What was the main idea that prompted man to bring an offering to the
Almighty? He felt, as it were, the existence of a higher Being, the
Creator and Ruler of all things; he was conscious that his own life and
welfare depended on the Will of the Being to whom in reality everything
belongs that man believes himself to possess and to enjoy. In order to
give expression to this feeling of allegiance man brought the first and
best of what he had acquired to the true Owner, and thus introduced
[139] himself by such gifts as a faithful subject who is anxious to
merit the favour of his Master. That which was at first introduced by
man voluntarily, was afterwards sanctioned and regulated by Divine
command.
There were two kinds of sacrifices: bloodless sacrifices, minchah and
nesech, “flour-offering” and “drink-offering,” and blood sacrifices:
animal-offerings. But no difference is discernible between these two
kinds with regard to their importance, sanctity, and efficiency. As a
rule, the animal-offering was supplemented by minchah and nesech. The
treatment of sacrifices varied according as they were intended to
express the feeling of reverence, rejoicing, gratitude, or repentance,
and special rules had to be observed in each case, the various kinds of
sacrifice being עולה “burnt-offering,” or שלמים “peace-offering,”
or תודה “thanksgiving,” or חטאת “sin-offering,” or אשם
“guilt-offering.” The Law further fixed the place, the time, and the
method of sacrificing, and appointed also the persons who alone were
allowed to attend to this function, so that no strange element, no
idolatrous or superstitious customs, could be introduced into the
sacrificial service ordained by the Law.
Great stress is laid on the sprinkling of the blood of the sacrifice
upon the altar. “The blood,” the Law says, “is the soul of all flesh;
and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for the
soul” (Lev. xvii. 11). We are thus reminded that, in so far as the
animal life is concerned, “the pre-eminence of man over the beast is
nought,” and yet the Creator gave us the right to shed the blood of
animals in order to save our life. Why? Because man has a higher
mission to fulfil; he has been created in the image of God.
These and similar reflections were suggested by the different elements
constituting the sacrificial rite. With the destruction of the Temple
sacrifices ceased; with the Restoration of Israel and the Rebuilding of
the Temple the Sacrificial Service will likewise be resumed. (Comp.
Mal. iii. 4). There are persons who believe that the Sacrificial
Service, implying much of anthropomorphism, could not have been
intended to be permanent, and that it was only a concession made to the
fashion and the low degree of culture of the age. Those who reject
sacrifices on this account must also reject prayer, which is likewise
based on a certain degree of anthropomorphism, though less strikingly
than sacrifice. If the law concerning offerings were only intended for
a certain age, such limitation would have been indicated in the Law. In
the absence of such indication we have no right to criticise the Word
of God, and to think that we are too advanced in culture to obey the
Divine commands, It has been further argued that, according to
Maimonides and his followers, the laws concerning sacrifices only
served as a means of counteracting the idolatrous tendencies of the
age. But Maimonides never went so far as to contend that these laws
have served their purpose, and are now null and void. Even those laws
which have been enacted by human authority remain in force till they
are repealed in a regular and legal manner. But what human being can
claim a right to abolish laws given by the Almighty? Whether any of the
laws of the Torah will ever be abrogated we do not know, but we are
sure that, in case of such abrogation taking place, it will be done by
a revelation as convincing as that on Mount Sinai.
On the other hand, the revival of the Sacrificial Service must likewise
be sanctioned by the divine voice of a prophet. The mere acquisition of
the Temple Mount or of all Palestine by Jews, by war, or political
combinations, or purchase, would not justify the revival. It is only
the return of the Jews to Palestine, and the rebuilding of the Temple
by Divine command and by Divine intervention, that will be followed by
the restoration of the Sacrificial Service. And however contrary the
slaughter of animals, the sprinkling of their blood, and the burning of
their flesh be to our taste, we ought to look forward with eagerness
and pleasure for the revival of the full Temple Service as an event
that will enable us to do the Will of the Almighty revealed in the
Torah. Instead of modelling the Divine laws according to our liking, we
ought rather to regulate the latter according to the teaching of
Scripture, and suppress it when contrary to the express Will of God. We
therefore give expression to our hope “for the restoration of the
Temple with its ancient Service” in frequent and fervent prayers, and
in accordance with the exhortation of Hosea (xiv. 2) we read each day
during the Service Scriptural passages referring to the sacrifice of
the day.
“Sacrifices have been condemned by prophets and psalmists”! But in the
passages which seem antagonistic to sacrifices only those sacrifices
are referred to which are brought in a wrong spirit or from bad
motives. (Comp. 1 Sam. xv. 22; Isa. i. 11–13, xliii. 24, lxvi. 2; Jer.
vii. 21; Hosea vi. 6; Amos v. 25; Ps. l. 8.)