{Part 1 – 26/03/2017}
http://www.chabad.org/kabbalah/article_cdo/aid/1400361/jewish/Voice-of-Return.htm
“The Degel Machaneh Ephraim, one of the earliest books that disseminated the teachings of the Baal Shem Tov, connects this to the second Mishna in the 6th chapter of Tractate Avot: “Each and every day, a divine voice calls out from Mt. Moriah saying, ‘Woe to the people because their actions are an affront to the Torah!'” This divine voice is our thoughts of teshuva, a return to spiritual sensibility that sparks the heart of each of us every day. Whoever is sensitive enough to hear it, to understand and respond appropriately, is on the level of Moses, to whom “the voice would reach out only to him”. Whoever ignores the small subtle voice that tries to sprout in his heart every day, does not only not change for the better, it is as though the voice did not touch him at all.”
The word “Vayikra” may suggest a mechanism in which this can be seen.
Yikra = yud + kuf + reish + aleph
This is like a hand (reaching down) presenting a business card (for a new job, describing a job title; kuf); where the job allows you to do something new, and so presents a new opportunity (aleph).
This means that the words of “said” can be seen not just aurally, or in terms of a thespian directive (e.g. “now this actor will speak”).
It can also be seen as a “series of lights” which are seen in the everyday life, lived.
“The second verse says, “When a person brings an offering from his own [in Hebrew, ‘mikem’]. “mikem” can also be translated “from himself”. The whole purpose of the offerings, both when the Sanctuary stood, and even more so now when each person is like a sanctuary, is to offer ourselves to G‑d. We must sacrifice the animal part of ourselves – our evil inclination, which is nicknamed our “animal soul” – as an offering on the altar. (Likutei Torah) “
Korban = kuf + reish + beit + nun sofit.
This is very strange; it’s very strangeness, and alien-feeling (abjectness?) is a form of revelation. It is a paradoxical revelation since it occurs by hiding itself from the modern psyche. In the past when sacrifices were part of the physical and social landscapes, then they were seen as “part of life”. When they are seen as “not something I would create” then the otiyot can be better appreciated.
“A job title”
and
“a way of doing something, which is done for the sake of being true to oneself”
where
“these 2 look the same”
By looking at these over and over, an appreciation that is simultaneously alien, and simultaneously creates itself as alien despite being indigenous…
But why is this strange, re ‘our “animal soul”‘?
For example, korban shelamim.
This is like
- A fire that burns, to leave ashes that
- connect to
- an untapping of potential (to get to all potential).
Then why is this strange?
It is strange in its physical representation because its strangeness hides in its spiritual representation. It is strange to “sacrifice” something to “Infinite”.
“The third verse says that when a person brings an offering to the Sanctuary, it should be “willingly [in Hebrew, ‘l’riztono’] before G‑d”. The Maggid of Mezritch explains that a person should bring an offering of “l’ritzono”, which can mean “his own will”. When a person wishes to elevate himself to the highest levels of holiness that he can potentially reach, when he himself is in a sense the offering to G‑d, what is the most valuable part of himself that he can offer? His own will. This is also explained by the Sages: “Fulfill His will as you would your own will, so that He may fulfil your will as though it were His will. Set aside your will because of His will, so that He may set aside the will of others before your will.” (Avot 2:4)“
This is like the kuf and beit of korban but seen from the perspective of the 4-legged shin, whereas the interpretation given above is from the perspective of the 3-legged shin.
http://www.chabad.org/kabbalah/article_cdo/aid/1750429/jewish/Offer-Yourself.htm
“The animal soul by nature has no knowledge of or feelings for G‑dliness. Nevertheless, through the G‑dly soul’s involvement with the animal soul, i.e. through meditation on spiritual concepts in a manner in which the animal soul can also comprehend, a general impression is made to the point where the animal soul can appreciate that G‑dliness also has value and importance. (The process continues to the point) where the animal soul becomes an offering; it, too, draws close to G‑d. Its animal nature is transformed and becomes consumed by the fire of the G‑dly soul (just as the offering in the Temple was consumed by the fire of the altar). After this service, “many harvests can be made through the power of an ox” (i.e., the animal soul contributes its power and strength to the service of G‑d (Proverbs 14:4)).“
I wonder. In the bracha for Esav, it mentions “throwing off yoke”. This may refer to the strategy of trying to pull on Esav like a dog or horse – by incremental pressure (or else to quash absolutely).
