Continued from Chapter 11h
The poor man’s offering
What does the Torah say concerning a poor man who cannot afford the price of a blood sacrifice? But if he cannot afford two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, then he shall bring his offering for that which he has sinned, the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin-offering; he shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put any frankincense on it, for it is a sin-offering.
And he shall bring it to the priest, and the priest shall take his handful of it as the memorial portion and make it smoke on the altar, upon the offerings of the Lord made by fire; it is a sin-offering. And the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin that he has sinned in any of these things, and he shall be forgiven; and the remainder shall be the priest’s, as the meal offering. (Leviticus 5:11-13) The poor man’s meal offering is accepted by God as the equivalent of a blood sacrifice. Significantly, although this meal offering is used on the altar it is not a shedding of blood. As is always the case, “the priest shall make atonement [ve-chipper] for him,” but his particular sin-offering “for that which he has sinned” was not “blood” but “flour.” In this case, it is the offering of flour as a sin-offering upon the altar that makes atonement. The text states clearly, “it [the flour] is a sin-offering.” Once again, we see that blood sacrifice is not essential for attaining atonement. The poor man’s atonement is not conditioned by any other physical factor. The flour is placed on the portion being burnt on the altar, but the blood of an atonement sacrifice is dashed on the side of the altar (Leviticus 1:5; see also Exodus 29:12, Leviticus 9:9).
It is this dashing of blood on the side of the alter that brings atonement not the burnt offering on the altar. Thus, a different set of rules is applied for the poor man’s offering. As we see, God provides the means for bloodless atonement even in situations that are not the norm. Certainly, the absence of the Temple and the sacrificial system is the most unusual of circumstances. The above citations highlight the lesson that God has never left Israel without the means for atonement.
Deliberately committed sins
Interestingly, animal sacrifices are mentioned only for unwitting sin, that is, sins committed unintentionally (Leviticus 4:2, 13, 22, 27; 5:5, 15). With one exception, there is no blood offering provided for sins that are deliberately committed. The one exception is for swearing falsely to acquit oneself of the accusation of having committed theft (Leviticus 5:24-26). One who wittingly sins has no means of atonement (Numbers 15:30) Other than to come directly to God with prayer and a contrite heart.
1 Solomon’s prayer differs from other prayers found in the Bible in that it does not necessarily address the immediate and actual needs of a particular individual, but the possible situations in which any person in the corporate entity of Israel may find himself/herself.
2 B.T. Shavu‘ot 39a.
3 Machiti, “I blotted out.” Machah is used here in the sense of “covered over” as with a cloud and not in the sense of “erased.”
4 The phrase “as I have commanded you” cannot refer to verse 15, for in that case the verb would not be in the past tense, but the participle would be used (cf. Deuteronomy 11:8, 13, 22, 27, 28; 12:11). “As I have commanded you” refers to the method, previously taught, by which “you shall kill” animals for food. But, no such method is taught in the Scriptures. This shows that God had previously instructed Moses in a method of slaughtering animals that had not been written down. The Talmud relates, “It is written, ‘Then you may kill of your herds; and of your flocks which the Lord has given you as I have commanded you.’ Rabbi says, ‘This teaches that Moses was commanded [orally] concerning the gullet and concerning the windpipe and concerning [the fact that] most of one of them, in a fowl, and most of both of them in a bovine animal [should be severed at the time of slaughtering]’” (Chullin 28a). The Laws of shechitah, the Jewish method of slaughter, were communicated orally from God to Moses and were then passed on, as part of the body of Oral Law, from one generation to another.
5 The Noahide Commandments relating to the just and humane responsibilities of all humanity are derived from a midrash on the flood narrative in which God makes a covenant with all humanity never again to destroy the world. The rainbow, a sign of safety visible to all humanity, symbolizes this covenant. The rabbinic sources enumerate from six to ten Noahide Commandments. They include monotheism, avoidance of murder and theft, organizing courts and promulgating justice (civil law), and avoiding incest and other sexual transgressions, as well as abstaining from eating the flesh of living creatures. This list can be derived from the story of Noah in Genesis read in conjunction with the rules governing resident aliens, especially as found in Leviticus 17-26 (see also B.T. Sanhedrin 56a; Rambam, Hilchot Melachim 9:1). The earliest version of the Noahide Commandments known is probably that of Jubilees 7:20-21.
