[Avodah] having a melech: lechatchila or bideved???

[Micha Berger]

On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 04:36:48PM -0700, Harvey Benton wrote:
: This is also the view of the Rambam, if I am not mistaken, regarding
: the korbanos. It is only to appease us that Hashem instituted the korbanos
: as mitzvos, not necessarily because He wants us to have them....... HB

The usual way of explaining the Moreh 3:32 is as Harvey did, but that
would leave you with a contradiction: In the Yad the Rambam has entire
books on the restoration of avodah in bayis shelishi. How then in the
Moreh could he say it's to ween us away from error? Now that we are
weaned, why would the Rambam expect a return to animal sacrifice? The
Ramban asks this question.

And, the Ramban continues, what about Qayin, Hevel, Noach et al who
weren't living among ovedei AZ and brought qorbanos? What weaning did
they need?

The Or Sameiach presents an answer, but it's not really in the Rambam,
it's more like a new position that draws from both the Rambam and the
Ramban. He suggests that the weaning bit was the role of bamos, but
qorbanos at the beis hamiqdash are a rei'ach nikhoach, and for entirely
different reasons. And that's why the weaning period had a clear end
with the building of bayis rishon.

The Abarbanel (Vayiqra 1:1) goes out to prove that qorbanos are a
concession to human nature, citing the numerous nevi'im (Shmuel I 15,
Tehillim 50, Yishayahu 1, Yirmiyahu 7) about Hashem not needing qorbanos,
and Menachos 10 "Whoever toils in Torah needs neither sin offering,
nor burnt offering, nor guilt offering nor minchah." He even goes so
far as argying that the Ramban agreed qorbanos were a concession.

However, if one is medayeiq in the lashon of the Moreh, I think the
Narboni's peshat (Moreh 3:32) is compelling, and it avoids the Ramban's
question altogether. By speaking of concessions to human nature, the
Rambam isn't talking about accomodation.

The first shelav are mitzvos that teach the emes.
The second are mitzvos that wean us away from falsehood.

It's not quite the same as appeasing us. That might be a third level, one
the Rambam doesn't raise in the Moreh, but is the gemarah's discussion
of eishes yefas to'ar. In that case the typical soldier can't handle an
outright "no", so Hashem accomodated human limitation rather than cause
total violation.

By qorbanos, it's a human limitation that leads us to falsehood. We seek
to express relationships with tangible gifts. If we were less frail and
physical beings, we could address our need to give through talmud Torah,
tefillah, etc... As a concession to human nature, Hashem specified
an expression of this will to give something physical. It gives us a
way to be lead away from concepts of deity that actually need or want
appeasement gifts.

This 2nd shelav isn't about living with the limitation -- it's about
overcoming it. As opposed to the ideal mitzvah, which would exist to
expose man to the truth regardless of the errors that come naturally
to humans.


Perhaps the Narvoni would put the melukhah into the same category.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Life is complex.
micha at aishdas.org                Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org               The Torah is complex.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                                - R' Binyamin Hecht