http://www.chabad.org/kabbalah/article_cdo/aid/2140587/jewish/Large-Aleph-Tiny-Aleph.htm
“Moreover, if we remember the small Aleph, we, too, will merit to be called by G‑d, and this revelation will provide us with the strength to answer G‑d’s call, drawing ourselves and the world at large closer to Him. This is the true essence of the sacrifices, whose laws are introduced by the lesson of the small Aleph.“
Regarding “korban & otiyot” above, the quote here may inform that:
When alef is small, or with hidden momentum (e.g. no vowel) (then it can be like Rachel, instead of Leah, aka Thought more so than Speech), and the korbanot are not a good example of Aleph since they hide most of their own expression. And this can also be seen regarding “Esav” above since the bulk of the sacrificing of will occurs hidden (even such, that most of it is in will et al, not even in thought).
http://www.chabad.org/kabbalah/article_cdo/aid/2502906/jewish/Personalizing-Your-Animal.htm
“The animal personifies the animal instincts of the sinner, which led to the sin, whereas the sinner’s true essence, his Divine soul, did not participate in the sin. This realization stirs the sinner’s Divine soul, inspiring him to renew his devotion God and to serve Him better than previously.“
These are just singular examples of how to apply the quote to the otiyot:
- “Bakar” = beit kuf reish = To sacrifice “doing things for the “higher purpose” of having more options, i.e. in and of themselves”
- “Ceves” = caf bveit sin = To sacrifice “doing things so as “to look right/to be right for the role” of being part of some vision/idea”
- The reasons these are needing to be sacrificed could be (1) because it is idol worship to do things for less than infinite, but in more mundane terms, because they are not the right motivations, things should be done for what is right and good; (2) because the principle (i.e. being sacrificed) was the cause of something undesirable.
Re “גאִם־עֹלָ֤ה קָרְבָּנוֹ֙ מִן־הַבָּקָ֔ר זָכָ֥ר תָּמִ֖ים יַקְרִיבֶ֑נּוּ אֶל־פֶּ֜תַח אֹ֤הֶל מוֹעֵד֙ יַקְרִ֣יב אֹת֔וֹ לִרְצֹנ֖וֹ לִפְנֵ֥י יְהֹוָֽה:”
- Tamim ~ something which still has the will to bring out its full potential”
- Zachar ~ With the means of being made to conform to a new purpose
- Cf. “נקבה” ~ power of determination to evoke a will to be made part of a partnership which will reveal one’s form
- This can suggest “derech eretz” – When one sacrifices “bakar“, i.e. when it is the right thing to do, then it is best done when the bakar first reveals itself as tamim and zachar (and therefore to the extent that the “sacrifice” differs, is a sign of “distance from original” & it does NOT indicate whether it is wrong in and of itself & its suggests that Bakar Nekeva should not be sacrificed as readily as Zachar, which can be said in a mundane way as “don’t sacrifice potential” just because you think you need to “sacrifice a particular opportunity”).
Rashi @ אל פתח אהל מועד: מטפל בהבאתו עד העזרה. מהו אומר יקריב יקריב, אפילו נתערבה עולת ראובן בעולת שמעון, יקריב כל אחת לשם מי שהוא. וכן עולה בחולין, ימכרו החולין לצרכי עולות, והרי הן כולן עולות ותקרב כל אחת לשם מי שהוא. יכול אפילו נתערבה בפסולין או בשאינו מינו, תלמוד לומר יקריבנו:
Suggests avoiding collateral damage in these ways.
