sign in sign up
<<
Home , Avodah Zarah, Ein Ayah, Gersonides, Idolatry, Jan Assmann, Kohen

Essay Weaning Away from Idolatry: on the Purpose of Ritual Sacrifices

Reuven Chaim Klein

Independent Researcher, Beitar Illit 90500, ; rcklein@.edu

Abstract: This essay explores Maimonides’ explanation of the ’s rationale behind the ritual sacrifices, namely to help wean the away from idolatrous rites. After clearly elucidating Maimonides’ stance on the topic, this essay examines his view from different angles with various possible precedents in earlier for such an understanding. The essay also shows why various other Jewish commentators objected to Maimonides’ understanding and how Maimonides might respond to those critiques. Additionally, this essay also situates Maimonides’ view on sacrifices within his broader worldview of the Bible’s commandments in general as serving as a counterweight to idolatrous rituals.

Keywords: sacrifices; ; maimonides; ritual; idolatry; ; cult; ; nahmanides; ; bible; ; ; rabbinics; ; rationalism; polemics; mysticism; ancient near east; bible studies

1. Maimonides’ Position In his Guide for the Perplexed (3:30, 3:32), Maimonides explains that the ’s main

 objective is to eradicate the viewpoint of paganism. Thus, to truly understand the Torah’s  original intent, one must be familiar with the and practices of ancient idolaters (in Maimonidean terms, this refers to practitioners of non-monotheistic religions). Citation: Klein, Reuven Chaim. 2021. Weaning Away from Idolatry: Taking this idea a step further, Maimonides seemingly assumes that ritual sacrifices Maimonides on the Purpose of Ritual are a sub-optimal form of , leading him to making the bold statement that the Torah Sacrifices. Religions 12: 363. https:// instituted its system of ritual sacrifices to facilitate the rejection of idolatrous practices. doi.org/10.3390/rel12050363 He explains that human is that whatever people have accustomed themselves to doing becomes so ingrained in their nature that it cannot be easily uprooted. Man cannot Received: 2 April 2021 successfully transition from one extreme to the other without some time to acclimate. Accepted: 12 May 2021 Thus, did not simply command the Jews to reject idolatry by completely forbid- Published: 19 May 2021 ding its classical practices—animal sacrifices, prostration, and burning incense—because these practices were so much a part of human culture at the time that the Jews would not 1 Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral have been able to give them up. with regard to jurisdictional claims in Maimonides illustrates his point by asking us to imagine that one day a published maps and institutional affil- announced that God said that one should not pray to Him, fast in repentance, or request iations. His assistance in a time of need, but should worship Him exclusively in thought, without any action. We would not listen to such a prophet because praying, fasting, and requesting assistance are ubiquitous forms of religious worship, and we cannot imagine religious life without them. Similarly, Maimonides explains, animal sacrifice and the like were such Copyright: © 2021 by the author. widely-accepted forms of worship in the ancient world that without them was Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. unimaginable. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and 1.1. Limited Permission for Ritual Sacrifice conditions of the Creative Commons Given this predicament, the question is obvious: How could God get the children of Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// —the champion of —to refrain from engaging in idolatrous sacrifice creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ rituals? 4.0/).

Religions 2021, 12, 363. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12050363 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/religions Religions 2021, 12, 363 2 of 26

Maimonides explains that God permits some of these pagan forms of worship to remain in a kosher form. God found this “ploy”2 necessary in order eradicate idolatry and establish the great principle of the Jewish religion (i.e., the belief in God and His uniqueness). He allows for a temple, , and sacrifices—with the explicit caveat that He alone be the object of worship. This explains the Torah’s repeated, and seemingly unnecessary, emphasis that these practices be done for God: • They shall make a sanctuary for Me (Ex. 25:8). • An altar of earth shall you make for Me (Ex. 20:21). • When a man among you brings an offering to Hashem (Lev. 1:2). Similarly, the Torah allows for ritual prostration and offering incense, but warns that such worship should not be directed to any force other than Him: • One who brings offering to the shall be destroyed—only to Hashem alone! (Ex. 22:19). • For you shall not prostrate yourselves to another god (Ex. 34:14). Maimonides notes that the Torah allows for certain idolatrous-like practices, but places certain limits upon them to prevent them from devolving into a pagan-like free-for-all.3 Firstly, although the Torah calls for the construction of a Temple, it only recognizes one legitimate Temple,4 not a set of temples as is common amongst idolaters: Beware for your- self lest you bring up your burnt-offerings in any place that you see (Deut. 12:13). Secondly, although the Torah calls for a class of (the Kohanim), this class is limited to ’s descendants; other people cannot play any significant roles in offering ritual sacrifices. Thus, unlike other forms of Jewish worship, ritual sacrifice is limited both geographi- cally and genealogically (by contrast, any in practically any place can engage in, say, ).5

1.2. Downplaying Ritual Sacrifice Maimonides seems to maintain that the Torah’s concept of ritual sacrifice is simply a means of weaning the Jews away from idolatrous sacrifices. It is a sort of concession to the frailties of mankind who, by the time the Torah was given, were steeped in idolatry.6 At face value, Maimonides seems to understand that ritual sacrifices have no inherent value.7 They are just a means—albeit a valuable means—towards the end of weaning people away from idolatry, but they are not an end in their own right.8 Maimonides presents a series of Biblical passages that seem to downplay the impor- tance of ritual sacrifice: • Is Hashem’s desire in burnt-offerings and sacrifices like in listening to the voice of Hashem? (I Sam. 15:22). • “Why [do you offer] to Me the multitudes of your sacrifices?” says Hashem (Isa. 1:11). • [F]or I did not speak to you forefathers and I did not command them on the day I took them out of the Land of Egypt on the matter of burnt-offerings and sacrifices; rather this matter I commanded them saying, “listen to My voice and I will be for you as God and you will be for Me as a nation” (Jer. 7:22–23). On the surface, these passages and others like them seem to eschew ritual sacrifice altogether. However, Maimonides explains that they actually convey the message that God’s primary concern is that the Jewish people worship Him exclusively. Sacrifices are a means towards that end, because they allowed the Jews to transfer a deeply-ingrained religious practice from idol worship to Divine worship. Under this theology, the sacrifices themselves are less important than the underlying goal of “knowing [the true] God” and following His rules. The verses above downplay the importance of ritual sacrifices because when the Jews do not follow God’s rules in other aspects, He finds their ritual sacrifices entirely superfluous.9 Ritual sacrifices might be the proverbial icing on the cake, or the spoonful of sugar which helps the go down; but when there is no cake, or no medicine, then there is no need for icing and sugar. Religions 2021, 12, 363 3 of 26

1.3. Commandments to Counter Idolatry Later in his Guide for the Perplexed (3:37), Maimonides bolsters his claim that ritual sacrifices are intended to prevent the Jews from engaging in prevalent idolatrous practices by arguing that other commandments in the Torah were given for the same reason. These commandments follow the theme of “don’t do what they did”. Some of these examples are also found in Maimonides’ Sefer ha-Mitzvos:10 • The prohibitions of shaving the corners of the head and the beard (Lev. 19:27) are to avoid mimicking the look11 of ancient idolatrous priests.12 • The prohibition of wearing wool- mixtures (Lev. 19:19, Deut. 22:11) is to avoid mimicking the garments of idolatrous priests, who merged wool and linen in their clothes to unite the forces of flora and fauna.13 • The prohibition of crossdressing (Lev. 22:5) is to avoid imitating cultic ritual cross- dressing. For example, Maimonides claims that one idolatrous source calls for men to dress in women’s clothes when the planet Venus has influence, and for a woman to don armor and weaponry when the planet has influence.14 • The prohibition of mixing (i.e., grafting) different types of trees (Lev. 19:19) is to distance Jews from the cultic practices involving ritual tree grafting. As an extension of the ban on grafting different types of trees, the Torah also bans planting mixtures of different types of seeds. According to Maimonides, the Sabians15 claimed that if certain types of trees were grafted together, accompanied by sacrifices and incantations, then those trees would yield fruits that had special properties. The Sabians also required that the branch used for the grafting be held in the hand of a beautiful maiden while a man fornicated with her in a disgusting way.16 • Maimonides also suggests that the thrice-repeated prohibition of cooking a kid in its mother’s milk (Ex. 23:19, 34:26, and Deut. 14:21) serves to distance the Jews from that idolatrous practice17 (possibly on their holidays, as adds). Although, Maimonides admits that he did not see evidence of such practices in the Sabian writings.18 More recently, scholars have identified an Ugaritic (i.e., Canaanite) text that describes the rituals of Asherah worship, and one line there possibly calls for “A slaughtered kid in its mother’s milk”.19 • The prohibition of lacerating oneself (Deut. 14:1) is to avoid the idolatrous practice of cutting oneself in service of their god.20 • Maimonides also writes that the prohibition of deriving benefit from an idol and its paraphernalia or from idolatrous sacrifices (Deut. 13:18) is to prevent a Jew from keeping an idol on hand—even if he may have originally seized it with intent to destroy it—and eventually being ensnared in the of idolatry.

1.4. Ritual Sacrifice to Contest Idolatry In a follow-up discussion later in his Guide for the Perplexed (3:45–46), Maimonides explains how elements of the Jewish sacrificial rituals counter idolatrous practices. These also loosely follow the theme of “don’t do what they did”:21 • Idolaters built temples and set up images of their god(s) as their foci. In a similar but different way, God commanded the Jews to build a temple and place the tablets of the in a special ark as the temple’s focus. However, the Ten Commandments begin with the recognition of God’s sovereignty and a rejection of idolatry, thus establishing that the non-depictable One God is the focus of the Jewish Temple.22 • The commandment to build the altar out of earth or uncut stone (Ex. 20:21–22) counters the idolatrous practice of building of hewn stone.23 • The commandments that the Kohanim wear trousers (Ex. 28:42) and refrain from ascending the altar via stairs, lest their nakedness be exposed (Ex. 20:23), counter the cultic practices of Peor, which involve ritual body exposure. Religions 2021, 12, 363 4 of 26

• The commandment to sacrifice cows, , and exclusively counters various idolatrous cults which revered these animals24and forbade their slaughter. Cows were revered by most cults,25 goats by the Sabians, and sheep by certain sects of ancient Egyptians.26 • The commandment to sacrifice domesticated animals counters most forms of idolatry, which largely confined ritual sacrifice to wild animals like lions and bears.27 • The commandment to sacrifice a young lamb as the Paschal offering countered the Egyptian idea that lambs were , and the notion that the Jews were redeemed through the power of the zodiacal force of Aries (which is associated with the month of Nissan when they exited Egypt).28 • The prohibition of sacrificing any leavened bread or honey on the altar (Lev. 2:11) counters29 those idolatrous cults which sacrificed leavened breads30 and honey.31 The Torah’s commandment of accompanying every sacrifice with salt (Lev. 2:13) stands in stark contrast to the prevailing idolatrous practice of never offering salt and often adding honey to sacrifices.32 • Maimonides writes that he does not have an explanation as to why the Torah prescribes -libations to accompany certain sacrifices, as this was the practice amongst many idolaters.33 • The commandment to avoid eating blood (Lev. 17:10, 17:12, Deut. 2:16, 12:23) counters the belief (held by Sabians and others) that blood is the food of demons, and that drink- ing blood will cause the demons to come and tell one the future.34 Furthermore, to prevent people from eating blood, the Torah commands that the blood of slaughtered birds and wild animals (Lev. 17:13) be covered, and that the blood of ritual sacrifices be sprinkled in the Temple instead of gathered in a vessel for consumption. In fact, notes Maimonides, when the Jews wandered through the desert, God forbade them from eating all non-sacrificial altogether (Lev. 17:1–9), save for birds and wild animals, so that they would not eat their blood. This prohibition only lasted while the Jews lived in the wilderness because, according to the accepted lore, demons only live in the wilderness but not in inhabited areas.35

1.5. Other Commandments In addition to Maimonides, several other commentators understand that some of the Torah’s commandments and prohibitions are intended to counter certain idolatrous practices. They too generally follow the theme of “stay away from what they did:” • R. writes that when he heard about ritual prostitution in India,36 he was then able to understand why the Torah forbids using a prostitute’s fee for ritual sacrifices (Deut. 23:19).37 • While idolaters embraced unbridled sexual expression, the Torah labels a man who had any form of seminal emission “impure” (Lev. 15:16). Dr. Yehuda Leib Katzenelson (1846–1917) argues that the Torah’s purpose in branding post coital men as “impure” was to distance the Jews from the promiscuous idolatrous lifestyles epitomized by the ritual orgies associated with Baal and Asherah.38 The Torah is so opposed to the many sexual rites that often accompanied idolatrous sacrifices that anyone who entered the Holy Temple or ate sacrificial meats had to first purify himself from sexual activity or seminal emissions.39 • The Halacha that an animal slaughtered for personal or sacrificial use must have its throat cut may have been a way to avoid the more gruesome idolatrous practice of sacrificial heart excisions from live animals.40 • In fact, Prof. Asa Kasher (a grandson of R. Menachem Kasher) takes Maimonides’ view to the nth degree and applies it to almost every single commandment. For example, he argues that the commandments to work six days and rest on the serves to prevent one from deifying either work or inactivity by providing the proper balance between the two.41 Religions 2021, 12, 363 5 of 26

• In a departure from the “stay away from what they did” theme, it can be noted that from a naological perspective, the physical structure of the Holy Temple in mirrors many of the architectural features found in other cultic temples throughout the ancient world. Moreover, the Holy Temple shares many of the same cosmological imports attributed by ancient idolaters to their temples. Perhaps Maimonides’ doctrine can be extended to argue that the Temple itself is another way of mimicking idolatrous practice in order to help wean the Jews away from it.42 There are also rabbinic enactments or recommendations which some explain are intended to distance Jews from idolatrous practice. For example: • Gersonides writes that some idolatrous cults were not so fond of actually drinking blood.43 Instead, they would use a pit or receptacle to catch the slaughtered animals’ blood. Then, they gathered around the blood and ate from the animal’s , with the belief that while they feasted on the animal’s meat, the demons would come and feast on the animal’s blood.44 In response to this sort of ritual practice, the instituted that it is forbidden to slaughter an animal such that its blood will spill into a vessel, pit, or any other receptacle.45 • Shabazi writes that some idolatrous rites called for idolaters to smell the odor of their flatulence while engaging in rituals.46 It seems that rabbinic law reacts to this by forbidding prayer in the presence of malodorous smells like dung and flatulence.47 • In presenting a variant reading of a list of recommendations in the Talmud, Shabazi includes: “One should not apply makeup to one eye”. He explains that some idolaters used to purposely color one eye and not the other, so that they would look more pitiful and their gods would have mercy on them.48 Interestingly, in Against Apion (1:26) cites the Hellenic writer Manetho as having written that the Mosaic Laws “were mainly opposite to the customs of the Egyp- tians”.49 The Roman historian Tacitus (56–120 CE) similarly sums up his view of Judaism by writing in his Histories (5:3): “Among the Jews all things are profane that we hold sacred; on the other hand they regard as permissible what seems to us immoral”.50 Thus, it was fairly clear to some ancient pagans that the Torah’s laws directly conflicted with those of the neighboring pagans, just like Maimonides said.51

