Aristotle was a brilliant philosopher whose ideas about ethics and living the good life are still relevant and taken seriously today. However, his record as a scientist has not held up quite as well. In his book The History of Animals, Aristotle explicitly endorses the idea of "spontaneous generation," that some living things are born from other animals while others are generated from non-living matter, such as sand, dirt, and rotten meat. In order for insects and worms to spawn, these materials must contain something called "pneuma," or "vital heat," which can create life. Some Christian and even early Jewish scholars embraced this as fact and thought the תורה supported it, as פרשת בראשית describes G-d as instructing the waters and earth to bring forth swarming creatures.
In 1668, an Italian physician named Francesco Redi conducted an experiment that seemed to disprove this theory. He showed that a jar of meat left out in a covered container generated no maggots inside or on top of the jar. A jar of meat left open would have maggots and flies covering it within a matter of hours or days. But a jar that is covered with a piece of gauze, which allows in air, would nonetheless still have no maggots on the meat, but rather only on the top of the jar. This implies that the maggots are born from flies attracted to the meat, not spontaneously generated.
Dr. Louis Pasteur, after whom the process of purifying milk from bacteria is named, definitively proved Redi's theory 200 years later. In fact, Pasteur proved from his experiments that there are microscopic organisms we know as bacteria that are the cause of the spoilage of organic material such as vegetables, dairy, and meat. Under the right conditions, bacteria contamination of food can be prevented or delayed, allowing us to continue consuming fresh food for much longer than previously thought.
Modern food safety practices, including pasteurization and refrigeration, enable meat to last several days or even weeks. But before these methods existed, food had to be consumed quickly, lest they look and smell like the meat in Redi's maggot-infested jars. Actually, some rationalist medieval Jewish thinkers used this reality to explain one of the details of קרבנות we read about this morning. After discussing קרבנות, sacrifices, that were not permitted to be eaten by a non-כהן, the תורה talks about the rules of two kinds of זבחים, of peace-offerings, each of which could be eaten by the non-כהן offering them. One of those קרבנות, which is offered alongside flour offerings of both חמץ and מצה, is called the קרבן תודה, the Thanksgiving offering, brought to celebrate surviving a dangerous situation. The תורה tells us that there is a strict time limit for eating the meat:
וּבְשַׂר זֶבַח תּוֹדַת שְׁלָמָיו בְּיוֹם קׇרְבָּנוֹ יֵאָכֵל לֹא־יַנִּיחַ מִמֶּנּוּ עַד־בֹּקֶר׃
And the meat of the thanksgiving offering for well-being shall be eaten on the day of its sacrifice; none of it shall be set aside until morning.
According to the פסוק, the one bringing the תודה has only the day it is brought and the following night to eat the קרבן. It is prohibited to leave any of the קרבן as leftovers past day break. Anything that is leftover is burned in fire.
The רלב״ג explains that the limit on when the meat can be eaten is due to taste – the meat tastes best in the first hours after it is brought. The רמב״ם, in a parallel way, says that the restricted time period for consuming the קרבן is due to the possibility of spoilage. Of course, both of these reasons, while different, are connected. The reason meat tastes better fresh is because the enzymes and bacteria break down the meat quickly without refrigeration and, thus, the sooner it is eaten, the better it will taste and the less likely it will make you sick. The רלב״ג doesn't take into account the idea of aging meat to make it taste better, but that may be because there was no way to safely age it without also encouraging food poisoning. If the רמב״ם and רלב״ג are correct, one might also consider the possibility that in an age of freezers and refrigerators, some future סנהדרין could come up with a leniency to allow eating the קרבנות for a more extended period.
Rav Dovid Zvi Hoffman, in his commentary on the תורה, points out that these explanations are not sufficient by themselves. After all, not only is it forbidden to eat the meat of the קרבנות past their due date but it is also prohibited to eat the מנחות, the flour offering parts of the קרבן תודה, which do not spoil or taste worse with age. Furthermore, חז״ל interpret a later פסוק in a way that adds a further problem with the רמב״ם's explanation. The פסוק says:
וְאִם הֵאָכֹל יֵאָכֵל מִבְּשַׂר־זֶבַח שְׁלָמָיו בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי לֹא יֵרָצֶה הַמַּקְרִיב אֹתוֹ לֹא יֵחָשֵׁב לוֹ פִּגּוּל יִהְיֶה וְהַנֶּפֶשׁ הָאֹכֶלֶת מִמֶּנּוּ עֲוֺנָהּ תִּשָּׂא׃
If any of the meat of the well-being sacrifice is eaten on the third day, it shall not be acceptable; it shall not count for the one who offered it. It is an offensive thing, and the person who eats of it shall bear the guilt.
Say the Rabbis, the strange phrasing of the פסוק, using the words לא יחשב לו and פגול and האכל יאכל all imply that the איסור here is not eating נותר, meat that was left over. Rather, it is referring to פיגול, which is a קרבן that was processed correctly and is not even expired yet. The only problem was that the person offering the קרבן had in mind, at some critical point in the processing, to eat it after the prescribed time period. One who violates this prohibition and eats the קרבן after it was rendered פיגול gets כרת even though nothing else was wrong with it! If the prohibition was just because the meat will be spoiled, does it make any sense to give such a severe punishment?
Likewise, Rav Moshe Soloveitchik and the Rav, in their חידושים, point out that the burning of פיגול and נותר is unlike the burning of other prohibited items. They can't be disposed of at the earliest convenience in whatever manner but rather specifically during the daytime and only with fire. This all implies that פיגול and נותר are about something much more significant than simply food safety and taste.