6 Offerings to invoke God’s protection for the Gentile nations were made in a limited sense in the Temple. “R. Eleazar stated. To what do those seventy bullocks [that were offered during the seven days of the Festival of Sukkot] correspond? To the seventy nations.… R. Yochanan observed. Woe to the idolaters, for they had a loss and do not know what they have lost. When the Temple was in existence the altar atoned for them, but now who shall atone for them” (B.T. Sukkah 55b). Rashi states, in his commentary on Numbers 29:13-32, “The bullocks of the festival are seventy, in allusion to the seventy nations.… And during the days of the Temple they [the bullocks] protected them from afflictions [yissurin]. In his commentary on Sukkah 55b, he implies that what is meant by “afflictions” are those problems related to the absence of rain. Rashi states that the sacrifice of the seventy bullocks over the course of the festival “make atonement for them [the seventy nations] that rain should fall throughout the world.” Many of the observances and prayers of Sukkot are associated with water and rain. It is a time to thank God for His past kindness and to beseech His continued benevolence in the form of plentiful rain for crops. The seventy bullocks represent that Israel, a nation of priests (Exodus 19:6), beseeches God to extend His benevolence throughout the world.
There is recognition in rabbinic literature that the burnt offering of the seventy bullocks in the Temple was considered to be for the benefit of humankind. Therefore, Rabbi Yochanan declares that the altar “atoned” for them. Rabbi Yochanan’s statement means that the sacrifice of the seventy bullocks effectuates a protection specifically concerning offenses of the nations of the world that might cause God to withhold rain? The nations receive God’s benevolence in the form of rain despite their grievous sins based on Israel’s sacrificial offerings made on their behalf in the Temple. These were not sin-offerings or guilt-offerings, brought to atone for transgressions, but sacrifices acknowledging in advance God’s kindness to the nations. By, in effect, advocating God’s benevolence to the nations, it was said that the offerings upon the altar effectuated a protection that can be considered as if they atoned for the nations. In this scenario, the Temple service provides a protection that is referred to as “atonement” in that it results in God not punishing the nations through withholding of rain. What occurs is not actually atonement and therefore requires no pre-condition of repentance.
This is not the same as what occurs in the Book of Jonah. Jonah calls upon the people of Nineveh to repent their evil ways and use of violence (Jonah 3:8) or their city will be “overthrown.” “Overthrown,” is the same Hebrew verb, expressing complete destruction, used to describe the overthrow of Sodom (Genesis 19:25). If the offering of the seventy bullocks atoned for all the sins of the people of Nineveh there would be no need for Jonah to be sent to warn the city’s inhabitants. In addition, if Gentile repentance was needed to accompany the sacrifices the nations were unaware of this obligation. The Sukkot offering on behalf of the nations had to do with the issue of rain and not with the general problem of their sins. Nineveh’s sins were outside the narrow scope of atonement (or better yet protection) obtained through the offering of the seventy bullocks and therefore needed repentance by the people of Nineveh in order to attain atonement.
Jeremiah expressed the concept that Israel’s prayers and sacrifices protect the nations of the world from adversities when he advised the exiles to “seek the peace of the city where I have caused you to be carried away captive, and pray to the Lord for it; for in its peace you shall have peace” (Jeremiah 29:7). In 1 Maccabees 7:33, we are told that a burnt offering was made in the Temple on behalf of the Syrian king. For the sake of Israel, God protects the nations. In the Messianic Era, “It shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations that came up against Jerusalem shall go up from year to year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the feast of Sukkot. And it shall be, that whoever of the families of the earth that does not go up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, upon them there shall be no rain” (Zechariah 14:16-17). Considering that the reason for the offering of the seventy bullocks during Sukkot is established in Jewish tradition as having to do with rain, the withholding of rain as punishment for not going to Jerusalem to worship God is the appropriate punishment.
Continued