The Fire from
Within
R. Yaakov
Bieler
Parashat
VaYikra, 5766
In Yehuda HaLevi’s classic
medieval Jewish philosophy book, The Kuzari,[1]
Jewish theology and practice are explicated based upon the premise that a
non-Jewish king considering conversion is inquiring of a Rabbi what Judaism is
about. While most of the book is devoted to discussions of philosophy and
theology, at one particular point the king rebukes the Rabbi for what appears to
be a significant inconsistency with regard to what this pious religionist
professes and what he actually does.
Kuzari II:22 The
Rabbi:
…The atmosphere of the Land (of
Israel) makes one wise.[2]
They (the Rabbis) expressed their
love of the land as follows: He who walks four cubits in the Land is assured of
happiness in the World to Come.[3]
R. Zeira said to a heathen who
criticized his foolhardiness for crossing a river without waiting to reach a
ford, in his eagerness to enter the Land (of Israel): How can the place that
Moshe and Aharon could not reach, be reached by me?[4]
Ibid. II:23 The King:
If this be so, then you fall short
of the duty laid down by your law by not endeavoring to reach that place and
making it your abode in life and death, although you say: Have mercy on Zion,
for it is the house of our life,[5]
and believe that the Divine Presence will Return there. And had it no other preference
(was there no other basis for declaring the
Land of Israel special) than that the Shechina
Dwelt there for 500 years (prior to the destructions of the two
Temples), this is sufficient reason for
men’s souls to retire there, as happens near the abodes of the pious and the
prophets…
Ibid. II:24 The
Rabbi:
This is a severe reproach, oh King
of the Khazars.
It is the sin which kept the Divine Promise with regard to the
Second Temple, i.e., (Zecharia 2:10) “Sing and rejoice, Oh daughter
of Zion”, from being fulfilled. Divine
Providence was ready to restore everything
as it had been at first, if they had all willingly consented to return. But only
a part was ready to do so, while the majority and the aristocracy remained in
Babylon, preferring dependence and
slavery, and unwilling to leave their houses and affairs…
If we say, (Tehillim 99:9, 5)
“Worship His Holy Hill—worship at His Footstool—He Who Restores His Glory to
Zion”, and other words, this is
nothing more than the chattering of the starling and the nightingale. We do not
realize what we say by this sentence, nor others, as you rightly observe, O
Prince of the Khazars.
The King was questioning how could
people say one thing and do another, declare their great love of
Kuzari V:22
The Rabbi was then concerned to
leave the land of the Khazari and to go to
Ibid. V:27 The Rabbi:
…This sacred place serves to
remind men and to stimulate them to love God, being a reward and a promise, as
it is written, (Tehillim 102:14 ff.) “You shall Arise and have Mercy on
Ibid. V:28 The
King:
If this be so, it would be a sin
to hinder you. It is on the contrary a merit to assist you. May God Grant you
His Help, and be your Protector and Friend. May He Favor you in His Mercy.[6]
Just as our prayers seem to
indicate our deep desire to live in the Land of Israel,[7]
yet our actions suggest that our words are less than sincere,[8]
the same could be said about our feelings about the rebuilding of the
Although Sacrifices are mentioned
in the “Amidot” (Silent Prayers) of “Shacharit”, “Musaf”, “Mincha” and
“Ma’ariv”, which is understandable in light of the view of R. Yehoshua ben Levi
in Berachot 26b, that these prayers were intended to parallel the regular
Sacrifices offered in the Tabernacle/Temple,[9]
the more focused section of the prayers exclusively devoted to Sacrifices is
part of “Shacharit” and appears immediately after the “Shema” that is part of
“Birchot HaShachar” (the morning blessings).[10],[11] Biblical and Talmudic passages are
incorporated at this point of the morning service describing the aspects of
various sacrifices. The Halachic codifiers explain the inclusion of this
material as not only a fulfillment of Tora study, following the Blessings
associated with such study that are among the first Blessings recited each
morning (ArtScroll pp. 16-7),
Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim
50:1
They (the Men of the Great
Assembly) established to recite after the description of the “Korban Tamid” (the
daily sacrifice that was offered every day of the year, once in the morning and
once in the afternoon—see ArtScroll pp. 32-5), the Chapter (of Mishna Zevachim,
Chapt. 5) “Eizehu Mekoman” (which are the places—of the various sacrifices) as
well as the Baraita[12]
of R. Yishmael (ArtScroll pp. 48-53) in order that every person (including those
who ordinarily do not devote time to formal Tora study) merit to study some
parts of Biblical text, Mishna and Gemora, the Baraita of R. Yishmael serving as
a substitute for Gemora, since Midrash (this Baraita appears at the beginning of
the Sifra, the Midrash Halacha on the book of VaYikra) is equated with Gemora
but also as a metaphysical means
by which we vicariously offer up the sacrifices themselves.
