How do we approach a ritual service that we cannot relate to? How do we reconcile the values of Torah Eternal with that which has long since passed the aims and eyes of man?

These are the questions that the book of Leviticus places before us. Post-modern man looks upon the heathen slaughter of animals and scoffs. Are we then reduced to mere apologetics for our own history, our very heritage? Or perhaps reinterpretation is the only course befitting us. I do not profess to holding answers, but I believe we cannot avoid the questions. In the pursuit for truth we must turn back to our sources, leaving heresy and speculation. Above all else intellectual honesty must be retained. Our creed is far too precious for self-deception to cloud over.

Let us examine the primary perspectives on ritual worship.

Ramban and the Ritva:
Here the institution of sacrifice is viewed as an ideal. The Ramban in particular views the Tabernacle as always having been intended by God. This approach sees mystical significance in the priestly rites of the Torah.

Shadal (Rabbi Samuel David Luzzatto) and Rabbi David Zvi Hoffman:
These two scholars represent the best of 19th century biblical study. Both highly regarded members of the modern scientific school of bible study, the wissenschaft des Judentums. They may be seen as the prototypes of the modern orthodox scholar battling between intellectual inquiry and traditional values.

The two agree with the ideal status given to the priestly cult by Ramban and the Ritva. However, they base this meaning on rational and not mystic grounds.

Rashi and the Raavad:
This view sees the introduction of the Tabernacle as a concession to the frail nature of Israel, which was proved by the construction of the golden calf. Accordingly, without sin there would never have been a sanctuary.

The Maimonidean approach (shared by Don Isaac Abravenal):
The worldview of the great Jewish philosopher and halakhist of the twelve century is wrapped in rationality. Maimonides does not see a great metaphysical significance to the sacrifices prescribed by the Torah. Instead he approaches them with an understanding of the pagan culture which surrounds Israel at this point in history. "It is impossible to go suddenly from one extreme to the other; the nature of man will not all him suddenly to discontinue everything to which he has been accustomed." writes Maimonides in his Guide for the Perplexed (Part 3, Ch. 32) The ideal is the knowledge of God and His service. "But," continues Maimonides "the general mode of worship in which the Israelites were brought up, consisted in sacrificing animals in temples containing images...It was in accordance with the wisdom and plan of God, as displayed in the whole Creation, that He did not command us to give up and to discontinue all these modes of worship; for to obey such a commandment would have been contrary to the nature of man." the comparative situation is given: "It would in those days have made the same impression as a prophet would make as present if he called us to the service of God and told us in His name, that we should not pray to Him, not fast, not seek His help in time of trouble; that we should serve Him in thought and not by action." (Ibid.) This system of understanding emphasizes the Divine's practical consideration and not God's spiritual will.

Indeed the notion of heavenly compromise is one which scripture itself has shown before, "God did not lead them [Israel] by way of the land of the Philistines, though it was nearer; for God said: the people may have a change of heart when they see war, and return to Egypt." (Shemot 13:17)

Though God here takes note of the requirements of His nation, nevertheless this mode of worship was not to be pursued with complete freedom. Instead Maimonides shows that every aspect of the Biblical notion of ritual sacrifice is aimed at limitation. "We were not commanded to sacrifice in every place or to permit anyone who desires to become a priest and to sacrifice. On the contrary, all this is prohibited unto us. Only one temple has been appointed...in no other place is allowed sacrifice 'Take heed to yourself that you not offer your burnt-offerings in any place that you see.' (Deut. 12:13) and only members of a particular family were allowed to officiate as priests. All these restrictions served to limit this kind of worship, and keep it within those bounds within which God did not think it necessary to abolish sacrificial service altogether." (Guide for the Perplexed, Pt. 3 Ch.32)

It is unclear if Maimonides shares Rashi’s understanding of the golden calf as the initiator of the command. Alternatively this is a result of God understanding the nature of man, even without having to watch him fail.

Honesty?

Despite the logic and appeal of the Maimonidean approach it is not backed up by the wording of the text. Indeed Ramban rules out the idea of concession entirely. His argument is explained by Nehama Leibowitz:

“Ramban rejects the idea that the Tabernacle was in any way an afterthought, a cure for their sickness, atonement for sin or compromise between the ideal of spirituality and the reality of man's material conceptions, demanding a form of worship limited to a definite space-time dimension. On the contrary, the institution of the Tabernacle was there from the beginning, a deliberate act of Divine grace and thoughtfulness designed to strengthen the immanence of His presence.” (New Studies in Shemot)

Leibowitz herself seems convinced of this opinion. The command, “Make Me a sanctuary and I will dwell amongst them.” (Shemot 25:8) carries her to the conclusive statement, “Surely the words spell more than that? Do they not contain rather a message of Divine love, a promise of intimate contact with Him?” (New Studies in Shemot). Every thought and instinct brings us to believe that the tabernacle must be more than a symbol of mortal weakness.

Conclusions?

How then do we conclude? How then do we relate to the priestly cult of Israel?

This is a question I am ill-equipped to answer. Perhaps in time I shall make my reconciliation with the rites so alien to my time.

I leave you with the wisdom of the great modern biblical scholar Prof. Yehezkel Kaufman. Perhaps he may lead you to answers of your own

In his monumental eight volume work The Religion of Israel, Kaufman distinguishes between the sacrifice of paganism and that found in the Torah. Through rigorous examination of the ancient rites of the Near East, an astounding revelation is found. The fundamental tenant of pagan sacrifice is the notion of being able to force the gods into complying with the will of the worshiper. There is it seems an almost “magical” compelling force, which the gods cannot escape.

In contrast:
“The basic idea of Israelite religion is that God is supreme over all…He is utterly distinct from, and other than, the world; he is subject to no compulsions, or powers that transcend him. He is, in short, non-mythological. This is the essence of Israelite religion, an that which sets it apart from all forms of paganism.” (Y. Kaufman The Religion of Israel pt1 ch3)