2. Difficulties with Maimonides’ Position 2.1. ’ Objections Nachmanides (1194–1270) cites52 Maimonides’ position regarding ritual sacrifice and strongly disagrees with him. Nachmanides asserts that ritual sacrifice is a lofty practice that cannot be reduced to a historical concession to idolatry. He notes several logical difficulties created by Maimonides’ position: First, Nachmanides understands that even those idolaters who revered cows, goats, and sheep and forbade their slaughter, only forbade casual slaughter, but allowed ritual slaughter. Thus, if ritual sacrifice were viewed through the lens of distancing the Jews from idolatry, then in these cases the Torah actually strengthens the idolatrous position with its endorsement of slaughtering these animals for ritual purposes! Second, if the entire purpose of ritual sacrifices is to counter idolatry, then why do we find God accepting and Abel’s (Gen. 4:4) sacrifices before idolatry came about in the time of Enosh; and ’s sacrifice (Gen. 8:20–21) immediately after the Deluge that ostensibly wiped out all idolaters?53 Similarly, R. Yaakov Emden (1697–1776) points to ’s (Ezek. 43) concerning the sacrifices to be brought in the Messianic Era—a time by which idolatry will already cease to exist. If the whole purpose of sacrifices is to wean people off of idolatry, then why are they necessary in times when idolatry does not exist?54 Additionally, Nachmanides questions why Balaam offered bulls and rams to God on the seven altars that he had prepared (Num. 23:4), if Balaam presumably did not intend to oppose the idolatrous ritual sacrifices (nor did he intend his sacrifices as a form of idolatry). ReligionsReligions 2021 2021, ,12 12, ,x x FOR FOR PEER PEER REVIEW REVIEW 66 ofof 2424

to to wean wean people people off off of of idolatry, idolatry, then then why why are are they they necessary necessary in in times times when when idolatry idolatry does does notnot exist? exist?5454 Additionally,Additionally, Nachmanides Nachmanides questions questions why why Ba Balaamlaam offered offered bulls bulls and and rams rams to to God God on on Religions 2021, 12, 363 6 of 26 thethe seven seven altars altars that that he he had had prepared prepared (Num. (Num. 23:4), 23:4), if if Balaam Balaam presumably presumably did did not not intend intend toto oppose oppose the the idolatrous idolatrous ritual ritual sacrifices (nor (nor did did he he intend intend his his sacrifices sacrifices as as a a form form of of idol- idol- atry).atry). InIn light light of of these these questions, questions,In light of Nachmanides Nachmanides these questions, ex explainsplains Nachmanides that that the the underlying explainsunderlying that idea idea the behind underlyingbehind idea behind ritualritual sacrifices sacrifices is is ritualthat that fulfilling fulfilling sacrifices God’s God’s is that command command fulfilling brings brings God’s one one command close close to to bringsHim. Him.Error!Error! one Reference Reference close source source to Him. 55 He notes is)—is related related toto to thethe the Hebrew word for—(קרבן)קרבן ) notnot found. found. He He notes notes that that the thethe very veryvery word wordword for forfor ritual ritual — sacrifice—sacrifice—korbankorban For For For example, example, example, Balaam Balaam Balaam sought sought sought to to use use to useritual ritual ritual sac- sac- sacrifice to bring .(.(קרבה)קרבה ) HebrewHebrew word word for for “closeness”, “closeness”, kirvah kirvahkirvah rificerifice to to bring bring himself himselfhimself closer closer closer to to God, God, to God, so so that that so thatGod God God would would would grant grant grant him him himthe the malevolent themalevolent malevolent proph- proph- against the ecyecy against against the the Jews JewsJews that that that he he hewished wished wished to to receive. toreceive. receive.5656 Similarly, Similarly,56 Similarly, Cain, Cain, Cain, Abel, Abel, Abel, and and andNoah Noah Noah sought sought sought to use ritual toto use use ritual ritual sacrifice sacrificesacrifice to to bring bring to themselves bringthemselves themselves clos closerer to closerto God God toas as Godan an expression expression as an expression of of their their gratitude ofgratitude their gratitude (though (though(though Nachmanides NachmanidesNachmanides does does no not tmention doesmention not this mentionthis explicitly). explicitly). this explicitly).5757 57 OneOne of of the the points points OneNachmanides Nachmanides of the points makes makes Nachmanides is is that that when when makes a a sinner sinner is that offers offers when an an a sinneranimal animal offers sacri- sacri- an animal sacrifice, fice,fice, he he should should contemplate contemplatehe should the contemplatethe fact fact that that he he the hi hi factmselfmself that really really he himselfdeserves deserves really to to be be deserves sacrificed/killed, sacrificed/killed, to be sacrificed/killed, but 58 butbut God God in in His His abundant abundantGod in Hiskindness kindness abundant allows allows kindness the the sinner sinner allows to to bring bring the sinner an an animal animal to bring instead. instead. an animal5858 instead.

2.2.2.2. Other Other Commentators’ Commentators’2.2. Other Objections Objections Commentators’ Objections 59 Furthermore,Furthermore, asks asksFurthermore, R. R. Yitzchak Yitzchak Arama Arama asks R. (1420–1494): Yitzchak(1420–1494): Arama5959 if if ritual ritual (1420–1494): sacrifices sacrifices ifare are ritual not not intrin- sacrifices intrin- are not intrinsi- sicallysically valuable, valuable, then thencally why why valuable, does does the the then Bible Bible why laud laud does King King the BibleSolomon laud for Kingfor having having Solomon offered offered for havingone-thou- one-thou- offered one-thousand burnt-offerings at a time (I Kgs. 3:4)? Why are King Solomon’s additional sacrifices consid- sandsand burnt-offerings burnt-offerings at at a a time time (I (I Kgs. Kgs. 3:4)? 3:4)? Why Why are are King King Solomon’s Solomon’s additional additional sacrifices sacrifices ered praiseworthy; the minimum amount of sacrifices should suffice if the whole point is consideredconsidered praiseworthy; praiseworthy; the the minimum minimum amount amount of of sacrifices sacrifices should should suffice suffice if if the the whole whole simply to counter idolatrous practice?60 pointpoint is is simply simply to to counter counter idolatrous idolatrous practice? practice?6060 Similarly, R. Asher ben Chaim of Monzón (a 13th century student of the Rashba) asks Similarly,Similarly, R. R. Asher Asher ben ben Chaim Chaim of of Monzón Monzón (a (a 13th 13th century century student student of of the the Rashba) Rashba) asks asks the following: if the purpose of sacrifices is simply to wean the Jews away from idolatry, thethe following: following: if if the the purpose purpose of of sacrifices sacrifices is is simply simply to to wean wean the the Jews Jews away away from from idolatry, idolatry, then why does the Talmud61 say that the rabbis instituted prayer in lieu of sacrifices? If thenthen why why does does the the Talmud Talmud6161 say say that that the the rabbis rabbis instituted instituted prayer prayer in in lieu lieu of of sacrifices? sacrifices? If If sacrifices are not meaningful in and of themselves, then why do they need to be replaced sacrificessacrifices are are not not meaningful meaningful in in and and of of themse themselves,lves, then then why why do do they they need need to to be be replaced replaced with anything?62 withwith anything? anything?Error!Error! Reference Reference source source not not found. found. Another difficulty with Maimonides’ position is that he seems to have put the prover- AnotherAnother difficulty difficulty with with Maimonides’ Maimonides’ position position is is that that he he seems seems to to have have put put the the pro- pro- bial cart before the horse. Maimonides understands that the Torah’s sacrifices are meant to verbialverbial cartcart beforebefore thethe horse.horse. MaimonidesMaimonides understandsunderstands thatthat thethe Torah’sTorah’s sacrificessacrifices areare counter idolatrous ritual sacrifices. However, the truth seems to be that idolatrous practices meantmeant to to counter counter idolatrousdeveloped idolatrous ritual fromritual thesacrifices sacrifices saintlier. .However, However, concept of the the sacrifices truth truth seems seems to God, to to notbe be that vicethat idola- versa.idola-63 6363 troustrous practices practices developed developedIn fact,from from the the the Mishnahsaintlier saintlier 64co cocontendsnceptncept of of sacrifices sacrifices that even to to idolatersGod, God, not not followedvice vice versa. versa. the Noahide laws of 6464 InIn fact, fact, the the Mishnahsacrifices contends contends to disqualify that that blemishedeven even idolaters idolaters animals fo followedllowed for idolatrous the the Noahide Noahide purposes, laws laws of justof sac- sac- as those animals are rificesrifices to to disqualify disqualifydisqualified blemished blemished fromanimals animals being for for offeredidolatrous idolatrous to God. purposes, purposes, 65just justexplains as as those those that animals animals pagan are are idolaters continued 6565 disqualifieddisqualified from from beingto being practice offered offered sacrifices to to God. God. Rashi toRashi their explains explains idols in that thethat pagan samepagan wayidolaters idolaters that continued theircontinued ancestors to to had originally practicepractice sacrifices sacrifices tooffered to their their idols legitimate idols in in the the sacrifices same same way way to that God.that their their Thus, ancestors ancestors idolatrous had had sacrifice originally originally seems offered offered to be an outgrowth of legitimatelegitimate sacrifices sacrificeslegitimate to to God. God. Thus, sacrifice,Thus, idolatrous idolatrous not the sacrifice other sacrifice way seems seems around. to to be 66be an an outgrowth outgrowth of of legiti- legiti- matemate sacrifice, sacrifice, not not the the other other way way around. around.6666 2.3. Maharit’s Questions 2.3.2.3. Maharit’s Maharit’s Questions Questions R. Yosef de-Trani (1538–1639), known by his initials as Maharit,67 offers a comprehen- R.R. Yosef Yosef de-Trani de-Tranisive analysis(1538–1639), (1538–1639), of Maimonides’ known known by by his viewhis initials initials and ultimatelyas as Maharit, Maharit, explains6767 offers offers Maimonides a a compre- compre- differently. Like hensivehensive analysis analysis of Nachmanides,of Maimonides’ Maimonides’ heview view too and and finds ultimately ultimately it difficult explains explains to accept Maimonides Maimonides that God woulddifferently. differently. allow pagan abomina- LikeLike Nachmanides, Nachmanides,tions he he too totoo enterfinds finds theit it difficult difficult Torah’s to holyto accept accept framework that that God God simply would would so allow allow that thepagan pagan Jews abomi- abomi- would be able to wean nationsnations to to enter enter the thethemselves Torah’s Torah’s holy offholy the framework framework idolatry to simply simply which so theyso that that had the the previously Jews Jews would would become be be able able accustomed. to to weanwean themselves themselves off off the theFirst, idolatry idolatry he argues to to which which that they presumably,they had had previously previously only the become become generation accustomed. accustomed. of Jews who lived through the First,First, he he argues arguesexile that that in presumably, Egyptpresumably, and were only only exposed th thee generation generation to the mostof of Jews Jews heinous who who lived formslived through through of idol worshipthe the would need exileexile in in Egypt Egypt and andthe were were Torah’s exposed exposed ritual to to sacrificesthe the most most heinous toheinous help themforms forms climb of of idol idol out worship worship of that would rut.would Once need need the first generation thethe Torah’s Torah’s ritual ritual hadsacrifices sacrifices weaned to to help itselfhelp them fromthem clim idolatry,climbb out out theirof of that that descendants rut. rut. Once Once the shouldthe first first nogeneration generation longer have needed ritual hadhad weaned weaned itself itself sacrifices.from from idolatry, idolatry, However, their their thedescen descen Torahdantsdants presents should should these no no longer lawslonger as have have binding needed needed for allritual ritual future generations.68 69 sacrifices.sacrifices. However, However, the theIn Torah Torah fact, thepresents presents Talmud these these explains laws laws as as binding bindingthat, on for for the all all contrary, future future generations. generations. God originally6868 wanted ritual InIn fact, fact, the the Talmud Talmudsacrifices explains explains to begin6969 that, that, only on on when the the contrary, contrary, the Jews God enteredGod originally originally the Holy wanted wanted Land andritual ritual built sac- sac- the Holy Temple— rificesrifices to to begin begin only onlyalthough when when the Hethe Jews didJews ultimately entered entered the the allow Holy Holy the Land Land services and and tobuilt built begin the the beforehand Holy Holy Temple— Temple— at the , while the Jews still wandered the wilderness. This suggests that ritual sacrifices are not simply intended to help the Jews break off from idolatry, but serve a greater purpose. Furthermore, Maharit offers a variant way of asking about sacrifices in the Messianic period: He argues that if the Evil Inclination for idolatry was eliminated from the world,70 then ritual sacrifice would no longer be needed. This implies that animal sacrifices would be obsolete in the Messianic era, when the are no longer pagan Religions 2021, 12, 363 7 of 26

and idolatrous. However, notes Maharit, this cannot be, because a host of prophecies concerning the Messianic Era indicate that ritual sacrifice will be restored then.

2.4. Negating the Law Like Nachmanides and Maharit noted in different ways, Maimonides’ position is problematic in that it can conceptually lead to the possible negation of ritual sacrifices and other commandments. If the whole purpose of sacrifices and other commandments is to counter idolatry, then in a world where idolatry is no longer a significant factor, those parts of the Torah could arguably be discarded. Indeed, R. Avraham Yitzchak Kook (1865–1935) criticizes Maimonides’ approach for focusing too much on the past in conveying the commandments’ significance. If many of the commandments are to counter the influence/practices of the idolaters of yore, then they do not have any meaning in the present or future.71 If they are irrelevant now and will continue to be irrelevant in the future, then why should they be kept?72 The quasi-anonymous author of Midrash Pisron Torah (which pre-dates Maimonides) seems to have anticipated the Maimonidean approach and criticizes it fiercely. He uses the verse, And the offerings of Judah and Jerusalem will be sweet to Hashem ... (Mal. 3:4) to launch into a homiletic teaching about the value of sacrifices: “God said to , ‘In This World, the tribal princes’ sacrifices were sweet for Me, and in the future to come, they [i.e., the sacrifices] will also be sweet ... Woe unto those who say sacrifices were unbefitting in the time of Moses ... In the future, they will see with their eyes, but they will not participate and benefit [from sacrifices]’”.73 This polemic is clearly aimed at those who say that ritual sacrifices do not have inherent value, as Maimonides’ rationalization of sacrifices in the Guide seems to maintain. It essentially asserts that in Messianic times that viewpoint will be disproven by the reinstatement of ritual sacrifice.74 This problem is doubly compounded by the fact that in his , Maimonides himself codifies the laws of ritual sacrifices, which suggests that he does not relegate them to merely the realm of the historical.75

2.5. Historical Fallout Another problem with Maimonides’ position is the dangers of how the ramifications of his theological position have played out historically. Granted, it is unfair to blame Maimonides for how Christian thinkers may have used his ideas; nonetheless, anti-Semitic leaders of the early Church who predated Maimonides used an early version of his idea to both demonize the Jews and delegitimize76 the Torah: “Barnabas, Justin, and Irenaeus believe that the Mosaic laws were given to the Jews because they were not able to follow . The Jews, they believe, are hard-hearted idolaters unable to understand either God’s will or even the Scriptures, and that is why God had to accommodate His laws to them so that the Jews would be able to respect them. Thus He even invented sacrifices for them so that they would not need to turn to other idolatries”.77 A Christian writer named Master Ciruelo (1476–1548) used a version of Maimonides’ understanding to justify Christian of the Torah’s laws. He argued that the Decalogue alone represents “Natural Law” which God had to explicitly reveal at Sinai in order to make sure that mankind would never stray from those laws. All other laws given in the Torah—argues Ciruelo—were merely ways of accommodating the human tendency towards idolatry, or tactical concessions that gave into that tendency. According to Ciruelo, those laws have no inherent value and should ideally be jettisoned.78 This accounts for why Christians acknowledge the Torah’s divinity, yet deliberately do not follow its laws. Are these the natural conclusions we are to draw from Maimonides’ position? Obvi- ously not! And certainly Maimonides himself would reject such heresies, but his stance on the rationale behind ritual sacrifices nonetheless opens the door for such absurdities to be considered. Religions 2021, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 24

towards idolatry, or tactical concessions that gave into that tendency. According to Ciruelo, those laws have no inherent value and should ideally be jettisoned.Error! Reference source not found. This accounts for why Christians acknowledge the Torah’s divinity, yet deliber- ately do not follow its laws. Are these the natural conclusions we are to draw from Maimonides’ position? Obvi- ously not! And certainly Maimonides himself would reject such heresies, but his stance Religions 2021, 12, 363 8 of 26 on the rationale behind ritual sacrifices nonetheless opens the door for such absurdities to be considered.