Mishna Berura #1 on Shulchan
Aruch, Orach Chayim 48:1
Reciting the verses describing the
“Korban Tamid” is in place of actually offering up the sacrifice for the Rabbis
have received a tradition that at the time when the Temple is not standing, and
it is impossible to offer up sacrifices, one who engages in studying them (the
passages that describe the sacrifices) and their commentaries the text considers
this tantamount to actually offering such sacrifices…[13]
The prayer texts themselves
indicate the view reflected in the Mishna Berura cited above, when in some
“Siddurim” after particular the passages describing the Sacrifices, we find
variations upon the following invocation:
ArtScroll Siddur pp.
34-5
May it be Your Will, HaShem, our
God and God of our fathers, that this recital be worthy and acceptable and
favorable before you as if we had offered the “Korban Tamid” in its set time,
in its place, and according to its requirements. [14]
A more full-blown declaration to
this effect is found later in the “Sacrifice” section of the “Siddur”.
Ibid. pp.
40-43
Master of the Worlds! You
Commanded us to bring the “Korban Tamid” at its set time and that the Priests be
at their assigned service, and the Levi’im on the platform (singing and playing
musical instruments) and the Israelites at their station. But now, due to our
sins, the Holy Temple is destroyed, the “Korban Tamid” is discontinued, and we
do not have the Kohen at his service, the Levite at his platform, or the
Israelite at his station. But You Said, (Hoshea 14:3) “Let our lips
compensate for the bulls!” Therefore may it be Your Will, HaShem, our God
and the God of our fathers, that the prayers of our lips be acceptable and
favorable before You, as if we had brought the “Korban Tamid” at its set time
and we had stood at its station.
It would appear that the Siddur’s
interpretation of Hoshea’s words convey a double-entendre. On the one hand, if
our lips describe the sacrifices that we once were able to actually physically
offer, it will at least vicariously be considered by God as a fulfillment of the
Divine Commandments to present these offerings in the
Thinking that all prayer during
the post-Temple period has now become a form of “Sacrifice” is what probably
motivated the author of the Tanya, Rabbi
Shneur
Zalman of Liadi, in his Halachic work, Shulchan
Aruch HaRav, to explain in a particular way a most curious passage in our
“Amida” prayer.
ArtScroll Siddur
pp.
110-1.
Be favorable, HaShem, our God,
toward Your People Israel and their prayer, and Restore the Sacrificial Service
to the Holy of Holies of your Temple [and the Fire-offerings of Israel]
and their prayer Accept with love and favor, and may the service of Your
People Israel always be favorable to You.
Is the phrase “and the
Fire-offerings of Israel” to be understood as the
completion of the previous sentence, or the beginning of the subsequent one? Are
we pleading that not only the Sacrificial Service be restored, but also the
Fire-offerings that have been discontinued since the Romans destroyed the Temple
should similarly be reinstituted, or are we asking that HaShem now Accept
not only the prayers of the Jewish people, but also their present-day
“Fire-offerings”? Of course, the latter understanding would necessitate a
figurative interpretation of what constitutes contemporary “Fire-offerings” in
the absence of the literal
Shulchan Aruch HaRav, Orach Chayim
120:2
…And below (in this world) they
are the Sacrifices that the righteous offer up and who give up their souls to
the Holy One Blessed Be He by means of every word that emerges from their
mouths, which are considered altars…
And this is the prayer that is
called “Avoda SheB’Lev” (the Service of the heart), and these Sacrifices, that
are offered up with the fire of “Hitlahavut” (an internal excitement and
high level of energy) is what is called the “Fire-offerings” of
Whereas Mishna Berura emphasized
the need for a cognitive experience in order for the Tora passages describing
the Sacrifices to be considered their proper substitute, the Ba’al HaTanya is
concerned about the figurative fire that will be needed in order to allow these
vicarious Sacrifices to rise up from their lowly origins to the Heavens, on
high. Only if there is tremendous intensity accompanying our prayers is there
hope that such words can truly be considered manifestations of personal
self-sacrifice and the yearning to come closer to HaShem.
