So begins the Sefer which deals with the korbanos. Some suggest that the korbanos raise the specter of needless killing, or reinforce primitive barbaric tendencies. Regrettably, such notions are based in the minds of those who seek to eliminate traditional Torah observance.
In his Moreh Nevuchim, Rambam pursues an historical approach in order to explain the animal sacrifices. Surrounded by pagans on all sides, Bnei Yisrael might have desired to imitate the popular animal sacrifices and temple worship. Hashem responded by including these rituals in our own worship. Hashem marked clear and definite restrictions to define what is within the boundaries of Torah worship. It may seem that the Rambam relegates an almost apologetic importance to korbanos. On the contrary, he devotes an entire section of his Yad Ha’Chazakah to the intricate laws and regulations which concern korbanos.
Ramban openly takes issue with the negative quality of the Rambam’s explication of korbanos. In a more positive orientation Ramban posits that korbanos are an expression of the sinner who has sinned with his body. Consequently, when the lifeblood of the animal is sprinkled upon the Mizbayach, the sinner realizes that, indeed, his own blood should have been spilled for his violation of Hashem’s trust. This thesis applies to all korbanos which are directed towards expiating sin.
The point of contention with the Ramban’s approach is that Hevel offered the first flock of his sheep without having committed a prior sin. Noach, the “ish tzaddik,” offered sacrifices upon surviving the mabul, flood. The Meshech Chochmah reconciles the opinions of the Ramban and Rambam by applying them to two disparate forms of sacrifice. The korbanos offered privately upon the bamos, private altars, were to assuage the people and dislodge them from the pagan rituals. The bamah was of a personal nature. The individual had the opportunity to express himself favorably to Hashem. This is consistent with the Rambam’s theory that korbanos were a means to protect the people from the onslaught of paganism.
The korbanos which were offered in the Bais Ha’Mikdash, however, were intended to unite man with his Maker. They were to expose him to the sanctity of the Sanctuary, stimulating his desire to attain purification via repentance. The distinction between the bamah and the Bais Ha’Mikdash is expressed by the concept of “re’ach nicho’ach,” the sweet savory smell, which “goes up” to Hashem. The “re’ach nicho’ach” is mentioned only concerning sacrifices which were offered in the Bais Ha’Mikdash. In fact, in the Talmud Zevachim 113, Chazal state that there is no re’ach nicho’ach from korbanos offered upon a bamah.
Horav Eliyahu Schlesinger, Shlita, suggests that herein lies the difference between prayer offered in the Bais Ha’Knesses and personal supplication offered outside the shul. After the destruction of the Bais Ha’Mikdash, our lips took the place of sacrifices, our entreaty through prayer and devotion supplanted the korbanos. Certainly personal prayer, regardless of where it is offered, has great merit. It is, however, viewed as a korban offered upon a bamah. Tefillah which is conveyed in a shul, a house designated and maintained for worship, is parallel to the korbanos in the Bais Ha’Mikdash which render a re’ach nicho’ach.
The purpose of korbanos is to bring us closer to Hashem. Kayin offered a sacrifice to Hashem for no apparent purpose. In no way did he attempt to elevate himself spiritually, to bring himself closer to Hashem. Horav Schlesinger notes that regarding Hevel’s korban, the Torah states, ubtm, urufcn tuv od thcv kcvuw “And Hevel also brought of the firstlings of his flock” (Bereishis 4:4). The words tuv od, can be interpreted as “also himself.” Hevel’s focus in bringing the korban was to bring himself closer to Hashem through the medium of sacrifice. It was the lofty purpose of the korban that granted its efficacy and acceptance by Hashem.
This same idea applies to tefillah. One prays to Hashem as an avenue by which to draw himself nearer to Hashem, as he ennobles himself spiritually. Tefillah for the sake of praying, because it is the thing to do, is not tefillah. As the Baal Shem Tov commented, “One, who after he prayed, remains the same as he was before he prayed, is viewed as if he never prayed at all.”