2.6. Contradictions in Maimonides’ View Finally, Maharit finds finds an an inherent inherent contradiction contradiction in inMaimonides’ Maimonides’ explanation: explanation: On Onthe theone onehand hand according according to Maimonides to Maimonides the Torah’s the Torah’s ritual ritualsacrifices sacrifices are intended are intended to be similar to be similarto idolatry, to idolatry, and thus and help thus wean help the wean Jews the away Jews from away idolatry, from idolatry, whichwhich also called also calledfor ritual for ritualsacrifice. sacrifice. On the On other the otherhand, hand,Maimonides Maimonides lists several lists several commandments commandments which which directly directly pro- prohibithibit idolatrous idolatrous practices practices and and behaviors. behaviors. So So what what method method does does the the Torah Torah use: Permitting kosher formsforms ofof idolatrousidolatrous practice, practice, or or prohibiting prohibiting idolatrous idolatrous and and quasi-idolatrous quasi-idolatrous behavior behav- entirely?ior entirely?79 79 Others point to another passage in which Maimonides seems to contradict himself. ,(חוקים) Maimonides writes80 thatthat all all the the laws laws of of ritual sacrifices sacrifices are considered chukim whichwhich elsewhereelsewhere hehe definesdefines asas statutes/commandments /commandments whose whose rationale is hidden fromfrom us.81 HowHow then then can can Maimonides Maimonides propose that the pu purposerpose of ritual sacrificesacrifice isis toto distancedistance the JewsJews fromfrom idolatry?idolatry?8282 Moreover, MaimonidesMaimonides explicitlyexplicitly writes that thethe futurefuture MessiahMessiah willwill reinstitutereinstitute thethe sacrifices.sacrifices.83 However,However, Maimonides also explains that the Messianic Era will be character- izedized byby thethe universaluniversal recognitionrecognition ofof God.God. Again, if sacrificessacrifices areare merelymerely aa concessionconcession toto help wean away from paganpagan rites,rites, thenthen theythey shouldshould bebe totallytotally unnecessaryunnecessary atat thatthat futurefuture 84 time inin history.history.84

3. Defending Maimonides 85 With thesethese questionsquestions inin hand,hand,85 we can now visit thethe differentdifferent approachesapproaches thatthat thethe rabbis throughout the the generations generations have have taken taken to to understanding understanding Maimonides’ Maimonides’ position. position. In In the coming sub-sections, we will present five different approaches. We do so with the the coming sub-sections, we will present five different approaches. We do so with the caveat that while none of these approaches will answer all of the questions we have raised, caveat that while none of these approaches will answer all of the questions we have raised, each one opens up a different way of viewing Maimonides’ comments in the Guide. each one opens up a different way of viewing Maimonides’ comments in the Guide. 3.1. Answer #1: Maimonides’ Explanation Is Not the Only Valid One 3.1. Answer #1: Maimonides’ Explanation Is Not the Only Valid One Gersonides86 follows the Maimonidean view that the Torah’s ritual sacrifices are 86 intendedGersonides to distance follows man the from Maimonidean idolatry. However, view that he the concedes Torah’s that ritual this sacrifices is not the areonly in- reasontended for to thosedistance laws. man Instead, from idolatry. he explains However, how the he Torah concedesalso has that inherent, this is primarynot the only reasons rea- forson the for lawsthose of laws. ritual Instead, sacrifices. he 87explainsSimilarly, how Abarbanel the Torah88 alsoconcludes has inherent, that Maimonides’ primary reasons and 87 88 Nachmanides’for the laws of explanationsritual sacrifices. of the Similarly, reason behind Abarbanel ritual sacrifice concludes are notthat mutually Maimonides’ exclusive, and andNachmanides’ both are true. explanations89 of the reason behind ritual sacrifice are not mutually exclu- sive, Thisand ideaboth canare betrue. used89 to answer another question posed above, namely that according to MaimonidesThis idea can some be elementsused to answer of the Torah’s another ritual question sacrifices posed mimic above, paganism, namely that while accord- other elementsing to Maimonides and commandments some elements purposely of the callTorah’s for the ritual exact sacrifices opposite. mimic paganism, while otherHow elements do these and commandments two approaches purposely jive, and howcall for did the God exact determine opposite. which elements of paganHow cult do these the Torah two approaches mimics and jive, which and it ho utterlyw did rejects? God determine These questions which elements cannot beof answeredpagan cult withoutthe Torah appealing mimics and to the which existence it utterly of anrejects? unknowable These questions Divine Wisdom cannot be from an- whichswered the without Torah appealing draws. In to other the words,existence besides of an unknowable considerations Divine related Wisdom to countering from which the influencethe Torah of draws. idolatry, In thereother arewords,other besidesreasons cons behindiderations the commandments related to countering of sacrifices. the Thus,influ- inence Abarbanel’s of idolatry, view, there Nachmanides’ are other reasonsesoteric behindlayer theof commandme understandingnts of the sacrifices. idea of sacrificeThus, in complementsAbarbanel’s view, Maimonides’ Nachmanides’exoteric esotericmeaning layer of of sacrifices understanding (that is, the to idea wean ofthe sacrifice Jews fromcom- idolatry).plements Maimonides’ exoteric meaning of sacrifices (that is, to wean the Jews from idol- atry).R. Shnayor Z. Burton offers a slightly different take on this problem: Maimonides (Guide 2:18) argues that God’s knowledge is inseparable from His unknowable Self; His wisdom is thus fundamentally different in kind from human wisdom. Yet, elsewhere (Guide 3:26), Maimonides explains that the Torah’s commandment stem from God’s knowledge. Putting these two sources together suggests that because humans cannot comprehend the nature of His wisdom, they cannot truly understand the reasons behind the commandments. How then can Maimonides endeavor to give reasons for the commandments? Burton argues that even Maimonides would admit that while the immutable Divine reasons behind the commandments are incomprehensible to mere mortals, human beings can still partially understand their rationale/purpose using their limited ability to under- Religions 2021, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 24

R. Shnayor Z. Burton offers a slightly different take on this problem: Maimonides (Guide 2:18) argues that God’s knowledge is inseparable from His unknowable Self; His wisdom is thus fundamentally different in kind from human wisdom. Yet, elsewhere (Guide 3:26), Maimonides explains that the Torah’s commandment stem from God’s knowledge. Putting these two sources together suggests that because humans cannot comprehend the nature of His wisdom, they cannot truly understand the reasons behind the commandments. How then can Maimonides endeavor to give reasons for the com- mandments?

Religions 2021, 12, 363 Burton argues that even Maimonides would admit that while the immutable Divine9 of 26 reasons behind the commandments are incomprehensible to mere mortals, human beings can still partially understand their rationale/purpose using their limited ability to under- stand.90 Consequently, Maimonides can justifiably write that the discernable reason be- hindstand. the90 Consequently,sacrifices that Maimonideshumans can cangrasp justifiably is its usefulness write that in the aiding discernable with the reason rejection behind of idolatry.the sacrifices However, that humans the rationales can grasp given is its canno usefulnesst explain in aiding what motivated with the rejection God to ofgive idolatry. these particularHowever, thecommandments, rationales given because cannot explainHis inscrutable what motivated wisdom God is beyond to give thesehuman particular under- standing.commandments, Ergo, the because entire His enterprise inscrutable of seeking wisdom out is beyondthe reasons human for understanding. the commandments Ergo, triesthe entire to find enterprise the meeting of seekingpoint between out the God’s reasons wisdom for the and commandments human wisdom tries (see to Guide find 1:1) the butmeeting dares point not claim between anything God’s beyond wisdom that. and91 human wisdom (see Guide 1:1) but dares not 91 claimAccording anything beyondto Abarbanel that. and Burton, Maimonides’ explanation cannot account for all detailsAccording of the laws to Abarbanelof sacrifices, and because Burton, his Maimonides’ rationale is explanationnot the only cannot factor accountin play. forFrom all thisdetails perspective, of the laws the of aforementioned sacrifices, because “inconsi his rationalestency” isin notMaimonides’ the only factor view in(i.e., play. whether From thethis Torah perspective, mimics the or aforementioned outright rejects “inconsistency”idolatrous rites) in simply Maimonides’ reflects viewthe fact (i.e., that whether even Maimonidesthe Torah mimics might or agree outright that rejectsthere is idolatrous more to the rites) story simply than reflectshe otherwise the fact leads that us even to think.Maimonides92 might agree that there is more to the story than he otherwise leads us to think.92 3.2. Answer #2: Maimonides Only Wrote for the Perplexed 3.2. Answer #2: Maimonides Only Wrote for the Perplexed R. Yom Tov ben Avraham of Seville (1260–1330), better known as Ritva, writes that R. Yom Tov ben Avraham of Seville (1260–1330), better known as Ritva, writes that Maimonides never meant for his explanation to be taken as the main reason for ritual Maimonides never meant for his explanation to be taken as the main reason for ritual sacrifices in the Torah. Rather, Maimonides meant to offer a rational conceptualization of sacrifices in the Torah. Rather, Maimonides meant to offer a rational conceptualization of ritual sacrificessacrifices so that eveneven aa laypersonlayperson wouldwould bebe ableable toto offeroffer aa logical/rationallogical/rational defense 93 of the practice, if pressed to do so.93 R. Moshe SoferSofer (1762–1830)(1762–1830) writeswrites thatthat although although Maimonides Maimonides presented presented a rationaliza-a rationali- zationtion of of ritual ritual sacrifices sacrifices in thein the Torah Torah (i.e., (i.e., they they serve serve to offsetto offset idolatry), idolatry), he onlyhe only wrote wrote this this for “perplexed”for “perplexed” individuals individuals who who demand demand a logical a logical explanation explanation of the of phenomenon.the phenomenon. However, How- ever,R. R. opinesSofer opines that Maimonides that Maimonides himself himsel understoodf understood that the that Torah’s the Torah’s entire concept entire ofconcept ritual 94 ofsacrifice ritual defiessacrifice human defies logic human and rationalization,logic and rationalization, while its deepest while Kabbalisticits deepest94 Kabbalisticreasons are reasonsnot necessarily are not revealednecessarily to us.revealed95 to us.95

3.3. Answer #3: Maimonides Maimonides Only Only Addresses Private Alta Altarsrs and/or Voluntary SacrificesSacrifices R. Meir Simcha of DvinskDvinsk (1843–1926)(1843–1926)96 lessenslessens the impact of thethe questionsquestions posedposed above by limiting the scope of Maimonides’ explanation. He argues that Maimonides’ statement that thethe purpose of ritual sacrificesacrifice is to wean the Jews from idolatry applies exclusively to sacrifices sacrifices offered on private altars, known as However,However, Maimonides Maimonides never never said said or or meant meant this this regarding regarding sacrifices sacrifices offered 97.(במות) bamos at public altars in the Tabernacle and Holy Temples, andand wouldwould freelyfreely acknowledgeacknowledge that sacrificessacrifices at these public fora serve a higher purpose.9898 R. Dr. Yechezkel EpsteinEpstein offers offers a a similar similar distinction, distinction, proposing proposing that that when when Maimonides Maimoni- writesdes writes that that the reasonthe reason behind behind ritual ritual sacrifices sacrifices is to weanis to wean the Jews the fromJews idolatry,from idolatry, this refers this 99 refersonly to only voluntary to volunt votiveary votive sacrifices, sacrifices,whileError! the Reference reasons source not for found. obligatory while the sacrifices reasons remainfor ob- 100 ligatoryunknown. sacrifices remain unknown.100

3.4. Answer #4: Idolatrous Practices Are Gateways to Impurity R. Aviad Sar-Shalom Bascilla (1680–1749)101 writes that Maimonides’ premise that the Torah forbids that which the idolaters practiced is correct, but the reason Maimonides gives is incomplete. Instead of explaining that the Torah forbade idolatrous practices in order to distance the Jews from idolatry, R. Aviad Sar-Shalom takes a different approach: Idolatrous practices were deliberate and genuine ways of tapping into the world of impure by defiling one’s body and . While idolaters would purposely engage in such behavior so as to channel the evil powers of idolatry, the Torah forbids such actions because of the defiling elements involved. Although in many instances idolaters are neither cognizant nor aware that their rites are means of connecting with the powers of evil, that is nonetheless their entire raison d’etre.102 The Torah eschews ritual impurity and other unclean things (e.g., human excrement) partially because they are conducive to impurity and “give strength” to the powers of evil.103 Idolaters believed that if they could somehow strengthen the powers Religions 2021, 12, 363 10 of 26

of their favored , then they could circumvent the need for God’s influence in the world.104 They denied the fact that God is the Source of Everything and even ultimately powers those perceived other forces.105 Thus, the Torah commands Jews to act in counter-idolatrous ways to “weaken” the powers of evil. For example, those who worship the dual gods Gad/Meni106 do so by setting a table of food and pouring ritual libations (Isa. 65:11). In order to counteract such idolatrous practices, the Torah’s rituals require Jews to eat bread and drink wine under positive, pure conditions (e.g., the Sabbath meals). While Maimonides assumes that the point of these commandment is to not do what the idolaters did, R. Aviad goes a step further and explains that the performance of mitzvos actually undo what the idolaters did. With this idea in , R. Aviad Sar-Shalom explains the rationale of the latter Kings of Judah,107 who plunged into the depths of idolatry, and also engaged in other morally- depraved . These two concurrent developments were not coincidental: The abominable sins committed by the evil Kings of Judah were deliberate means of connecting to the forces of evil and served to strengthen their attachment to idolatry.