Rashi “אדם: למה נאמר, מה אדם הראשון לא הקריב מן הגזל, שהכל היה שלו, אף אתם לא תקריבו מן הגזל:”
Perhaps it can be expanded: Just like Adam could not sacrifice anything that was not part of “his creation process, aka his life, aka what was his”, so too there is no meaning in sacrificing something which is not “part of one’s own creation process/life/one’s”
http://www.chabad.org/kabbalah/article_cdo/aid/2502906/jewish/Personalizing-Your-Animal.htm
“The first explanation is harsher than the second and is therefore appropriate for more severe sins. Therefore, the “guilt-offering,” (Below, 5:14-26, 7:1-7; Numbers 5:5-8) which can atone for deliberate sins, is brought from male animals, suggesting the “male” type of meditation necessary to shake a person free from deliberate sins. The second, softer, more “female” type of meditation is more appropriate for unintentional sins; therefore, the “sin-offering,” which atones for such sins, is brought from female animals. “
This helps to look at beit vs bveit: To be party to a wrong behaviour, versus to make oneself amenable to being party to wrong behaviour”, the latter may require bad luck, but so does the former when it remembered that “the right circumstances were required to reveal one’s propensity for wrongdoing”.
Regarding Rashi “הבהמה: יכול אף חיה בכלל, תלמוד לומר בקר וצאן:” & “otiyot of individual sacrifices” above & “revealed/hidden aspect of korban“
These add up to suggest that one can only sacrifice domestic/kosher animals (in the material sense, which hides the spiritual sense), but in the spiritual sense, it follows from the physical that the wild animals are to be “mastered” but not sacrificed (cf. mastership of Adam).
Regarding Rashi “יקריב אתו: מלמד שכופין אותו. יכול בעל כרחו, תלמוד לומר לרצונו, הא כיצד כופין אותו עד שיאמר רוצה אני:” & “vayomar” re not-Moshe, & “vatisa“
This can indicate regarding a social inverse role in improving society through sacrifices.
Regarding Rashi “לפני ה’ וסמך: אין סמיכה בבמה:”
Perhaps (I feel hesitant due to crude expression) should respect one’s own “sacrificing” when practical (i.e. in this way, not in the way of lauding or celebrating).
Rashi @ “העולה: פרט לעולת העוף:”
Why is this not “semicha” like other burned offerings here? Perhaps one should not “respect” (see above) for “Of” here.
Ayin vav phei sofit = to sacrifice a judgment call which was thought to be what needed to be done (aka it looked like what was being aimed for).
Rashi @ “ונרצה לו: על מה הוא מרצה לו, אם תאמר על כריתות ומיתות בית דין או מיתה בידי שמים או מלקות, הרי עונשן אמור, הא אינו מרצה אלא על עשה ועל לאו שנתק לעשה:”
This might inform the concept of Teshuva, in which “that part of self is sacrificed”, whereas Teshuva for “final” sins does not involve the “animal being sacrificed” but rather “the animal being taken away from the person, cf. Noah’s flood”.
Re Vayikra 1.5 “לִפְנֵ֣י”
The sacrifices can be done within (lamed) the spirit of “being amenable to learning (phei) how one can be more faithful (nun) so as to have more of a connection (yud)” this is a confusing way of saying “done in front of God and thus seeing how one can relate better”. But nb. the 4-letter name is used, which makes this a more daunting task than if it were the 6 since it is referring to the Ein Sof rather than “that which restricts”.
Rashi @ “ושחט, והקריבו, הכהנים: מקבלה ואילך מצות כהונה, למד על השחיטה שכשרה בזר:”
The blood is sacrificed (dam) this is the “potential that was lurking within the thing sacrificed” (aka “this is given up”).
The priest only needs to throw the blood, this is like “the part of self which is dedicated to the Ein Sof and being a passive partner (bveit, or shin-3)” willing “to give up potential, aka fighting one’s lower will”. This occurs via “zarku” ~the oomph to resist/sacrifice/give. In a physical sense “the mizbeach” is the pyre in the Mishkan, and also in the Mishkan’s fire which is a corollary of learning Torah.