R. Adin Steinsaltz,[16]
someone who is strongly identified with the “Chassidut” which was founded by R.
Shneur Zalman, has recently written the following concerning the primary
preoccupations of the Jewish people:
In traditional terms, the
combination of emotion and the intellect is expressed in the relation between
Tora and prayer. Prayer is basically an expression of religious emotion, in all
the many ways that it is manifested, in songs of praise, in petition, in
requests for pardon, or in feelings of awe. All these are meant not only for
ceremonial utterance, but for the inwardly directed experience
(“Hitlahavut”?) that should be above and beyond the words arranged in the
prayer book. On the other hand, the study of the Tora is fundamentally a totally
rational study as expressed to a greater degree in the deeper and more demanding
Talmudic scholarship.
The assumption that underlies R.
Shneur Zalman’s and R. Steinsaltz’ recognition that “Hitlahavut” is possible, is
that within every Jew—R. Avraham Yitzchak Kook used this rationale to explain
why he cared so deeply not only for religious Jews, but also for
secularists—there resides a spark if not a flame of spirituality that either has
to first be fanned into flame or simply given the opportunity to emerge and
express itself.
However, it seems all too often,
at least in Modern Orthodox contexts, that we assume the perspective of Michal
rather than David when it comes to emotive religious expression. Consider the
following Biblical vignette:
II Shmuel 6:15-16,
20-22
So David and all of the House of
Israel brought up the Ark with shouting (a manifestation of
“Hitlahavut”?) and with the sound of the Shofar.
And as the
And Michal, the daughter of Shaul
came out to meet David, and said: How glorious was the King of Israel today, in
that he uncovered himself today in the eyes of the handmaids, as one of the
lowly fellows shamelessly uncovers himself.
And David said to
Michal…
I will play before the Lord, and
be even more lightly esteemed than this, holding myself lowly, and of the
maidservants of whom you have spoken, shall I be looked upon in honor.
Rather than assuming Michal’s
point of view when it comes to uninhibited religious expression and devotion,
i.e., holding ourselves aloof and removed, preventing our emotions to emerge and
move us, we should strive to emulate David and his spiritual expressionism.
While David and Michal represent
polar opposites regarding dancing and rejoicing before HaShem, the model for
sincere devotional prayer, accompanied by profound “Hitlahavut”, is represented
by Chana, about whom the Talmud states that we learn the ideal components of the
highest form of prayer—see Berachot 30b-31a. This woman prayed for a child so
fervently, that Eli the High Priest thought that she must be somehow impaired.
I Shmuel 1:10,
12-15
And she was in bitterness of soul
and prayed to the Lord, and wept bitterly…
And it came to pass, as she
continued praying before the Lord, that Eli noticed her mouth.
Now Chana spoke in her heart. Only
her lips moved but her voice was not heard, therefore Eli thought that she was
drunk…
And Chana answered and said: No my
Lord. I am a woman of sorrowful spirit, I have drunk neither wine nor strong
drink, but have poured out my soul before the Lord.
Chana, when she engaged in
heart-felt prayer, did not care what others watching her might think, just as
King David was unconcerned regarding the impression that he might make upon his
subjects when he uninhibitedly gyrated before the Holy Ark. Neither of them had
imbibed an artificial stimulant from without in order to render themselves
unselfconscious and uninhibited; their spiritual actions drew power from a fire
within, from each of their respective sense of “Hitlahavut”.
Prayer is not only a substitute
for Sacrifice, but should be accompanied by a sense of personal sacrifice, an
aura of reaching upwards, of trying to close the gap between ourselves and
HaShem. Only in this way will our prayers not only profoundly affect ourselves,
but will bring the day closer when the Sacrificial Service is truly restored to
its rightful place and the “Beit HaMikdash” rebuilt.