Rav Hoffman himself points out that a similar restriction on the time period for eating existed in the context of the מן that the Jews ate in the Wilderness. The ספר החינוך and Rav Hoffman suggest that the reasoning for the time constraint is the same in both places: to force us not to save food for the next day and to trust הקב״ה that He will feed us again tomorrow. Not only does it show a lack of trust to save the קרבן beyond the expiration date but planning to do so beforehand invalidates the קרבן as פיגול and makes eating a very severe violation.
Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch argues for a different understanding of the concepts of נותר and פיגול. The תורה seems to emphasize that meat of קדשים be eaten "ביום קרבנו," on the day it was brought as an offering. Apparently, there is a requirement that the aspect of the קרבן connected to הקב״ה be connected to the aspect that we get to enjoy. One must not think that their enjoyment of the קרבן is separable from that which he owes to the רבש״ע. Even planning to eat a שלמים or תודה beyond the time allotted invalidates it and carries severe consequences for eating it. Rav Hirsch equates פיגול with a desecration of the Temple, with undermining the moral assumptions of the בית המקדש. He connects this to the concerns of his day, the fear that there were Jews within the community who would stand in the sanctuary, perform all the rituals, but have intent that distances those actions from our connection to הקב״ה.
But there is one aspect of all of this that both Rav Hirsch and Rav Hoffman work hard to explain within their theories. There an exception to the general rule of eating the קרבן only on the evening following its offering: the קרבן שלמים that is brought as a נדר or נדבה, that is brought on an entirely unprompted voluntary basis. A שלמים like that can be eaten for days and two nights and need only be burned on day three. If it is true that נותר and פיגול undermine בטחון, trust in G-d, and break the connection between the Temple service aspect of the קרבן and the consumption of it, then why is the שלמים an exception?
Rav Hirsch and Professor Yonatan Grossman both make similar suggestions to answer this question. The קרבן שלמים that is brought as a completely voluntary offering is unique in that it is an attempt to integrate the regular family meal into the context of the בית המקדש. Rather than simply eat חולין, animals ritually slaughtered for eating alone, the בעלים, the person bringing a שלמים, is elevating his animal slaughter by having its blood poured on the מזבח's corner and parts of it burned on the מזבח itself. Such a situation justifies extending the eating period to allow for more time to eat it together in the family context. But the תודה, the Thanksgiving offering, is not entirely voluntary. It is not initiated by the offeror but rather by G-d's kindness, by the רבש״ע's intervention, albeit in a hidden way, to save the בעלים's life. In that situation, it is more similar to a חטאת and אשם in that the human benefit from the קרבן is more closely tied to and dependent on the aspect that is dedicated to הקב״ה.
Professor Nechama Leibowitz cites אברבנל and the נצי״ב who further add that the תודה also has a lot of non-meat food associated with it. Not only is it unlikely that one can consume the entire animal by themselves in one night but it is impossible that they will also eat the מנחות, both חמץ and מצה, in just a few hours, even as a family. It seems as if the תורה is intentionally forcing the בעלים bringing a Thanksgiving offering to invite his friends and neighbors and extended family to share in a public celebration of being saved. Giving thanks is not just a nice thing to do; it is a requirement. Not only that, but it is something that should be done in a public fashion, in a way that influences others to do the same. The קרבן תודה, in other words, creates an environment, a community, that is thankful to הקב״ה and that is inclusive in its celebrations.
Moreover, says Rav Amnon Bazak, the time limit also serves a psychological and spiritual purpose. There is another קרבן that the same, or maybe even stricter, rules about when it can be eaten: the קרבן פסח. The תורה says that the קרבן פסח is eaten בחפזון, in a state of suspense, with hyper awareness of the context of redemption. Perhaps, in a similar way, the קרבן תודה must be eaten while the feeling of thankfulness is most present in the בעלים's mind. You cannot delay the thanksgiving or stretch it out over time. You also need to be ready for the next challenge, for the chance that there may be no tomorrow on which to express gratitude.
Yehuda Becher grew up Haredi in Beitar Illit in Israel, learned in Yeshiva, but later became more of a traditional, if not secular Jew. However, there is one aspect of him that remained incredibly religious well past his days in Yeshiva – his sense of gratitude. There are videos he took of himself expressing thanks to הקב״ה for everything we take for granted: nice weather, for his feet, for his hands, for everything he had in his life. He would recite the paragraph of תהילים called מזמור לתודה, which is about the תודה offering, multiple times every day. One day last fall, Yehuda heard that his friend was feeling very down and so he recorded himself singing the daily תפילה of אלקי נשמה with a huge smile on his face and sent it to the friend to cheer him up. Within that תפילה, he said about the soul, נשמה, which G-d gave him:
וְאַתָּה מְשַׁמְּרָהּ בְּקִרְבִּי וְאַתָּה עָתִיד לִטְּלָהּ מִמֶּנִּי וּלְהַחֲזִירָהּ בִּי לֶעָתִיד לָבֹא, כָּל זְמַן שֶׁהַנְּשָׁמָה בְקִרְבִּי מוֹדֶה אֲנִי לְפָנֶיךָ
You preserve it within me. You will eventually take it from me, and restore it in me in the time to come. As long as the soul is within me I give thanks to You, Hashem
Just days later, on October 7, part of this תפילה came true and Yehuda's נשמה was indeed taken at the Supernova music festival.
We do not know how much time Hashem has granted us in this life. What we do know is that saying thank you to Him and to everyone in our lives who make our day better is both required and time limited. May we learn from יהודה בכר how to be thankful to the רבש״ע and may his תפילה also come true when he said ולהחזירה בי לעתיד לבוא.
No comments:
Post a Comment