3.5. Answer #5: Maharit—Ritual Sacrifice Is Not a Concession to Idolatry Maharit offers a new interpretation of Maimonides’ position, which he uses to address Nachmanides’ objections, as well as his own (see above).108 Maharit explains that when Maimonides wrote that God did not abolish ritual sacrifice because people cannot move from one extreme to the opposite, he could not have possibly meant that people cannot move from idolatrous ritual sacrifice to no ritual sacrifice at all. On the contrary, Maimonides understands that the key to ridding oneself of undesirable character traits and behavior is to temporarily move to the opposite extreme in order to “balance oneself out” so that one can embrace a middle of the road approach.109 Thus, if Maimonides would have written a guide to vanquishing idolatry, presumably he would tell people to stop ritual sacrifice “cold turkey”, instead of allowing them to continue indulging in a “kosher” version. Based on this, Maharit understands that when Maimonides writes that one cannot move from one extreme to another, he means that the Jews would not have been able to move from the extreme of worshipping God through physical/sensory expressions (i.e., ritual sacrifice) to worshipping Him without physical expression (i.e., totally in abstract thought). Because of that, He allowed for them to continue worshipping Him in their former way. In short, Maharit understands that according to Maimonides, the Torah’s ritual sacri- fices were not a concession to the Jews’ idolatrous proclivities; rather, they were a means to allow the Jews to continue worshipping Him in more concrete ways, as they had been doing until then.110

3.6. Ritual Sacrifice Began as a Legit Practice If so, we are left with the question of what Maimonides believes regarding the rela- tionship between ritual sacrifice and idolatry. Maharit explains this by taking a step back and describing the history of ritual sacrifice. Maharit explains that God chose the Jewish nation to be the bearers of His flag and serve as the fulcrum for the global recognition of God’s existence and role in the universe. In truth, this objective can be fulfilled by worshipping God in thought alone. Through prayer, one can use his thoughts to solidify his belief and awareness of God’s role in the world. In fact, prayer—which is mostly an exercise in thought—is considered a form of worship equal to sacrifice. However, since humans are physical beings, they are drawn111 to physical forms of expression, so worship via thought alone does not suffice. For this reason, the early monotheists like Cain, Abel, and Noah devised (either through their own advanced intellect or through divine inspiration) physical ways of worshipping God, i.e., the services of ritual Religions 2021, 12, 363 11 of 26

sacrifices. When these men and their descendants offered ritual sacrifices, they were doing so as a way of serving God and strengthening their own internal devotion to Him. As the generations progressed, people deviated from this ideal and perverted the institution of ritual sacrifice for use in idolatry. They switched the object of ritual sacrifice from God to something else they called “god”. Given this turn of events, we would expect God to spurn the entire notion of sacrifice which had hitherto been a noble act, but was now more closely associated with deviance. Meaning, once sacrifices became associated with deviance, we would have expected God to forbid it entirely, just as (according to Maimonides) the Torah has many commandments that forbid other elements standard to idol worship. About this, Maimonides writes that because ritual sacrifice had already been ingrained in the psyche of the Jews and their forbearers, He did not wish to completely abandon the concept. Therefore, God incorporated a legitimate form of ritual sacrifice within the Torah’s framework, despite the fact that ritual sacrifice in general had already been hijacked for other, unholy, uses. However, the illegitimate elements of ritual sacrifice found in idolatrous cults are so ut- terly rejected by God that the Torah contains certain positive and negative commandments which directly preclude their introduction to Jewish ritual. Those modalities were never legitimate in the first place and have no place in the true worship of God. This explains why the Torah seems to adopt/permit some elements of idolatrous rituals and rejects others. In other words, the Torah permits those elements that were always permitted, legitimate practices, and forbids those idolatrous “add-ons” that were invented later on.112 Thus, according to Maharit, Maimonides never meant to say that countering idolatry is the reason for the institution of ritual sacrifice. Rather, he simply meant to explain why ritual sacrifice was allowed to continue after it became commonly used for idol worship.

3.7. Precedent for Rejecting Once-Beloved Forms of Worship Maharit strengthens his view by citing precedent for the notion that the Torah might reject a modality that was once used for honorable purposes simply because it was later misappropriated for ungodly uses. The Torah says, You shall not erect for yourselves a single-stone altar,113 which Hashem, your God, hates (Deut. 16:22). How can the Torah say that God hates single-stone altars, if we find that in the time of the forefathers, God was pleased with such worship, such as when (Gen. 28:18–22) erected such an altar at Beth El? God even identified Himself to Jacob later on as the One to whom the single-stone altar at Beth El was erected (Gen. 31:45), which shows that Jacob’s actions were laudatory. explains that although God had cherished single-stone altars in of the forefathers, by the time the Jews exited Egypt, He abhorred such constructions because they had been formally adopted by the Canaanites as a medium of idol worship. Once the idolatrous Canaanites began to use single-stone altars for their perverted rituals, God was no longer fond of such tributes and, in fact, forbade them in the Torah.114 Thus, according to Maharit, in the Guide, Maimonides sought to explain why this paradigm did not apply to ritual sacrifice in general. To this end, Maimonides explained that since ritual sacrifice had already gained such a strong foothold, God did not wish to discard it completely. Instead, He simply incorporated this concept into the Torah’s framework.

4. Potential Midrashic Proof to Maimonides’ Position Before we conclude this essay, we will discuss a possible Midrashic proof-text that ap- pears to support Maimonides’ position. This Midrash was said concerning the prohibition of offering sacrifices outside of the central place of worship. The Torah itself explicitly says that the purpose of this prohibition is to stop the Jews from offering sacrifices to demonic satyrs instead of to God (Lev. 17:1–7). In this context, the Midrash relates: Religions 2021, 12, 363 12 of 26

“ Pinchas said in the name of Rabbi : To what is this comparable? To the son of a king who became arrogant and accustomed himself to eating the meat of unslaughtered and moribund animals. The king said, ‘This [son] should always be at my table,115 so that he will refrain [from eating such abominations] on his own.’ Such is the matter with the Jews who were passionately following idolatry in Egypt and they brought sacrifices to the satyrs, as it says, ... and they shall no longer slaughter their sacrifices to the satyrs ... (Lev. 17:7). These ‘satyrs’ are naught but ‘demons,’ as it says, And they slaughtered to demons (Deut. 32:17); and these ‘demons’ are naught but ‘satyrs,’ as it says, . . . And satyrs dance there (Isa. 13:21). And they would offer their sacrifices in violation (of the prohibition) of bamos and punishments would come upon them. So the Holy One, blessed be He, said, ‘they should bring their sacrifices before Me at all times to the Tent of Meeting and they will [thus] abstain from idolatry and they will be saved.’”116 Abarbanel was the first one117 to adduce this Midrash as proof to Maimonides’ posi- tion that the purpose of the Torah’s ritual sacrifices is to wean the Jews from idolatry. He understands that the Midrash explains that God instituted the laws of ritual sacrifices so that the Jews will channel their sacrifices towards Him instead of to alternate . Nonetheless, this proof-text is not as clear-cut as Abarbanel makes it out to be. R. Aviad Sar-Shalom of Bascilla writes that this Midrash does mean to offer a rationale for the concept of ritual in general. Rather, the Midrash only means to explain why God forbade118 all non-sacrificial meats while the Jews were in the wilderness and/or private altars thereafter.119 God forbade the Jews from eating any non-sacrificial meat during their stay in the wilderness and even forbade them from offering sacrifices outside of the central place of worship in order to prevent creating a slippery slope towards idolatry. He wanted them to only eat from His meat (i.e., legitimate sacrificial meat), just like the king in the parable wanted his son to only eat at “his table”. R. Chanoch Zundel of Bialystok (a 19th century Polish commentator)120 explains that this Midrash seeks to explain why forbidding non-sacrificial meat in the desert would help permanently distance the Jews from idolatry, if they would resume eating regular meat once they entered the . The Midrash answers that unspoken question by comparing the matter to a king’s son who ate improper things. The king insisted that the prince always eat at his table. After a period of doing so, the prince will acquire more refined culinary tastes and habits, and from then on will refrain from eating improper things even when left to his own devices. So too, by forbidding the Jews from eating non-sacrificial meat in the desert, the Jews would always “eat at God’s table” and focus their ritual service exclusively on Him for their forty year sojourn in the desert. By doing so, they will become more refined and will not revert to their idolatrous ways when they later enter the Holy Land.121 Either way, the Midrash never intended to provide a general rationale for ritual sacrifice. Instead, it was offering a localized insight into the prohibition of eating non- sacrificial meat in the desert or the prohibition of offering sacrifices outside of the central place of worship. While may have said that these prohibitions were intended to counter idolatrous practice, they said nothing about ritual sacrifices in general.

5. Conclusions In this article, we explored Maimonides’ position on the reason behind sacrifices from various angles. When taken at face value, Maimonides writes that the Torah instituted ritual sacrifices—and other commandments as well—simply to counter idolatrous practice. In doing so, the Torah sometimes mimics pagan rites—i.e., ritual sacrifice—so that those used to such practices would be able to more easily transition to monotheism, yet other times, the Torah outright forbids practices deemed irredeemably idolatrous. Throughout this essay, we encountered much rabbinic pushback against Maimonides’ position with the commentators raising a bevy of questions. Many sources seem to support Religions 2021, 12, 363 13 of 26

the notion that ritual sacrifices have inherent significance, as evidenced by the praisewor- thiness of one who offers many sacrifices and by the rabbis feeling the need to institute formalized prayer when ritual sacrifices was no longer an option. Moreover, we discussed Biblical passages that suggest that ritual sacrifices were purposeful even before the advent of idolatry, and will once again become relevant even after the total elimination of idolatry. These points suggest that ritual sacrifice is not just about weaning the Jews away from idolatry, but has a greater purpose. We saw various approaches aimed at answering those questions, most of which served to effectively soften Maimonides’ stance, and thus lessen the criticism against his view. For example, some explained that Maimonides’ words in the Guide do not reflect his actual po- sition but were only written for polemic purposes, while others maintain that Maimonides would agree to other reasons behind the commandments of ritual sacrifices in addition to the reason he himself provides. Still others minimize Maimonides’ rationalization by confining it to certain types of sacrifices and arguing that it does not apply to all sacrifices. Finally, we saw the Maharit’s position who understands that Maimonides never meant to say that ritual sacrifices were intended to wean the Jews away from actual idolatry, but rather he meant to explain why God did not abolish such practices even though they were popularly used by idolaters. In recent times, Maimonides’ position has led to calls for examining/understanding the Torah by looking at parallel Ancient Near Eastern texts.122 However, the scope of idolatry in the Ancient World was so vast, that it is likely that there would be some idolatrous cult that would either prohibit or prescribe virtually any sort of act. There were an awful of idolaters over the course of history, and collectively they would purposely do or not just about everything imaginable.123 Thus, if some of the Torah’s commandments or prohibitions would either line up with or come in direct conflict with idolaters’ practices, this should have no statistical significance. Accordingly, simply studying Ancient Near Eastern cults to understand how the Torah’s laws negate those rites does not provide us with the whole picture.124 Taken altogether, one sees that there are serious holes in Maimonides’ explanation, even after his rationalizing is all said and done. These gaping lacuna indicate that perhaps even Maimonides himself would agree that simply saying that the Torah intends to counter idolatrous practice or gradually wean the Jews away from such practices is not enough. Most importantly, Maimonides’ approach fails to offer a systematic way of explaining which elements of idolatrous practice the Torah mimics, which ones it outright prohibits, and which ones it simply ignores. Thus, there has to be more to it than just weaning the Jews away from idolatry. There must be more considerations behind the Torah’s decisions and studying Ancient Near Eastern texts will almost certainly not help us discover those reasons.

Funding: This research received no external funding. Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable. Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable. Data Availability Statement: Not applicable. Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest.

Notes 1 Maimonides (there) explains that while God certainly could have changed human nature, He did not want to. 2 Kapach translates the Judeo- word used here as “administrative policy”. (See Kapach 1972, p. 576). 3 An interesting consideration was brought to my attention by Ari Deifik: Does Maimonides mean that God limits these practices given His reluctance to allow these forms of worship in the first place; or does He limit them as a means of differentiation from the idolaters? 4 In Eim la-Mikra Eim la-Masoras (to Lev. 17:6) R. Eliyahu Benamozegh (1822–1900) notes that some argue that the Torah mandates that all sacrifices be offered in one central location in order to minimize the amount of sacrifices brought, Religions 2021, 12, 363 14 of 26

due to ritual sacrifices’ inherently suboptimal nature. Benamozegh disagrees with this and argues that all sacrifices must be brought to one central location staffed by well-trained Kohanim so as to ensure that the sacrifices are offered properly. If sacrifices were deregulated and could be offered by anyone, anywhere, then people might end up ruining their sacrifices. The unspoken tension with which Benamozegh grapples is whether or not (according to Maimonides) sacrifices should be viewed as less than ideal. 5 R. Israel Chait consistently explains that Judaism always follows a logical path, while paganism/idolatry simply reflect outbursts of emotional expressions. In Chait(2011, p. 184), he applies this paradigm to the Torah’s system of ritual sacrifice and somewhat echoes Maimonides in writing: “The sacrifices commanded in the Torah have a unique system of the Temple and the Priests; only with these circumstances and with certain people could sacrifices be brought. In this way, the primitive emotions would also be in check, subordinated to the guidelines and ideas of Halacha. Halacha safeguards our correct use of the Temple; it is regulated by logic and ideas. Conversely, primitive emotions (expressed in pure idolatrous sacrifices) are attached to particular actions and objects. It was vital that man remove himself from that emotional mindset and relate to the universal ideas of Halacha”. 6 S. Y. Klein notes that this is analogous to the Talmudic rationalization of the commandments concerning the captive beautiful woman. The Talmud (TB 21b) famously writes that the Torah only permitted such a woman in order to appease one’s Evil Inclination. Similarly, Maimonides would say that the Torah only permitted/prescribed ritual sacrifices to appease one’s Evil Inclination. See also Maimonides’ Guide 3:41. 7 Granted, it could be argued that post facto God imbued these rituals with secondary meanings/purposes after He already commanded them (see below). 8 Guide 3:32. Maimonides’ grandson R. ha-Naggid (1222–1300) also follows this reasoning, see (Ha-Naggid 1981, p. 4). 9 All of the verses cited above are from the . R. Shnayor Z. Burton(2019, pp. 7–37) argues that the Pentateuch emphasizes ritual sacrifice because it was written from Moses’ perspective. Moses had attained the highest possible form of prophecy, so he recognized that one can never truly know God, and thus one’s only option was to simply obey His commandments as they were given. The prophets, however, had a lower level of prophecy, such that they thought that a person could actually “know God”, and thus they emphasized “knowing Him” over all else. For parallels to this discussion in academic scholarship, see (Kaufmann 1960, pp. 160–61, 345, 365–67). 10 Interestingly, he makes this point in Sefer ha-Mitzvos only when discussing negative commandments, but never when discussing positive commandments. 11 Alternatively, in Chemdas Yamim (to Lev. 19:27 and Deut. 12:31), R. Shalom Shabazi (1619–1720) asserts that some idolatrous cults legislated that a boy must burn his first hairs grown during puberty as a sacrifice to their gods. To counter that practice, the Torah forbade cutting one’s beard altogether. Similarly, Shabazi explains that some cults demanded that farmers burn the first yield of their fields, so to counter that practice, the Torah requires that this produce be brought to Jerusalem (Ex. 23:19, Deut. 26:2). 12 Guide (there) and Sefer ha-Mitzvos (Negative Commandment #43). In Sheilos u-Teshuvos Min ha-Shamayaim (§28), R. Yaakov of Marvege (a 13th century French Tosafist) also offers this reason for the prohibitions of shaving, and even argues that the prohibitions’ association with idolatry justifies rendering extra-stringent rulings. Tur (Yoreh Deah §181) cites and disagrees with Maimonides’ rationale for these prohibitions. He comments that this reason is not explicit in the Bible, noting that one should not seek reasons for the mitzvos, as they are all commandments of the King that are to be followed irrespective of whether their reason is known. R. Yosef Karo in Beis Yosef (there) understands that Maimonides really meant that the rationale for the prohibition is to avoid idolatrous practices and Tur disagrees that one cannot rationalize the commandments. However, R. Moshe Isserles (Darkei Moshe there) explains Tur’s intent differently: While Tur accepts that one can offer theoretical reasons for the commandments, he rejects using those reasons to create practical ramifications in the implementation of the commandments. The reasons must remain in the realm of theory, but cannot affect practical law. Therefore, for example, even if the idolaters’ practices change, the prohibition intended to counter idolatrous practice must always remain in place (certainly, Maimonides himself would agree to this conclusion, see his Guide 3:34). See also Turei Zahav (Yoreh Deah §181:1). 13 Guide (there) and Sefer ha-Mitzvos (Negative Commandment #42). R. Reuven Margolios (1889–1971) notes that we would expect that if the prohibitions of shaving and wearing wool-linen mixtures are to avoid mimicking idolatrous priests, then presumably and Kohanim (the Jewish equivalent to functioning priests) would have to be especially scrupulous in these areas. However, the Bible mandates that Levities completely shave their hair during their inauguration process (Num. 8:7) and that Kohanim must wear wool-linen mixtures in their priestly garments. See (Margolios 1957, pp. 65–66, 96–97; Margolios 1953, pp. 68–69).Interestingly, the Greek historian Herodotus Religions 2021, 12, 363 15 of 26