Rashi @ “וזרקו: עומד למטה וזורק מן הכלי לכותל המזבח למטה מחוט הסיקרא כנגד הזויות, לכך נאמר סביב, שיהא הדם ניתן בארבע רוחות המזבח. או יכול יקיפנו כחוט, תלמוד לומר וזרקו, ואי אפשר להקיף בזריקה. אי וזרקו יכול בזריקה אחת, תלמוד לומר סביב, הא כיצד נותן שתי מתנות שהן ארבע:”
Cf. 3 doorposts of Yitziyat Mitzrayim, cf “Ed/witness” according to Ramban; although normally Israel is not to do things for “sake of dream”, in this case, the “doorway” is an exception, where the dream is sacrificed in the same way as to be made. (This solves the paradox, how can a dream exclude dreaming, answer: by being a dream which makes itself real- and yet the paradox is iteratively paradoxical). Nb. the 4th doorpost, aka land, is not painted, whereas all 4 walls of pyre are painted, this too is a way of expressing the paradox).
Vayikra “ווְהִפְשִׁ֖יט אֶת־הָֽעֹלָ֑ה וְנִתַּ֥ח אֹתָ֖הּ לִנְתָחֶֽיהָ:”
“Hifsheit” (remove the skin from offering), this is like “clothes of leather” which are removed. Instead of looking at the thing being sacrificed via its skin (aka what you think of it, already), look for ways of seeing it as “actually a good thing if you look at it this way…”
“Lintcheia” (offering is given in sections”, this is like “it is given in the spirit of life”, aka sacrifices are an act of life and creation, not death or loss.
Rashi @ “אתה לנתחיה: ולא נתחיה לנתחים: may allude to benefit of Torah“
… so too Vaykira “ז: ונָֽתְנ֠וּ בְּנֵ֨י אַֽהֲרֹ֧ן הַכֹּהֵ֛ן אֵ֖שׁ עַל־הַמִּזְבֵּ֑חַ וְעָֽרְכ֥וּ עֵצִ֖ים עַל־הָאֵֽשׁ:” but which can also be seen in life as “lighting one’s own fire” (e.g. etzim ~a way of seeing things which give the power to the archer to reach for a further dream to create an opportunity for one’s full potential”, this is like “inspiring oneself”, but nb. the fire is not the sacrifice, more so a vehicle).
… also nb. Rashi @ “אשר על המזבח: שלא יהיו הגזירין יוצאין חוץ למערכה:”
Vaykira ” רֵֽיחַ־נִיח֖וֹחַ” cf. “yaakov chevel nachalato” re cheit’s.
Vayira “טוְקִרְבּ֥וֹ וּכְרָעָ֖יו יִרְחַ֣ץ בַּמָּ֑יִם וְהִקְטִ֨יר הַכֹּהֵ֤ן אֶת־הַכֹּל֙ הַמִּזְבֵּ֔חָה עֹלָ֛ה אִשֵּׁ֥ה רֵֽיחַ־נִיח֖וֹחַ לַֽיהֹוָֽה:” may inform http://www.chabad.org/kabbalah/article_cdo/aid/633166/jewish/Offering-Only-to-the-One.htm regarding purity of purpose.
{Part 2 – 26/03/2017}
Rashi @ “[And he shall slaughter it] on the northern [side of the altar], before the Lord: [The law of] slaughtering on the northern side does not apply [when sacrificing an animal] on a high place [See above on verse 4]. — [Torat Kohanim 1:27] [We learn this from this verse that a burnt offering must be slaughtered “on the northern side of the altar” only if it is “before the Lord,” i.e., in the sanctuary precincts, but not outside them.]”
Sometimes we go against our own nature (e.g. tzon, giving up dreams that look like truth, or Izim, giving up on what we judge to work via kindness), but this only occurs in a most pristine/mystical/hidden aspect of sacrifice.
“וְהִקְטִ֣יר” e.g. Vayikra 1.13
This is a very ~gentle aspect of sacrifice (crude expression):
- Making something take the form (hei)
- of a purpose (kuf) for
- an optimism (tet) that there is a point of connecting (yud) to a new possibility (reish).