Shabbat Shalom.
[1] The edition from which I am quoting
is The Kuzari: An Argument for the Faith of Israel, intro. by
H. Slonimsky,
trans. Hartwig Hirschfeld, Schocken Books,
[2] Bava Batra
158
[3] Ketubot
111
[4] Ketubot
112
[5] From one of the blessings following
the recitation of the Haftora (the prophetic portion that is read on Shabbatot,
Yomim Tovim, and fast days).
[6] Hartwig Hirschfeld points out
that this is the final passage in the
Arabic version of the book. The Hebrew translation contains several sentences
that were probably added by the original translator.
[7] Looking at our everyday prayers,
our attachment for the Land of Israel in general and Yerushalayim in
particular is mentioned in the following places: (All references are to The
Complete ArtScroll Siddur.)
a. pp. 70-3. Tehillim
147. The
interconnection between Yerushalayim and the Jewish people.
b. pp. 74-5 Tehillim
135:21 The “Shechina” (the Divine
Presence) dwells in Yerushalayim.
c. pp. 80-1 Shemot
d. pp. 92-5 Devarim 11
The second paragraph of the “Shema”. The premise is that the reward for
complying with God’s Will is the ability to remain in
e. pp. 106-7 Blessing #10 One of the requests in
the middle portion of the “Amida”. Part of the Redemption includes “Kibbutz
Galiyot” (the ingathering of the Exiles) and their repatriation to the
f. pp. 108-9 Blessing #14 Another
request is the return of the “Shechina” to, as well as the rebuilding of
Yerushalayim.
g. pp. 110-1 Concluding portion of
the middle section of the “Amida”,containing the requests of the Jewish people.
We wish that we will be able to personally witness the return of HaShem to
Yerushalayim. (This is an excellent example that the King of the Khazars could
cite in order to make his point.)
h. pp. 126-7 Longer “Tachanun”
Another reference to the hope for “Kibbutz Galiyot”.
i. pp. 146-7 “Yehi Ratzon”’s (Let it be
Your Will) following the Tora reading on Mondays and Thursdays. Among the
requests is the return of the “Shechina” to Yerushalayim, as well as “Kibbutz
Galiyot”.
j. pp. 162-3 Tehillim 48
Song sung by the Levi’im on Mondays in the
[8] I was once told in a semi-jocular
manner that by saying twice a year “LeShana HaBa’ah BiYerushalayim”, once at the
Pesach Seder and once at the conclusion of Yom HaKippurim, those living in the
Diaspora are constantly giving themselves 6 month extensions in order to delay
fulfilling their verbal commitment to relocate in Israel.
[9] An overt reflection of the
parallelism between the Silent Prayers and Sacrifices is the following passage
in the Shulchan Aruch:
Shulchan
Aruch, Orach Chayim 98:4
Prayer
is in place of sacrifice, and therefore it should follow the example of
sacrifice
a) with respect to intention, no irrelevant
thoughts should be present, since within the context of sacrifices, such
thoughts would render them disqualified;
b) it should be engaged in while standing,
similar to the
c) a fixed place should be established for
prayer, since with respect to sacrifices, each had a specific place for its
slaughter and the application of its blood;
d) ideally, nothing should stand between
the pray-er and the wall, just as with respect to sacrifices any object or
substance that would stand between the blood being applied and the wall upon
which it was being thrown, would render the sacrifice
unacceptable;
e) one should have nice clothing set aside
especially for prayer, paralleling the priestly garments that they were required
to wear while engaged in the
Furthermore,
in addition to the recitation of passages associated with the “Korban Tamid”
(the Continual Offering) that the Shulchan Aruch codifies, over time additional
passages having to do with the Laver from which the Kohanim and Levi’im would
wash themselves in preparation for sacrificing (ArtScroll pp. 30-1), as well as
the manner in which the altar would be cleaned and arranged prior to beginning
to sacrifice (Ibid. pp. 30-3) also add to the context that one is vicariously
reenacting the sacrificial process, much in the same way that the “Musaf”
service on Yom Kippur constitutes a reenactment of the Temple Service of the
High Priest and the people.