(484–425 BCE) writes that Egyptian priests wore only linen, and were forbidden from wearing any other material, as he wrote: “The priests ... Their dress is entirely of linen, and their shoes of the papyrus plant: it is not lawful for them to wear either dress or shoes of any other material” (Thatcher 1907, p. 84). In light of this, we can perhaps partially resolve Margolios’ difficulty by positing that since the Torah’s rules were meant to exactly counter idolatrous practices, Jewish priests are commanded to wear wool-linen mixtures in order to diametrically oppose the Egyptian priests’ custom of only wearing linen. 14 Guide (there) and Sefer ha-Mitzvos (Negative Commandment #40). In both places, Maimonides adds that crossdressing is also forbidden because it breeds sexual misconduct and promiscuity. 15 For more about the Sabians and how Maimonides portrays Abraham as the monotheistic hero who opposed them, see (Klein 2018, pp. 52–57). 16 R. Shmuel ibn Tibbon (1150–1230), in his translation of Maimonides’ Guide, adds that this refers to anal intercourse. 17 In Ben Melech (to Ex. 23:19), R. Leib Mintzberg (d. 2018) explains the symbolic significance of cooking a kid in its mother’s milk: The kid is utterly dependent on its mother and her milk for survival. The act of cooking a kid in its mother’s milk therefore highlights the idolater’s claim that they are equally dependent on their deity for all sustenance. 18 Guide 3:48. Gersonides (to Ex. 23:26) argues that the Torah’s polemic against such a practice would have made the pagans erase such a ritual from their records. (See also Toldos Yitzchak (there), Abarbanel (there), and (Kapach 1957, pp. 250, 291). 19 (Cassuto 2005, pp. 49–50) invokes such findings at Ugarit to support Maimonides. However, (see Haran 1978, pp. 12–18; Haran 1983, pp. 371–92) who raises some issues with this reading of the Ugaritic text in question, but still supports the basic premise that there was an ancient pagan ritual that involved cooking meat in milk. (Ratner and Zuckerman 1986, pp. 15–60) closely analyze the Ugaritic tablet in question and conclude that the actual text says nothing about cooking a kid in its mother’s milk. R. Dr. Aton Holzer pointed out to this writer that even those scholars who do not see the word “kid” in the Ugaritic text under discussion agree that the word “milk” is there. From this, we see that the cult at Ugarit used milk in a ritual setting, while the Torah never calls for dairy sacrifices. 20 Maimonides does not mention this example in his Guide, but does mention it in Sefer ha-Mitzvos (Negative Command- ment #45). (Katzenelson 1928, p. 382) makes a similar point about ritual laceration in the Asherah cult. (See Klein 2018, pp. 166–67) concerning the Baal prophets cutting themselves during their showdown with at . R. Dosa the Greek (a 15th century Bulgarian commentator) in (Shapiro and Peles 2018, p. 53) explicitly connects this prohibition with the Baal cult’s practice of ritual laceration. According to documents found at Ugarit, there was an ancient Canaanite custom to mark the yearly “mourning of Baal”, whence devotees would cut themselves and tear out head and beard hair to express their grief over the “” of their god. (See Greenfield 1993, p. 57). Some scholars even understand that this custom is alluded to in Zechariah’s prophecy that mentions the eulogy of Hadadrimmon (Zech. 12:11), (see Montgomery 1914, pp. 78–80). The Torah, of course, explicitly forbids this practice by warning, You shall not make a cut in your flesh for the dead (Lev. 19:28) on which Rashi comments that such was practiced by the Amorites. 21 While Maimonides seems to assume that the Torah’s rules of ritual sacrifice were instituted in reaction to prevalent idolatrous practices, the (JT 1:1) and Rashi (to Amos 4:4–5) maintain that some idolaters instituted their sacrificial rules as a response to the Torah. Their intention was to fashion a more permissive religion with wider appeal than the Torah’s strictures. For example: The Torah chooses its priests from amongst the elite of the tribes, while idolaters appoint their priests from amongst the rejects of . The Torah bans leaving over the Paschal Sacrifice until the next morning, while idolaters purposely do so with parallel sacrifices. The Torah only allows the donors to eat certain sacrificial meats for up to two days, while idolaters allow eating similar sacrifices for up to three days. The Torah forbids offering the Paschal Sacrifice if one has leavened bread in one’s possession, while idolaters allow one to offer their equivalent to the Paschal Sacrifice even if they have leavened bread. The Torah forbids delaying the fulfillment of a votive sacrifice, while idolaters allow for such delays. Radak (to Amos 4:4) adds that while the Torah stipulates that burnt-offerings always precede -offerings, idolaters would instead bring peace-offerings (which are eaten) before burnt-offerings. Needless to say, these explanations do not necessarily conflict with Maimonides’ assertions, because some elements of idolatrous practice/some idolatrous cults that predated the Torah might have been the catalyst for the Torah’s laws, while other, later elements of idolatrous practice may have been formulated as a reaction to the Torah. We will develop some of these ideas later in this essay. 22 Maimonides in his Guide (there) also offers an elaborate explanation of why the Torah prescribes placing a pair of golden cherubim atop the ark as something that emphasizes the concept of One God. Religions 2021, 12, 363 16 of 26

23 Nachmanides to Ex. 20:22 cites and disagrees with Maimonides’ rationale. This is consistent with Nachmanides’ view cited later. 24 Later, the Romans held a suovetaurilia ceremony at certain junctions, which consisted of sacrificing a pig, a ram, and a bull. 25 Maimonides notes that even in his day certain sects in India forbid slaughtering cows. Holy cows continue to exist in , for example see R. Zvi Pesach Frank’s Har Tzvi, Yoreh Deah §118 who was asked in the late 20th century about whether one is allowed to drink the milk from cows worshipped in India. (Parenthetically, in his unpublished book about Hinduism, Dr. Daniel Sperber writes that that R. Frank actually visited India as an expert witness on Jewish law in some sort of legal litigation. However, I was told by a member of the Frank family that he actually went to India to mediate an inheritance dispute for a wealthy Jewish family there.) 26 (Wyatt 2002, pp. 348–56) presents a comprehensive text detailing idolatrous practices for a royal wine festival at Ugarit. These texts reveal that Canaanites sacrificed animals of the bovine, ovine, and caprine families as well as pigeons, meal-offerings, wine-libations, and oil-libations. Additionally, those texts call for sacrificing donkeys (alongside rams) as ritual sacrifices on a holiday associated with “cleansing” (Wyatt 2002, pp. 345–47). This obviously differs from the Torah’s guidelines that preclude using donkeys for ritual sacrifice by limiting the animals allowed for such uses to three families. In a way, this supports Maimonides’ basic assertion that the Torah’s law rules for ritual sacrifice serve to counter the idolatrous approach, as here the Torah prescribes the same exact items to be offered as sacrifices as the Canaanites do, the only difference is that the Torah forbids offering donkeys while the Canaanites sometimes offered donkeys. Interestingly, other cultic practices at Ugarit called for offering inanimate objects—such as a robes, tunics, and other garments, , and silver—as sacrifices (Wyatt 2002, pp. 357–59). See below concerning honey. 27 Maimonides notes that since not every Jew can afford to offer an animal, the Torah sometimes allows one to bring a bird or meal offering instead. He even suggests that because of poverty, the Torah stresses that if one completely refrains from pledging sacrifices, he does not have a sin (Deut. 23:23). 28 Interestingly, the notion that the Paschal offering is somehow antithetical to idolatry is already found in Chazal. The verse withdraw and take for yourselves sheep ... and slaughter the Paschal Offering (Ex. 12:21) is expounded by Mechilta de-Rabbi Yishmael (there) as follows: “Withdraw—from idol worship”. R. Baruch ha-Levi Epstein (1860–1941) in Tosefes Brachach (to Lev. 1:2) cites this source as rabbinic precedent for Maimonides’ idea that ritual sacrifices are meant to oppose idolatrous practice. As we shall see below, Nachmanides disagrees with Maimonides’ general approach of rationalizing ritual sacrifices in the Torah by explaining them as a means of precluding idolatry. Nonetheless, in his commentary to the Pentateuch, Nachmanides (Ex. 12:3)—as well as the (Pinchas 250b)—explains the reasoning behind the Paschal lamb in the same way as Maimonides. Alternatively, Nachmanides explains that the rabbis taught (Shemos Rabbah §16:2) that God commanded the Jews to slaughter a lamb because the Egyptians worshipped sheep and by slaughtering the animal, they were symbolically slaughtering the Egyptian god and showing how they will overcome the Egyptians. In a way, this too follows Maimonides’ basic approach, although it differs from his particular explanation of the Paschal lamb. (Bakst 2012, pp. 53–55) maintains that Nachmanides does not agree with Maimonides’ explanation of the reason behind the commandment of the Paschal Sacrifice. Rather, he explains that Nachmanides did not mean to rationalize the reason behind the commandment, but to offer an additional layer of intentions that a person could/should have when performing the commandment. See there for an exposition delineating the difference between the reasons for commandments and the intentions associated with their performance. 29 Maimonides’ son, R. Avraham Maimuni, takes a different approach in understanding the reason behind the prohibi- tions of offering honey or leavened bread on the altar by allegorizing honey and leavened bread as representing haughtiness and explaining that God abhors such haughtiness (Wincelberg 2008, p. 73). A similar approach is found in Sefer ha-Chinuch ( #117). 30 This explanation is also cited by Gersonides (Lev. 1, Purpose #6–8). (See Kasher 1967, pp. 174–79) for an elaborate study of the connection between leavened breads and idolatry. 31 Nachmanides (to Lev. 2:1) concedes that perhaps Maimonides’ rationale for the prohibition of leavened sacrifices and offering honey on the altar is correct. Nachmanides then suggests that this might be comparable to the case of the matzeivah, which before Sinai was a praiseworthy way of worshipping God, but was banned from Sinai onwards. R. Yaakov Emden takes exception to this comparison, arguing that it is not because idolaters offered such sacrifices that the Torah forbade them but vice versa: because the Torah forbade leavened bread and honey, the idolaters specifically offered those items (Zweibel 2020, p. 323). Although in Ugarit many of the types of ritual sacrifices seem to match up with the Torah’s (see above), the cult at Religions 2021, 12, 363 17 of 26

