perhaps in the future Temple that will be built this will not be the case. But as far as I know, no such view exists in practice; even in the book of Ezekiel, the Third Temple is mentioned together with sacrifices that will be offered there.
In any case, I would be glad to hear your opinion on the matter.
Thank you
Answer
Hello.
First, one must distinguish between feelings and beliefs. Even something that seems repulsive can still have value. In this context it is also important to distinguish between the killing of animals itself and abusing them, as is common in the meat industry today. Killing in itself is not morally wrong, so long as the animal does not suffer. Therefore my assumption in this discussion is that we are not talking about the suffering of animals, but about the very use of them and their killing.
Assuming there is no suffering, would you recoil from eating meat in the future? Or even from eating it today? So why do sacrifices specifically repel you? If offering them brings some kind of spiritual benefit, then this is no different from the benefit of eating, and we should accept it.
The problem arises because we do not see what benefit there is in this offering apart from fulfilling God’s will. So the question arises: why would God want this? But it may be that this problem arises for us only because we have never experienced a situation in which there is a Temple and sacrifices are offered there. Perhaps if we experienced it, we would see some kind of elevation or powerful spirituality resting upon us in such a state, and then we would understand the spiritual value of the offering. It is hard to judge a situation you have not experienced and cannot imagine what it would mean for you or in general.
Now you can see that this discussion is unnecessary. From my current point of view, it is clear that I do not long for or yearn for the return of sacrifices. A state in which priests walk with their feet sinking up to their knees in blood is very far from being the delight of my life. If in the future the Temple is established and sacrifices are offered there, then we will be able to see whether there really is value in it, and then the question will not arise; or we may feel that there is still no value in it, and then perhaps there will be room to discuss this question. For now, this is all about an egg that has not yet been laid, since it is not at all clear that there is even a problem.
Discussion on Answer
Thank you very much for the detailed and enlightening reply!
By the way, with your permission, I usually ask Rabbi Moshe Rat in parallel as well; he gave an answer very similar to yours, and added, to help explain the matter, an analogy in this context to marital relations: from the point of view of someone who lacks sexual desire, it looks like something disgusting, dirty, and physical — dealing with flesh, secretions, and bodily fluids. And it indeed can be like that. But on the other hand, when it is done מתוך love and deep emotional connection, it elevates the bond between the couple far more than a merely Platonic relationship.
I answered you within an internal religious discussion. As for secular people, that is a different discussion, because they do not accept the religious value of such things. From that point of view, it is obvious that sacrifice has no meaning, but from their perspective that would be true even if there were nothing morally wrong with it. It would just be a meaningless act for them. These are conflicting points of view, and there is no point in the discussion.
It is like a secular person asking why one should not desecrate the Sabbath to save the life of a non-Jew (in my opinion today one is obligated to desecrate it, but according to Talmudic law that is the halakhic ruling). From his point of view, there is no value at all in keeping the Sabbath, so obviously in his opinion one should desecrate the Sabbath to save the life of a non-Jew. He is not in any conflict. But I am in a conflict, because from my point of view desecrating the Sabbath is a very serious problem. Opposed to it stands the value of a non-Jew’s life, and so I am in conflict. There is no point discussing this with someone who does not accept one of the two values in the conflict. You can argue with him about the value of the Sabbath, and after he accepts that, you can discuss saving the life of a non-Jew — whether that overrides the value of the Sabbath or not. But without his accepting the value of the Sabbath, what is the point of the discussion?!
Just to sharpen the point: even the life of a Jew is not saved through desecrating the Sabbath except because he will keep many future Sabbaths (this is one of the reasons in the passage in tractate Yoma; let us use it here for the sake of illustration). You can see that it is not the value of a Jew’s life that overrides the Sabbath, but the future Sabbaths he will keep. That is, the value of the Sabbath is not set aside before the value of a Jew’s life, and therefore not before that of a non-Jew either. From the secular point of view, of course, there is no value whatsoever to the Sabbath and there is value to human life, and therefore you simply cannot discuss any of this with him. It is like my asking a Ukrainian why he goes out to war against Russia — after all, people are going to be killed there. He would answer that he is a Ukrainian patriot and wants to defend his homeland. But I am not interested in Ukraine or in defending it. So I would insist on asking why he is killing people over his nonsense. You understand that such a discussion has neither value nor point.