Does G-d Need Your Coke Zero?

“Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘When a man from brings an offering to G-d, you must bring your offering from animals — from cattle or from the flock.” [Leviticus 1:2]

Nobody said Judaism 1:01 would be a cinch. There are some things that seem impossible to understand. Our weekly portion Vayikra is one example: It deals with bringing a sacrifice to the Almighty. The matter raises an obvious question: Why does G-d need a dead animal? He created everything, including the animals and humans. I mean would you come to Willy Wonka’s factory with a Nestle bar?

Indeed, that’s the way King David felt. A mere sacrifice would favor the rich who can afford a cow or goat. The poor would be unable to buy in.

For You do not wish a sacrifice, or I should give it; You do not desire a burnt-offering. [Psalms 51:18]

Moses Ben Maimon, known as Maimonides, grappled with this conundrum in his work Guide for the Perplexed. His conclusion: G-d is allowing us to maintain our nature of giving. After all, a guest doesn’t come to dinner empty-handed. And when the host is prominent, a bottle of Coke Zero won’t do.

From the start, man has always brought offerings. Adam and Noah sacrificed animals in the name of G-d. Abel pleased G-d with the choice of flock. Cain’s offering did not. Later, many decided to ignore G-d and bring gifts to man-made idols in man-made temples. The giving continued, but that was not what the Almighty wanted.

It was in accordance with the wisdom and plan of G-d, as displayed in the whole creation, that He did not command us to give up and discontinue all these manners of service. For to obey such a commandment would have been contrary to the nature of man, who generally cleaves to that to which he is used. [Guide for the Perplexed 3:32]

Some 60 years later, Moses Ben Nachman, known as the Ramban, reflected on Maimonides. The Ramban was outraged: G-d would never have given the Chosen People a command that reflected a blasphemous tradition of idolatry. On the contrary. Did not the sacrifices of Noah lead to a divine promise never to bring another flood? Did not the offerings of Abram prompt a divine pledge that the patriarch would spawn the Israelite nation?

This [explanation of Maimonides] is rubbish! Doesn’t Scripture say [Leviticus 3:16] that they are ‘food of the gift offering, for a pleasing odor?’ [Ramban on Leviticus 1:9]

The deadlock between the titans of Torah appears to be broken by a more senior sage — Shlomo Yitzhaki, known as Rashi., the 11th Century commentator who defined everything from the Five Books of Moses to the Talmud. Rashi says the beginning of Vayikra refers to voluntary offerings rather than compulsory sacrifices. The former applies to what the Ramban asserts are offerings, that when performed according to the Torah, are pleasing to G-d and demonstrate human devotion and love.

But then there are offerings that are mandated by the Almighty. They are mentioned later in Vayikra and are required for atonement. This chapter focuses on the leadership of the Israelites: They are responsible to admit and repent for their mistakes regardless of their intention. The leader’s mistake caused harm and cannot be overlooked.

If a leader sins by unintentionally transgressing any of the passive commandments of G-d, his G-d, incurring guilt. [Leviticus 4:22]

Notice that the Torah judges the honest mistake of a leader a “sin.” He didn’t mean for his action or statement to produce negative results, but it did, and he is responsible — to G-d and to the people. Again, Rashi weighs in and explains this sentence of Leviticus more in line with the Rambam, who sees sacrifices as necessary rather than desirable. After all, G-d doesn’t want anybody to sin. But if it takes place, there must be a correction. And that correction is to be praised. The key is the Hebrew word for “If” — Asher.

[Asher] is related to Ashrei, or praiseworthy: Praiseworthy is the generation in which its leader takes care to atone for his unintentional sin, let alone his intentional ones. [Rashi on Leviticus 4:22]

And that perhaps more than anything else explains the need for sacrifices. It’s a level playing field whereby the rich man and the poor man are held accountable for their actions regardless of their explanation. The leader cannot plead national security to become exempt from atonement. He is as responsible if not more so for his behavior than the little man.

Bringing an animal to the Temple is not enough to wipe the slate clean. For the rich, the transaction is no more than a swipe of a credit card. But atonement is different. It is not about the wallet; it is about the heart. It requires sincere regret. That, King David says, is no mean feat for a leader who spends most of his time denying complicity let alone responsibility and holds a long list of others worthy of censure.

Without the willingness to assume blame, a sacrifice, regardless of cost, is meaningless if not repulsive. In the First Temple, the elite would commit terrible sins and then offer animals the next day. For them, the cows, sheep and goats brought to the Temple marked the cost of doing business. Here, both Maimonides and the Ramban would agree that this does not impress the Almighty.

The sacrifices of G-d are a broken spirit. O G-d, You will not despise a broken and crushed heart. [Psalms 51:19]