Ugarit also calls for honey (Wyatt 2002, pp. 41, 150, 351, 428), as well as honeyed wine (Wyatt 2002, p. 198). Now, the Torah clearly prohibits the use of honey and Maimonides explained that this prohibition is aimed at countering the practice of idolaters who used honey in their sacrifices. We even find the use of honey in ritual sacrifice in Canaanite mythology. For example, according to the Baal Cycles when Baal summons the goddess Anat, he requests of her to pour libations of honey in his honor (Wyatt 2002, pp. 78–82). In the Legend of King Karat (another myth found in Ugaritic writings), the childless King Karat is told by El (the supreme god) to sacrifice a lamb, a kid, a turtledove, a bowl of wine, and a bowl of honey to Baal in order to be granted an heir (Pritchard 1992, p. 143). 32 It could be argued that the pagan practice of offering “sweet sacrifices” comes from an overly anthropomorphic conception of the divine. They may have reasoned that if people especially enjoy eating sweet things, then the gods do so as well. The Torah, by contrast, rejects this notion and instead prescribes “salty sacrifices”, because God does not actually “” sacrifices in the same way that a human being tastes the food that he or she eats. 33 Religions 2021Religions, 12, x2021 FORReligions, 12 PEER, x FOR REVIEW2021 PEER, 12, xREVIEW FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 24 17 of 24 17 of 24 Nonetheless, R. Yosef Kapach (1917–2000) suggests that Maimonides’ rationalization of ritual sacrifices (i.e., that people were used to such worship after generations of idol worship and could not easily shed such superstitious practices) may also apply to the usage of wine in libations (Kapach 1972, p. 645). 34 Religions 2021, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 24 Nachmanides33to Lev.Nonetheless,33 17:11 Nonetheless, disagrees R.33 YosefNonetheless, with R.Kapach Yosef Maimonides’ (1917–2000)Kapach R. Yosef (1917–2000) explanationKapach suggest (1917–2000)s suggest that for Maimonides’s the that suggest prohibition Maimonides’ rationalizations that ofMaimonides’ rationalization eating ritual blood, rationalization sacrifices yetritual seems sacrifices (i.e., to ritualthat (i.e., people sacrifices that were people (i.e., us ed thatwere people used were used cite Maimonides’ rationaleto such worshiptoapprovingly such worship afterto generationssuch inafter hisworship generations commentary of afteridol worshipgenerations of idol to Deut. worship and of could 12:23. idol and notworship (Seecould easily also not and shed Ritvaeasily could such inshed not superstitiousSefer easilysuch ha-Zikaron superstitious shed practices) such, Parashas superstitious practices) may also may applypractices) also to apply the may toalso the apply to the Acharei-Mos). usage ofusage wine inof libationswineusage in libations of(Kapach wine in(Kapach 1972, libations p. 645).1972, (Kapach p. 645). 1972, p. 645). 35 33 ThisNonetheless, explanation34 R. isYosefNachmanides also34 Kapach citedNachmanides by (1917–2000) 34to Gersonides Lev.Nachmanides 17:11to suggestLev. disagrees (Lev. 17:11s tothat 1, disagreesLev. Purpose Maimonides’with 17:11 Maimonides’ with #12–13).disagrees rationalizationMaimonides’ explanatwith Maimonides’ explanation ritual for sacrifices theion explanat prohibitionfor (i.e.,the ion prohibitionthat forof people eatingthe prohibition wereof blood, eating used yet blood, of seems eating yet to seemsblood, cite toyet cite seems to cite 36 Oneto examplesuch worship of a Maimonides’after similar generationsMaimonides’ practice rationale of in Maimonides’idol Roman rationale approvingly worship times approvingly rationaleand in is could his documented co approvingly notinmmentary his easily commentary by shed toin R. Deut.his such Shlomo co to12:23.mmentary superstitious Deut. ibn (See 12:23. Verga alsoto Deut. practices)(See Ritva (1460–1554). also12:23. in RitvaSefer may (See ha-Zikaronalsoin also He Sefer apply writesRitva ha-Zikaron, toParashas in the Sefer , Parashasha-ZikaronAcharei-Mos Acharei-Mos, Parashas). Acharei-Mos). ). 35 35 35 thatusage the Templeof wine in ofThis libations Venus explanationThis had (Kapach explanation a is 1972, alsoThis with citedp.explanation is 645). also aby phallic citedGersonides is by devicealso Gersonides cited (Lev. that by 1, wasGersonidesPurpose(Lev. used 1, Purpose#12–13). to (Lev. deflower #12–13).1, Purpose virgin #12–13). girls brought in for 34 36 36 36 thatNachmanides purpose. The toOne priestsLev. example 17:11One would disagreesexample of a then similarOne of gatherwith aexample practice similar Maimonides’ the practiceofin blood aRoman similar ofin explanat times Roman thepractice girls’ is ion documentedtimes in broken forRoman is the documented maidenheadstimesprohibition by R. is Shlomo documented by ofR. ibnShlomoeating and Verga kneadby blood, ibn R. (1460–1554). ShlomoVerga it yet into (1460–1554).seems ibn dough He Verga to writes cite (1460–1554). He that writes the Templethat He thewrites Temple that the Temple of Venusof had Venus a statue hadof withaVenus statue a phallic had with a statuea device phallic with that device a was phallic that used wasdevice to deflower used that to was deflower virgin used girls tovirgin deflower brought girls virginbroughtin for thatgirls in purpose. forbrought that purpose. Thein for priests that The purpose. wou priestsld wouThe priestsld would usedMaimonides’ for baking rationale bread. The approvingly men who in atehis thosecommentary breads to would Deut. 12:23. then be(See rendered also Ritva “holy”. in Sefer ha-Zikaron The girls, themselves Parashas Acharei-Mos were ). 35 then gatherthen the gather bloodthen the of blood thegather girls’ of the the broken blood girls’ maidenheads ofbroken the girls’ maidenheads broken and knea maidenheads andd it kneainto ddough itand into knea used doughd for it into usedbaking dough for bread. baking used The bread. for men baking The who menbread. ate whothose The ate men those who ate those notThis allowed explanation to marry is also afterwards, cited by Gersonides but would (Lev. instead 1, Purpose prostitute #12–13). themselves at high prices to anyone who came to 36 One example of abreads similar would breadspractice then would in beRomanbreads rendered then wouldtimesbe rendered “holy”. is then documented beThe “holy”. rendered girls The bythemselves R.“holy”. girls Shlomo themselves The were ibn girls notVerga themselveswere allowed (1460–1554). not allowedto weremarry Henot to afterwards, writesmarry allowed thatafterwards, to but the marry would Temple afterwards,but instead would prostitute instead but would prostitute instead prostitute the temple, because people believed that any man who engaged in intercourse with them would be absolved of of Venus had a statuethemselves withthemselves a atphallic high pricesdevice themselvesat high to that prices anyone was at highto used whoanyone prices tocame deflower who to to anyone thecame virgintemple, to who the girls camebecausetemple, brought to thebecausepeople temple,in for believed people that because purpose. believed that people an yThe thatman believedpriests an whoy man wouengaged that whold an yengaged in man intercourse who in engagedintercourse in intercourse all histhen sins. gather The the monies bloodwith them of received thewith would girls’ them frombrokenbe wouldwith absolved their themmaidenheads be absolved services ofwould all his be of sins.and would absolved all kneahisThe sins. be moniesd ofit split Theintoall his received betweenmoniesdough sins. The usedreceived from sustaining monies for their baking from servicesreceived their the bread.girls serviceswould from The and their bemen would payingsplit services who between be ate split the would those between sustaining be split sustaining betweenthe girls the sustaining girls the girls administratingbreads would prieststhenand be paying ofrendered theand the templepaying “holy”. administrating andthe (Cohen The administratingpaying girls 2007 prieststhethemselves, administrating p. of 14). priests the were temple of notthe priests (Cohen allowedtemple of 2007,(Cohen theto marry temple p. 14).2007, afterwards, (Cohen p. 14). 2007, but p.would 14). instead prostitute 37 (Ratzabithemselves 199337 at, p. high 192).(Ratzabi prices37 Others(Ratzabi 1993,to anyone take37p. 192).1993, notewho(Ratzabi Othersp. came of192). the 1993, take toOthers carefully-wordedthe p.note temple,192). take of theOthers note because carefully-worded of take the prohibitionpeople carefully-wordednote of believed the prohibition carefully-worded of prostitution.that prohibition an ofy man prostitution. who Insteadprohibitionof prostitution. engaged Instead of usingof in prostitution. intercourse ofInstead using the ofthe using Instead common the of common wordusing the word common word word). implieskedeisha The word aimplies kedeisha a implies a קדשה )kedeisha the word). girl The kedeishas קדשהsustainingthe word). (The קדשהcontext,the the) Torahin from that Torah the (Deut. context,their Torah (Deut. services 23:18) (Deut. the 23:18) Torahuses would 23:18) the uses(Deut. be usesword split the 23:18)the kedeisha between word word uses kedeisha(kedeisha זונה) that monies )context,zonah in context, that received זונהsins. zonahprostitute,) in inThe (that זונה) commonwith them word would forfor be prostitute, prostitute, absolvedfor prostitute, of zonahzonah all hisfor to purposely ),include as as if if to to“sacreinclude purposely purposelyd prostitution”“sacre included include prostitution” “sacre in thed prostitution”banned in the categorybanned in thecategory banned categoryקדוש ) if “holy” to“holy”), purposely as if קדושholy”p. and 14). and), the as (the“קדוש ) Theand word payingkedeisha the administratingconnectionimpliesconnection a between connection priests connectionbetween prostitution of the between templeprostitution between and prostitution(Cohen the prostitution “holy”and 2007, the 37 “sacred(Ratzabi prostitution” 1993, p.of 192). prostitution. in Others theof prostitution. banned take The note of categoryidea prostitution. of The of the widespread idea carefully-worded of prostitution.of Thewidespread idearitual of prostitution widespreadprohibition Theritual idea prostitutionof or ofritu widespread templeprostitution.al prostitution or prostitution temple ritualInstead prostitution or prostitutiontemplein of ancient using prostitution in the idolatrousancient orcommon temple idolatrous in cults ancient word has cults idolatrousbeen has accepte been cultsd accepte has beend accepted that find inkedeisha resembleother). examples The inancient word other kedeisha of kedeisha Semiticancient words in other implies languages. thatSemitic ancient alanguages. However, Semitic However,languages. this this However, this קדשה) by) in mainstream that academia, cults context,byhas mainstream academia, who beenthe Torah find accepted who academia,examples (Deut. find by 23:18)examples mainstreamofwho words usesfind of thattheexamples words academia, wordresemble that kedeishaof resemblewords kedeisha whoזונהprostitutionfor prostitute, in ancient zonahby mainstream ( idolatrous .(ee Westenholz However,), as(s accepted,ee if toWestenholz purposely 1989, this (see ideapp. Westenholz 1989, include245–65; is not pp. “sacre uniformlyGlatt-Gi245–65; 1989,d prostitution”pp.ladGlatt-Gi accepted,245–65;2011,lad p. Glatt-Gi596;2011, in (see the DeGrado p. Westenholzbanned lad596; 2011, DeGrado 2018, category p. 596;pp. 2018, 1–33). DeGrado pp. 1–33). 2018, pp. 1–33קדוש)resembleconnectionkedeisha betweeninidea other prostitution is not ancientidea uniformly is not Semiticand uniformlyidea the accepted, is“holy” languages. not accepted, uniformly (s 38 (Katzenelson38 (Katzenelson 1928,38 pp.(Katzenelson 1928, 381–82). pp. 381–82). 1928, pp. 381–82). 1989of, prostitution. pp. 245–65; TheGlatt-Gilad idea of widespread 2011, p. 596; ritu DeGradoal prostitution 2018 or, pp. temple 1–33). prostitution in ancient idolatrous cults has been accepted 39 This39 doesThis not does 39necessarily notThis necessarily does fit with not necessarilyMaimonides’fit with Maimonides’ fit fourwith reMaimonides’asons four reforasons the four lawsfor rethe ofasons ritulaws alfor ofpurity theritu lawsal and purity of impurity ritu andal purityimpurity (Guide and 3:47): (Guide impurity First, 3:47): he (Guide First, 3:47):he First, he 38 (Katzenelsonby mainstream 1928 academia,, pp. 381–82). who find examples of words that resemble kedeisha in other ancient Semitic languages. However, this idea is not uniformlyexplains accepted,explains that they (s eethat distance Westenholzexplains they distance people that 1989, they from people pp.distance wh 245–65; fromatever people wh Glatt-Giisatever disgusting. from ladis wh disgusting. 2011,atever Second, p. is596; disgusting.Second,they DeGrado reinforc they Second, 2018, ereinforc the pp.sanctity theye 1–33). the reinforc sanctityof the Holye the of the sanctityTemple Holy ofandTemple the holy Holy and Temple holy and holy 39 This does not necessarily fit with Maimonides’ four reasons for the laws of ritual purity and impurity (Guide 3:47): 38 (Katzenelson 1928,foodstuff pp. 381–82).foodstuff by limiting byfoodstuff limitingthe situations bythe limiting situations in wh theich in situationsone wh mayich one enter in maywh theich enter Sanctuary one themay Sanctuary enteror eat the sacred or Sanctuary eat foods. sacred or Third, foods. eat sacred they Third, serve foods. they to Third, servegive some tothey give serve some to give some First, he explains that they distance people from whatever is disgusting. Second, they reinforce the sanctity of the 39 This does not necessarilycredencecredence tofit taboos with toMaimonides’ that credencetaboos were that toalready tabooswerefour rewidelyalready thatasons were observed forwidely alreadythe lawsobserved in widelythe of ancientritu in observed althe purity world.ancient inand Fourth, theworld. impurity ancient thFourth,ey world.(serveGuide th eyto Fourth,3:47): servelimit First, the toth limitey scope he serve the of to scopesaid limit taboos of the said scope taboos of said taboos Holyexplains Temple that and they holyonly distance to foodstuff theonly people realm to bythe offrom limitingrealm onlythe wh sacred to ofatever the the andrealm sacred situations is disgusting.not of theand the realm insacrednot which Second,the of andrealm the one nottheyordinary, of may the thereinforc realm enterordinary, therebye of the the sanctitymaking Sanctuarythereby ordinary, oflifemaking the therebyormuch Holy eat life easier. sacred Temple makingmuch foods.easier. andlife muchholy easier. –Janach ).ibn R. (990– JanachYonah (990–ibn Janach (990 עורות R. ibn Yonah לבובין.() Yonah some עורות .to Fourth, ).levuvin giveR לבובין)oros עורות levuvin world. serve asלבובין )Third,foodstuff they serveby40 limiting toThe give40 Mishnah the someThe situations Mishnah ( credence40Avodah inThe (ZarahwhAvodah Mishnah toich taboos 2:3) one Zarah mentions may(Avodah that 2:3) enter werementions Zarahan the idolatrous already 2:3)Sanctuary an mentions idolatrous widely practice or eatan observed practiceknown idolatroussacred as foods.known inoros practice the levuvinThird, as ancient oros known they theycredence serve to to limit taboos1055) the that scope explains were1055) of already saidexplainsthat this taboos1055) widely thatrefers explains onlythis observed to refersa to practi that the toin this realmce a the practiattested refers ancient ofce theto attestedto a world. bysacredpracti Greek to ceFourth, andby attested historians Greek not th theeyto historians byservewhereb realm Greek toy of limitwhereb idolatershistorians the the ordinary,y scopeidolaters would whereb of thereby removesaid wouldy idolaters taboos theremove heart would the from removeheart a live from the aheart live from a live makingonly to life the much realmanimal easier. of the andsacredanimal offer and and it notas animaloffer a thesacrifice it realm andas a offersacrifice(Bacher of the it asordinary, 1896,(Bacher a sacrifice p. 238).1896, thereby (Bacher Seep. 238). makingalso 1896, SeeMaimonides’ lifep.also 238). much Maimonides’ See easier.commentary also Maimonides’ commentary to the Micommentary toshnah the Mi there.shnah to Thisthe there. Mi authorshnah This has authorthere. This has author has p. (See). 81)1922, R. R. TierneywhoYonah Yonah p. 81)describes ibn ibn1922,who Janach Janach describesp. a 81)Dionysian (990– who a describesDionysian ritual which a ritualDionysian which ritual which עורות ,practice. Tierney1922 לבוביןTheThe Mishnah Mishnah (Avodah (Avodahbeen Zarah unableZarahbeen2:3) 2:3) to mentionsunable find mentions beenoutside to find an unable an idolatrous corroborationoutside idolatrous to find corroboration practice outsidepractice for such corroborationknownknown fora practice. such as oros orosa practice. (Seefor levuvin such Tierney (See (a 40 40 (990–1055)1055) explains explains thatinvolved that this thisrefersinvolved cutting refers to a out practicutting toinvolved athe practicece heart outattested cuttingthe of attested hearta to sacrificial byout of Greek the toa sacrificialby heartgoat. historians Greek of agoat. historianssacrificial whereb y . wherebyidolaters would idolaters remove would the removeheart from the a live 41 41 41 heartanimal from and a live offer animal(See it as Kasher a sacrifice and(See 2004, offerKasher (Bacher pp. it(See 2004, as 60–61; a 1896,Kasher sacrificepp. Izakson p. 60–61; 238).2004, (Bacher Izakson2004). Seepp. also60–61; 1896 2004).Maimonides’ Izakson, p. 238). 2004). commentary See also Maimonides’ to the Mishnah commentary there. This toauthor the has 42 42 For a full42 study of those structural and cosmological similarities, (see McCullough 2007; as well as Garfinkel and Mumcuoglu Mishnahbeen unable there. to This findFor author outsidea full study hascorroboration beenof thoseFor unable a structural fullfor tosuchstudy find aand ofpractice. outside those cosmological structural (See corroboration Tierney similarities, and 1922, cosmological for p. (s such 81)ee McCulloughwho a similarities, practice. describes 2007; (See a(s Dionysianee Tierneyas McCullough well as 1922ritual Garfinkel ,2007; which p. as and well Mumcuoglu as Garfinkel and Mumcuoglu 2019, pp.2019, 1–17). pp. For 1–17). 2019,an analysis For pp. an 1–17). analysisof how For temple-buildinganof howanalysis temple-building of how was temple-building the wasresponsibility the responsibility was of the the re kingsponsibility of the in bothking Biblicalofin theboth king andBiblical in pagan both and milieus,Biblical pagan milieus,and pagan milieus, 81)involved who describes cutting aout Dionysian the heart of ritual a sacrificial which goat. involved cutting out the heart of a sacrificial goat. 41 (see Kapelrud(see Kapelrud 1963,(see pp. 1963, Kapelrud56–62). pp. Most56–62). 1963, interestingly, pp.Most 56–62). interestingly, Most(see Rick interestingly, (sees and Rick Carters and(see 1994, CarterRick pp.s and1994, 152–76) Carter pp. 152–76)who 1994, compares pp. who 152–76) compares various who variouscommon compares common various common 41 (See(See Kasher Kasher 2004 2004,, pp. pp. 60–61; 60–61; IzaksonIzakson 2004). 2004). 42 For a full study ofthemes those that themesstructural run thatthrough andthemes run co throughvarioussmological that run accountsvarious through similarities, accounts of varioustemple (s ofee building accounts templeMcCullough building in of ancient temple 2007; in paganbuildingancientas well cults, paganas in Garfinkel ancient the cults, Bible, pagan theand and Bible, Mumcuoglu cults,even and Mormons.the even Bible, Mormons. and (In aeven future (InMormons. a future (In a future 42 For a full study of those structural and cosmological similarities, (see McCullough 2007; as well as Garfinkel and 2019, pp. 1–17). Forwork, an thisanalysiswork, author this of hopeshow authorwork, temple-building to thishopes discuss author to if/howdiscuss hopes was Maimonides’ if/how tothe discuss re sponsibilityMaimonides’ if/how approa Maimonides’ ofch approa the can king helpch incan explainapproa both help Biblical ch theexplain can appear helpand the ance pagan explainappear of milieus,pagan ancethe appear of mythemes paganance mythemes of in pagan the inmythemes the in the Mumcuoglu(see Kapelrud 2019 1963,Bible.), pp. pp. 1–17). Bible.)56–62). For Most anBible.) analysisinterestingly, of how (see temple-buildingRicks and Carter 1994, was thepp. responsibility152–76) who compares of the king various in bothcommon Biblicalthemes and that pagan43 run Seethrough milieus,43 Abarbanel Seevarious (seeAbarbanel43 (to accountsKapelrud Lev.See 18:3)(toAbarbanel ofLev. who1963temple 18:3) writes, (to pp. buildingwho Lev. 56–62).that writes 18:3) thein ancient whoEgyptiansthat Most thewrites interestingly,pagan Egyptians we that recults, thekeen we Egyptiansthe onre (see Bible, keeneating Ricks andon we blood, eatingre even and keen while Mormons. Carterblood, on eatingthe while 1994 Canaanites (In blood, ,the a pp. future Canaanites while were the not. Canaaniteswere not. were not. 152–76)work, who this author44 compares Gersonides hopes44 various Gersonidesto discuss (to44 Lev. common if/how Gersonides1,(to Purpose Lev. themesMaimonides’ 1, Purpose #6–8).(to thatLev. Rash run#6–8). 1,approa Purposei (to through Rash Deut.ch can i#6–8). (to 12:23) varioushelp Deut. Rash explainexplains 12:23)i accounts(to Deut. theexplains that appear 12:23)the of templeTorahthatance explains the especiallyof buildingTorah pagan that especially themythemes stresses in Torah ancient thestresses especially in prohibition the the stressesprohibition of eat theing prohibitionof eating of eating paganBible.) cults, the Bible,blood andbecauseblood even becausethe Mormons. Jewsblood the were because Jews (Insteeped were a the future steepedinJews the work, were consumption in thesteeped this consumption author in of the bloo hopes consumptiond. of However, bloo to discussd. However, ofR. bloo Dosa if/howd. R. theHowever, Dosa Maimonides’Greek the clarifiesR. Greek Dosa clarifies thatthe GreekRashi that doesclarifies Rashi not does that Rashinot does not 43 approachSee Abarbanel can help (toliterally explainLev. 18:3) literallymean the who appearancethat meanwrites literallyJews that that were of Jewsmeanthe paganaccustomed Egyptians were that mythemes Jewsaccustomed we to werere eating keen inaccustomed to the onblood; eating eating Bible.) ra blood; ther,blood,to eating theyra whilether, blood;were thethey involved Canaanitesra werether, involvedthey in werefeeding were not.in involved feedingblood to bloodin demons feeding to demonsfor blood the tofor demons the for the 43 44 SeeGersonides Abarbanel (to (to Lev.purposes Lev. 1, 18:3)Purposepurposes of whodivination #6–8). writes ofpurposes divinationRash (Shapiro thati (to of the Deut. (Shapiro divinationand Egyptians 12:23)Pele ands 2018,explains(Shapiro Pele were pp.s 2018, keen thatand50–51). thePelepp. on TorahR.50–51). eatings 2018,Chaim especially pp. blood,R. of Chaim 50–51). Friedberg while stresses of R. Friedberg Chaim the(the the Canaanites Maharal prohibition of (the Friedberg Maharal of ’s were of (theeat ofing MaharalPrague’s brother) of brother)makes Prague’s a makes brother) a makes a not.blood because thesimilar Jews pointweresimilar steeped(Schneeblag pointsimilar in(Schneeblag the 1971,point consumption p.(Schneeblag 1971,29). Accord p. of 29). bloo 1971,ing Accordd. to However,p. Nachmanides, 29).ing toAccord Nachmanides,R. Dosaing the tothe prohibitionNachmanides, Greek the prohibitionclarifies of Dothe that not prohibitionof Rashi eatDo on not does the eat of bloodnot onDo the not(Lev. blood eat 19:26) on (Lev. the is blood19:26) (Lev. is 19:26) is literally mean thatintended Jews intended wereto forbid accustomed to preciselyintended forbid preciselyto thisto eating forbid practice, thisblood; precisely practice, while rather, thisaccording while they practice, accordingwere to whileIb involvedn to according Ib (there) nin Ezra feeding it to(there) refersIb nblood Ezra itto refers the to(there) demonsEgyptian to theit refers Egyptianfor divination the to the divination Egyptian practice practicedivinationof of practice of purposes of divinationactually (Shapiro actuallyeating blood. andeatingactually Pele blood.s 2018, eating pp. blood. 50–51). R. Chaim of Friedberg (the Maharal of Prague’s brother) makes a similar point45 (SchneeblagSee45 Mishnah See 1971, Mishnah (Chullin45 p. 29).See (2:9).Chullin MishnahAccord See 2:9).alsoing (Chullin SeeZoharto Nachmanides, also (3:70a).2:9). Zohar See (3:70a). also the Zohar prohibition (3:70a). of Do not eat on the blood (Lev. 19:26) is intended to46 forbid(See 46precisely Biton(See 2012, thisBiton46 p. practice, 453).2012,(See Shabazi’sBitonp. while453). 2012, Shabazi’s according ostensible p. 453). ostensible Shabazi’sto source Ibn Ezra for source ostensible his (there) assert for hisit sourceion refers assert concerning fortoion histhe concerning assertEgyptian the aforementionion concerning thedivination aforementioned thepracticeidolatrous aforementioned idolatrousof practiceed practice isidolatrous Rashi is Ra practiceshi is Rashi actually eating blood.to Ezek. to8:17. Ezek. That 8:17. said,to That Ezek. Radak said, 8:17. (there) Radak That clearly said, (there) Radak explains clearly (there) explains the “smeclearly thell ofexplains “sme flatulence”ll of the flatulence” “sme to bell a of metaphoric toflatulence” be a metaphoric reference to be a metaphoricreference to idolatrous to reference idolatrous incense. to i ncense.idolatrous incense. 45 See Mishnah47 (ChullinSee47 TB 2:9). BrachosSee See TB also47 22b–23a,Brachos ZoharSee 22b–23a,TB 24b–26a.(3:70a). Brachos 24b–26a. 22b–23a, 24b–26a. 46 (See Biton 2012,48 p.(See 453).48 Biton Shabazi’s(See 2012, Biton48 p. ostensible 2012,405).(See AlthoughBitonp. 405). source 2012, Although Shabazifor p. his405). assert Shabazipres Althoughentsion concerningpres this Shabazients as a thisvariant presthe as aforemention entsa versionvariant this as ofversion aTBed variant idolatrousPesachim of TB version 113a, practice of I TBhave 113a, isPesachim Rabeen Ishi have unable 113a, been Ito unablehave find beena to find unable a to find a to Ezek. 8:17. Thatparallel said, Radak toparallel this (there) in to any thisparallel clearly extant in any toexplains manuscript extantthis in themanuscriptany “sme of extant thatll of Talm manuscript offlatulence” thatudic Talm passage oftoudic thatbe a passageor metaphoricTalm in anyudic or rabbinic inpassage reference any rabbinicsource or toin idolatrousany (see source rabbinic also (see TBincense. sourceShabbosalso TB (see 80a).Shabbos also In SeferTB80a). Shabbos In Sefer 80a). In Sefer 47 See TB Brachos 22b–23a,ha-Mitzvos 24b–26a.ha-Mitzvos (Negative ha-Mitzvos(Negative Commandment Commandment(Negative #41), Commandment Maimonides #41), Maimonides writes#41), Maimonides thatwrites the thatprohibition writesthe prohibition that of tattooingthe prohibitionof tattooing (Lev. 19:28)of (Lev. tattooing is 19:28) related (Lev. is torelated 19:28) tois related to 48 (See Biton 2012, idolatrousp. 405). Althoughidolatrous cultic practice, Shabazi culticidolatrous practice, this pres tooculticents seemsthis this practice, too asto seems abe variant thisrelated to too be version culticseems related make-up toof cultic beTB related Pesachim make-up or coloring. cultic 113a, or make-up coloring. I have beenor coloring. unable to find a parallel to this49 inTranslation any49 extantTranslation follows manuscript49 Translation Williamfollows of that WilliamWhiston, followsTalm Whiston,udic acce William passagessible acce Whiston,at: ssibleor https://en.wikisource.org/wiki in anyat: acce https://en.wikisource.org/wiki rabbinicssible at: source https://en.wikisource.org/wiki (see also/Against_Apion/Book_I TB Shabbos/Against_Apion/Book_I 80a)./Against_Apion/Book_I In Sefer(accessed (accessed on 13 May on (accessed 13 May on 13 May ha-Mitzvos (Negative2021). Commandment2021). 2021). #41), Maimonides writes that the prohibition of tattooing (Lev. 19:28) is related to idolatrous cultic50 Translationpractice,50 Translation this follows too50 seemsTranslation followsKenneth to be relatedKenneth Wellesley,follows cultic Wellesley,Kenneth make-upaccessible Wellesley, accessibleor at:coloring. https://w at:accessible https://www.livius.org/sources/content/tacitus/tacitus-on-the-jews/ at:ww.livius.org/sources/content/tacitus/tacitus-on-the-jews/ https://www.livius.org/sources/content/tacitus/tacitus-on-the-jews/ 49 Translation follows(accessed William(accessed on Whiston, 13 May on(accessed 2021). 13acce Mayssible 2021).on at: 13 https://en.wikisource.org/wikiMay 2021). /Against_Apion/Book_I (accessed on 13 May 2021). 51 (Assmann51 (Assmann 1996,51 p. 52)1996,(Assmann terms p. 52) this 1996,terms doctrine p. this 52) doctrine “normative terms this “normative doctrine inversion” “normative inversion” and explains aninversion”d explains that the an introductionthatd explains the introduction that of a the counter-memory introduction of a counter-memory of serves a counter-memory serves serves 50 Translation followsto supersede Kennethto supersede and Wellesley, replaceto and supersede a replace rejectedaccessible and a rejectedphilosophy. replace at: https://wphilosophy. a rejected In thisww.livius.org/sources/content/tacitus/tacitus-on-the-jews/ case, philosophy. In this the case, introduction In th ethis introduction case, of the the Torah’s introduction of the laTorah’sws servesof thelaws Torah’sto serves supplant latows supplant the serves previ totheous supplant previ ous the previous (accessed on 13 Maypagan 2021). practices.pagan practices. Seepagan also See(Assmann practices. also (Assmann 2005,See also pp. 2005, (Assmann 166–68) pp. (a166–68) 2005,similar pp.(a point similar 166–68) is madepoint (a similar isby made Stern point by 1997, isStern made p. 187).1997, by Sternp. 187). 1997, p. 187). 51 (Assmann 1996, p. 52) terms this doctrine “normative inversion” and explains that the introduction of a counter-memory serves to supersede and replace a rejected philosophy. In this case, the introduction of the Torah’s laws serves to supplant the previous pagan practices. See also (Assmann 2005, pp. 166–68) (a similar point is made by Stern 1997, p. 187).