A
final reflection of the equivalency which is being established between prayer
and Sacrifice is the referencing of the synagogue as a “Mikdash Me’at” (a
mini-Temple—see Megilla 29a). Consequently, just as Sacrifices were not to be
offered outside the precincts of the Temple, ideally one is encouraged to pray
in the synagogue, the “Makom Kadosh” (holy place).
[10] ArtScroll Siddur, pp. 28-9. (The
actual morning blessings themselves appear on pp.
18-21.
[11] This shortened recitation of
“Shema” was intended to avoid the problem particularly on Shabbat and Yom Tov
when the congregation often recites the full “Shema” (pp. pp. 90-5) past the
time during which one gets credit for saying it as a fulfillment of the
“U’VeKumecha” (when you rise in the
morning) requirement. By reciting a shortened version of “Shema” at the virtual
outset of the synagogue service, everyone can relax with respect to the “Shema”
deadline. Of course, this does not help for those who arrive at the synagogue
late. A suggestion that would alleviate the problem more comprehensively would
be for people to recite “Shema” at home, prior to coming to the synagogue.
[12] A Baraita is material from the
period of the Mishna that was not included in R. Yehuda HaNasi’s collection of
Mishna.
[13] This concept appears to be taken so
literally that the codifiers discuss reciting the passage describing the incense
offering, “Pitum HaKetoret”, not once, but twice each day since there were two
incense offerings sacrificed daily—see RaMA, Orach Chayim 132:2. Mishna Berura
#14 on the RaMA wonders why on Shabbat and Yom Tov, the “Pitum HaKetoret”
selection is recited after Musaf since the “Ketoret” would always be offered
following the “Korban Tamid” to which the Shacharit “Amida” corresponds. (It
would seem that the same critique could be offered on a weekday Rosh Chodesh
where the custom is to say “Pitum HaKetoret” at the end of the prayers.) The
RaMA continues, and points out that the section on incense should be read from a
proper text since “the recitation takes the place of the offering” and we
therefore have to worry that if we skip even one of the ingredients, it would be
as if he is offering the incense improperly, which constitutes a capital
offense. RaMA invokes this fear in order to explain why “Pitum HaKetoret” is not
recited during weekdays, since everyone is in such a rush to complete their
prayers and go about their business. (This latter point, however, does not make
sense in light of the “Ketoret” section that is part of the “Korbanot” portion
of the prayers [ArtScroll Siddur, pp. 34-9] [as opposed to “Pitum HaKetoret”
which is located at the end, after “Ein K’Elokeinu”, Ibid. pp. 476-9—ArtScroll
omits printing “Pitum HaKetoret at the end of weekday “Shacharit”, but other
Siddurim include it both on Shabbat as well as weekdays.]. During the week, that
section is also said rather speedily!)
[14] Magen Avraham on Shulchan Aruch,
Orach Chayim 48 (quoted in Mishna Berura #1) insists that one stands during his
recitation of the “Korbanot” since everyone involved in these offerings in the
Temple used to stand.
[15] If we accept the assumption that
these sections were originally added to the Siddur not necessarily to create a
metaphysical equivalence between their recitation and a vicarious offering of
the sacrifices, but rather as an exercise in Talmud Tora—consider Shulchan
Aruch, Orach Chayim 48 “Reciting the section dealing with the ‘Tamid’ and the
verses regarding the Shabbat sacrifice that are said after the ‘Tamid’”, coming
immediately after S.A., O.C. 47 “The Laws of the Blessings over the Tora”—then
the emphasis upon viewing this recitation as a means of offering the sacrifice
would appear to be a subsequent gloss. However, Chafetz Chayim appears to
combine these two themes in his commentary to the Shulchan Aruch.
Mishna Berura #1 on
S.A., O.C. 48
…And it seems to me obvious that a
person who is knowledgeable regarding Tora learning, for him it is a Mitzva to
study in the Talmud the interpretation of these passages. The same is true
with regard to what we say each day
concerning the making of the incense, in order to understand what one is saying,
and in this way (by means of serious Tora study regarding these passages) the
recitation will be considered as a substitute for the actual
offering…
[16] We Jews: Who Are We and What Should
We Do? Jossy-Bass, San Francisco, 2005, p.
121.