Religions 2021, 12, 363 18 of 26

44 Gersonides (to Lev. 1, Purpose #6–8). Rashi (to Deut. 12:23) explains that the Torah especially stresses the prohibition of eating blood because the Jews were steeped in the consumption of blood. However, R. Dosa the Greek clarifies that Rashi does not literally mean that Jews were accustomed to eating blood; rather, they were involved in feeding blood to demons for the purposes of divination (Shapiro and Peles 2018, pp. 50–51). R. Chaim of Friedberg (the Maharal of Prague’s brother) makes a similar point (Schneeblag 1971, p. 29). According to Nachmanides, the prohibition of Do not eat on the blood (Lev. 19:26) is intended to forbid precisely this practice, while according to Ibn Ezra (there) it refers to the Egyptian divination practice of actually eating blood. 45 See Mishnah (Chullin 2:9). See also Zohar (3:70a). 46 (See Biton 2012, p. 453). Shabazi’s ostensible source for his assertion concerning the aforementioned idolatrous practice is Rashi to Ezek. 8:17. That said, Radak (there) clearly explains the “smell of flatulence” to be a metaphoric reference to idolatrous incense. 47 See TB Brachos 22b–23a, 24b–26a. 48 (See Biton 2012, p. 405). Although Shabazi presents this as a variant version of TB Pesachim 113a, I have been unable to find a parallel to this in any extant manuscript of that Talmudic passage or in any rabbinic source (see also TB Shabbos 80a). In Sefer ha-Mitzvos (Negative Commandment #41), Maimonides writes that the prohibition of tattooing (Lev. 19:28) is related to idolatrous cultic practice, this too seems to be related cultic make-up or coloring. 49 Translation follows William Whiston, accessible at: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Against_Apion/Book_I (ac- cessed on 13 May 2021). 50 Translation follows Kenneth Wellesley, accessible at: https://www.livius.org/sources/content/tacitus/tacitus-on- the-jews/ (accessed on 13 May 2021). 51 (Assmann 1996, p. 52) terms this doctrine “normative inversion” and explains that the introduction of a counter- memory serves to supersede and replace a rejected philosophy. In this case, the introduction of the Torah’s laws serves to supplant the previous pagan practices. See also (Assmann 2005, pp. 166–68) (a similar point is made by Stern 1997, p. 187). 52 Lev. 1:9. 53 According to the Talmud (TB Shabbos 28b, Chullin 60a), also engaged in animal sacrifice. Nachmanides seemingly omits this example because it is not explicit in the Bible. 54 Mitpachas Sefarim to Emunas Chachamim, ch. 10 and (Zweibel 2020, pp. 321–22). Later in this essay, we reframe this question as a contradiction within Maimonides’ own writings. 55 (Stern 1997, pp. 225–31) offers an extensive study on Nachmanides’ stance vis-à-vis this approach. The upshot of his findings is that Nachmanides does not disagree with the notion of finding historical reasons for the commandments in principle, but rather rejects certain examples of that approach found in the Guide because he understood them to contradict the Bible’s literal meaning. See also Pinchot(1999) who expands on the differences between Maimonides and Nachmanides’ view of sacrifices. 56 Ritva in Sefer ha-Zikaron, Parashas explains that Balaam simply borrowed the concept of ritual sacrifice from the Jews who had already received the Torah at . The Midrash (Bamidbar Rabbah §20:18, see also Rashi to Num. 23:4) explains that Balaam offered sacrifices on seven altars in order to counter the seven altars upon which the Jewish forefathers had earlier brought sacrifices. 57 See also the commentaries by R. Moshe of Narbonne (i.e., “The Narbonnite”) and R. Tov to Maimonides’ Guide. (See also Nachmanides to Ex. 22:19 regarding the reason behind sacrifices.) 58 Ben Shapiro confuses Maimonides and Nachmanides when discussing this point, as he writes: “Why, then, does the Bible focus so much on seemingly pagan sacrifices? Because Biblical sacrifices aren’t designed merely to appease a higher power. They’re designed to change us, to teach us something. Maimonides argues that sacrifices were originally designed to woo polytheists toward monotheism by repurposing an ingrained cultural ritual and directing it away from sheer appeasement and toward self-betterment. According to Maimonides, sacrifices are intended to remind us that we ought to pay for our sins ourselves, and that only the mercy of God allows us to escape that accountability” (Shapiro 2019, p. 36). 59 Akeidas Yitzchak (Shaar #57). 60 We may address this point by clarifying that Maimonides only seems to have explained why the concept of legitimate ritual sacrifices came into existence in the first place. However, Maimonides would presumably agree that once the Torah instituted this form of worship, it took on “a life of its own” as a totally legitimate form of worship. Thus, the more one worshipped God with this modality, the more praiseworthy he was, regardless of the reason for the existence of this modality. 61 TB Brachos 26b. Religions 2021, 12, 363 19 of 26

62 Katzenellenbogen(1985, pp. 4–5). Similar to what we wrote above, this difficulty can also be addressed by noting that even Maimonides might concede that once the Torah established ritual sacrifices as legitimate means of worship, then it became something important such that it makes sense that the rabbis would feel the need to institute formalized prayer to replace it. On the contrary, Maimonides would likely maintain that the shift from ritual sacrifice to prayer actually reflects the ideal progression away from idolatry towards more abstract forms of worship. Thus, this shift not only does not contradict Maimonides’ position, it actually dovetails quite nicely with his worldview. 63 Because of the difficulties with Maimonides’ position, R. Yaakov Emden (Mitpachas Sefarim to Emunas Chachamim, ch. 10) surmises that Maimonides did not actually write the Guide. He finds it particularly farfetched to say that the same person wrote both the Guide and the Mishneh Torah. R. Yerucham Leiner of Radzin (1888–1964) criticizes Emden’s supposition by noting, inter alia, that the Guide was published and widely disseminated during Maimonides’ lifetime, yet nobody ever claimed that he did not write it. Leiner therefore concludes that Emden did not really believe what he wrote, and that there is no reason to doubt Maimonides’ authorship of the Guide (Leiner 1951, pp. 159–60). ( famously offered an approach to reconcile the apparently contradictory approaches between the Guide and the Mishneh Torah. For a summary of his approach and various objections to it, (see Hartman 1977; Landy 2020, pp. 97–113).) See also Meshech Chochmah (to Ex. 20:3) who claims that everything Maimonides writes in his three major works (Mishnah Torah, Guide, and commentary to the Mishnah) always follows one unified approach. Henshke(1996) uses this issue as a case study to examine the broader question of internal consistency in Maimonides’ various works. 64 Avodah Zarah 1:5. 65 To TB Avodah Zarah 5b. 66 Ritva (to TB Avodah Zarah 5b) adds that this is already mentioned in Bereishis Rabbah when discussing idolatry’s advent in the time of Enosh. The author could not locate this passage in Bereishis Rabbah, but refers the reader to (Klein 2018, pp. 35–44) which offers a fuller discussion of the idolatrous that began in Enosh’s generation. 67 Trani(1648, pp. 105a–106a). 68 This argument is not as strong as it sounds, because many major trends in human history can take centuries to shift. In fact, the Bible itself documents the Jews’ recurring reversion to idolatry over a span of a millennium. 69 TB Kesubos 62b. 70 (Klein 2018, pp. 244–76) offers an in-depth treatment of the tradition concerning the demise of the Evil Inclination for idolatry at the onset of the period. See there for a discussion of whether this development only affected the Jews or even non-Jews. 71 (Kook 1984, pp. 18–19). However, R. Kook deflects his criticism by explaining that the goal of eradicating idolatry is timeless and thus always applicable (Kook 2004, pp. 267–68). Moreover, in Ein Ayah (to TB Shabbos 23b, §26), R. Kook writes that there can be multiple reasons behind the commandments which are all concurrently true. 72 A softer version of this question is asked by R. Moshe Isserles in Toras ha-Olah (2:1), who finds Maimonides’ explanation insufficient to justify desecrating the Sabbath and festivals in order to bring sacrifices. He reasons that if the ritual sacrifices themselves have no inherent value and are simply a means to fight against idolatry, then they should not be important enough to supersede the Sabbath and festivals. 73 (See Silver 2018, pp. 238–39). 74 Interestingly, R. Kook writes that in the Messianic Era, all humans and animals will attain the level of intelligence needed to fully recognize God’s dominion over the world. Accordingly, he writes that animal sacrifices will be rendered obsolete and only offerings of flora—i.e., meal—will be reinstituted. He finds support for this in the words of who said, Then shall the meal-offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant ... (Mal. 3:4), mentioning only the meal-offering, and not animal-offerings (Kook 1939, p. 292). In addition to the manifest linguistic inaccuracy in this explanation (i.e., because the word minchah in means “gift” or “offering”, and only in Mishnaic Hebrew refers to a “meal-offering” in specific), there is an even deeper inconsistency. R. Kook’s explanation clearly contradicts Ezekiel’s prophecies, which foretell of animal sacrifices’ reinstatement in the future Temple—even if not exactly in the same way as prescribed by the Torah. Maimonides himself even seems to agree to the future restoration of animal sacrifices by codifying the laws of ritual sacrifices as presented in the Talmud into his Halachic work Mishneh Torah. The closest known parallel to R. Kook’s assertion is the Midrashic teaching (Midrash Tanchuma, §14 and Vayikra Rabbah §9:7) that all sacrifices will be discontinued in the future except for the thanksgiving-offering—which is always accompanied by leavened and unleavened loaves of bread (i.e., meal). (R. Yehuda Leib Sirkis (1652–1733) in Livyas Chein (Parashas Vayikra) offers a detailed analysis of why sin-offerings and guilt-offerings will be discontinued in the Messianic Era). Religions 2021, 12, 363 20 of 26

75 Maimonides in Guide 3:34 discusses why, per force, the commandments must remain immutable such that they remain applicable even when the reason(s) behind them is/are no longer relevant. Nonetheless, his explanation does not allay R. Kook’s concerns because it still fails to give the practice any contemporary meaning or significance. 76 The Talmud (TB Kesubos 111a) relates that the Jewish People took an oath that they will not reveal to the gentiles “the secret”, which Rashi (in his second explanation) understands refers to the reasons behind the comments. See also TB Pesachim 119a about revealing the reasons for the commandments. 77 (Binder 2012, p. 83). 78 (Rubiés 2006, pp. 587–89). 79 See also (Stern 1997, pp. 203–4) who also raises this apparent contradiction. 80 Laws of Meilah 8:8. 81 See Shemonah Perakim ch. 6 and Guide 3:26. Cf. Guide 3:31, who cites Deut. 4:6 to show that even the so-called chukim must, per force, have some sort of understandable rationale. 82 See Ben Melech (Vayikra vol. 1, Maamarim §3). These two passages can be reconciled via a third passage in which Maimonides writes (Laws of 4:13) that even though all the Torah’s chukim are simply Divine imperatives, it is still worthwhile for people to contemplate these commandments and try to discern their reasons as much as humanly possible. 83 Laws of Melachim 11:1. 84 (See Phillips 2019, p. 334) who makes this point. 85 R. David of Estella (ha-Kochavi)—a 13th century Provençal sage who was a moderate follower of Maimonidean thought—mentions that Maimonides has an approach to the reason behind ritual sacrifices, and that there are many complications with this approach. However, instead of actually spelling out what Maimonides says and the difficulties with his position, R. David simply mentions the relevant chapters in the Guide without citing what they say (Hershler 1982, p. 124). 86 To Lev. 8. 87 See R. Yitzchak Karo who also writes (Toldos Yitzchak to Lev. 1:2) that even Maimonides never meant that the entire purpose of ritual sacrifices was to displace idolatry; rather, this was a secondary effect of the commandments of ritual sacrifices, while its primary reason remains hidden. Rabbi Meir Yonah Barnitzky-Shatz (1817–1891) supports this assertion based on Maimonides’ comments in his Laws of Meilah 8:8, see Har ha-Moriah (there). 88 In his introduction to Leviticus (ch. 4). Abarbanel resolves Nachmanides’ question from Adam and his sons offering sacrifices by explaining that even Maimonides would admit that those early humans offered sacrifices for the same reasons Nachmanides gives for ritual sacrifices in general. Abarbanel says the same about Noah, but adds that by Noah’s time idolatry had already take hold, so Noah was also motivated by the need to counter idolatrous practice. R. Moshe Isserles in Toras ha-Olah (2:1) resolves the question from Adam through the Midrashic sources that teach (Tanchuma, Pekudai §3 and Pirkei de-Rabbi , ch. 11) that after Adam was created, some elements of creation thought that he was actually the creator. In order to counter this misimpression, Adam offered sacrifices to God to show that He is the true creator and He is above Adam. This, of course, somewhat parallels Maimonides’ understanding of the rationale behind ritual sacrifices as intending to counter the idolatrous point of view. 89 R. Moshe Isserles in his introduction to Toras ha-Olah characterizes Maimonides’ explanation in the Guide as , but intimates that more esoteric layers of understanding can also be found for the Torah’s ritual sacrifices. 90 See Nachmanides to Deut. 22:6. 91 Maimonides (Guide 3:51–52) also writes that the purpose of all the Torah’s commandments is to help a person shift his or her thoughts to focus on God and fear Him, instead of concentrating on the physical world. This suggests that the purpose of the commandments is simply to make people cognizant of God in their everyday life, which seemingly contradicts the notion that each commandment has its own separate rationale. Rabbi Shnayor Z. Burton resolves this tension by postulating that the rationale for the commandments as Maimonides presents them only applies to the majority of people (see Guide 3:34). Accordingly, when Maimonides states that the purpose of the Torah is to lead people to thinking about God and fearing Him, this was only said about those rare individuals who will be able to utilize the commandment to achieve that end, but the other rationale that Maimonides gives were meant to explain the purpose of the commandments for the masses who will not ultimately be able to use the commandments to focus their minds solely on God. See S. Z. Burton, “The Reasons for Mitzvos According to the Rambam”, The Great Sources (Podcast). Available online: https://amzn.to/3gNfoPv (accessed on 13 May 2021). 92 Maimonides’ son R. Abraham Maimuni admits that the reasons that his father gives for commandments simply reflect his learned opinions are not meant to be taken as absolutes. He concedes that there may be other reasons for the commandments that Maimonides does not take into account, and overall does not implicate somebody who Religions 2021, 12, 363 21 of 26

rejects the reasons for the commandments as expressed by Maimonides (Margolios 1953, p. 68). (See Phillips 2019, pp. 335–36) who similarly suggests that Maimonides might agree that the primary reason behind sacrifices was to help the Jews withdraw from pagan practices, but that once legitimate sacrifices already existed, God subsequently imbued them with other, secondary reasons. 93 Sefer ha-Zikaron, Parashas Vayikra. See also responsa Rivash (§45), and Migdal Oz (to Maimonides’ Laws of Yesodei ha-Torah 1:10). 94 R. Aharon Marcus (1843–1916) also maintains that many of Maimonides’ “rationalist” positions were simply meant for polemical purposes and do not reflect a rejection of /mysticism. Marcus(2016, pp. 265–66, 306) reports a story he heard from R. Moshe Sofer’s son, R. (1820–1883): One time, R. Shimon Sofer was strolling with his father alongside the Danube River in Pressburg (modern-day ) and the topic of conversation turned to Maimonides and his seemingly non-Kabbalistic views. R. Moshe Sofer told his son that the path of Maimonides and the path of Kabbalah is one and the same. The elder R. Sofer likened the matter to a topographical fact about his German hometown, . Frankfurt sits at the confluence of the Main and rivers. In truth, the Main River is a tributary of the Rhine, but if one does not look at the place where the two converge, the two rivers seem completely separate. So too, explained R. Sofer to his son, although Maimonides and Kabbalah seem at odds with each other, their points of convergence show that they are all part of one greater system. 95 Sofer(2008a, p. 26). Similarly, he also writes that the rationales Maimonides presents in his Guide are meant for apologetic purposes to simply quell the hearts of the laymen (Sofer 2008b, p. 385). Elsewhere, R. Moshe Sofer (in Chiddushei Chasam Sofer to TB Chullin 132b) seems to entirely reject Maimonides’ approach, but stops short of calling it heretical: The Talmud (TB Chullin 132b) rules that any who “does not agree with the service [in the Holy Temple]” is not entitled to receive a portion of the priestly gifts. The commentaries assume that this Kohen is a heretic who deserves a more serious punishment. However, R. Sofer explains that this Kohen does not deny the Torah’s Divine ordinances, but rather incorrectly understands that the services of the Holy Temple are simply a means for eliminating idolatry (like Maimonides seems to write in his Guide), but are not important in their own right. Such a person is technically not a heretic, but nonetheless loses the priestly gifts to which he would otherwise be entitled. 96 Meshech Chochmah (introduction to Lev.). 97 The rule of thumb regarding private altars is that they were permitted only in the absence of a permanent central altar in the Tabernacle/Temple (Mishnah 14:4–8). Thus, one would assume that after the destruction of the Temple, private altars would once again become permitted; however, according to halacha, they remain forbidden. Why? One opinion maintains that this is because the Temple’s site retains its sanctity even after the Temple’s destruction (so any theoretical sacrifices would have to be offered there, and not on private alters). The second opinion, held by the Tosafist R. Chaim ha-Cohen (see Tosafos to TB 10a) is that private altars are forbidden, even if the sanctity of the Temple’s site does not remain. R. Meir Simcha proposes that R. Chaim ha-Cohen’s reasoning is that given that the entire purpose of sacrifices on private altars is to help distance one from idolatry, once the Evil Inclination for idolatry was eliminated (at the beginning of the Second Temple Era), there is no justification whatsoever for sacrificing at private altars. According to this, even when there is no other permanent central altar, bamos are not permitted. (For more about the prohibition of private altars and R. Chaim ha-Cohen’s position, see R. C. Klein, “Two Jewish Temples in Egypt”, Seforim Blog (12 January 2019) URL: https://seforimblog.com/2019/01/two-jewish-temples-in-egypt/ (accessed on 13 May 2021). The Bible (I Kgs. 3:2) criticizes the Jews at the onset of King Solomon’s reign by noting that they offered sacrifices on private altars. However, that criticism is difficult to understand because at that point in time (after the destruction of the Tabernacle at yet before the construction of the Holy Temple) worship at private altars was actually permitted. Metzudas David (to I Kgs. 3:2) explains that the multitudes of private altars resembled idolatrous practice, and thus the Jews were rightly criticized. In view of R. Meir Simcha’s explanation, we can theorize that if the entire notion of private altars was simply to wean the Jews from idolatry, the fact that they continued to worship at private altars showed that they had not yet fully eradicated idolatry’s influence and needed the private altars to help wean themselves from it. Accordingly, perhaps the Bible means to criticize the Jews squarely for this failure to eradicate the influence of idolatry, but not for their sacrificing on private altars, per se. 98 See also Seder Yaakov (to TB Avodah Zarah 51a). 99 (Weinberg and Beiberfeld 1953, pp. 145–52). Religions 2021, 12, 363 22 of 26

100 R. Kalman Kahane (1910–1991) notes that this distinction is unfounded. Nonetheless, he admits that one can find precedent for such an explanation by noting that, as mentioned above, R. Meir Simcha similarly confines Maimonides’ explanation to sacrifices on private altars (as opposed to public altars). Just as R. Meir Simcha limits Maimonides’ rationale to only one type of sacrifices, so does Epstein’s explanation. R. Kahane notes a major difference between them: R. Meir Simcha used his distinction to decide between the dispute of Maimonides and Nachmanides, favoring the former’s rationale regarding private altars and the latter’s regarding public ones; however, Epstein uses his differentiation to answer a contradiction within the writings of Maimonides’ himself. Thus, R. Kahane concludes that Epstein’s approach and R. Meir Simcha’s approach cannot really be compared (Kahane 1956, p. 119). Orenstein(1983, p. 34) rejects Epstein’s theory on the grounds that there is no corroboration for such a distinction from any of Maimonides’ other writings. Religions 2021, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 21 of 24 101 Emunas Chachamim, ch. 10. Religions 2021, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 21 of 24 102 In a similar vein, R. Yaakov Emden (Mitpachas Sefarim to Emunas Chachamim, ch. 10) writes that the early idolaters were familiar with the proper way of worshipping God—as was known to mankind from Adam’s time—yet they purposelyMaimonides’ chose to himself. corrupt Thus, those R. forms Kahane of concludes worship tothat give Epstein’ powerss approach to other, and perceived R. Meir forces.Simcha’s approach cannot really be Maimonides’ himself. Thus, R. Kahane concludes that Epstein’s approach and R. Meir Simcha’s approach103 cannotThis doesreallycompared notbe seem (Kahane consistent 1956, p. with119). Maimonides’ stated reasons for the laws of ritual impurity (cited above). compared (Kahane 1956, p. 119). 104 See101 alsoEmunas Ricanati Chachamim (to Ex., ch. 20:3) 10. who writes that every idolatrous act serves to strengthen the powers of impurity. 101 102 Emunas Chachamim, ch. 10. 105 EmunasIn Chachamima similar vein,, ch. R. 23Yaakov (see Emden also Mitpachas (Mitpachas Sefarim Sefarimthere). to Emunas (This Chachamim author, is ch. working 10) writes on that penning the early a idolaters volume were dedi- familiar 102 with the proper way of worshipping God—as was known to mankind from Adam’s time—yet they purposely chose to corrupt In a similar vein, R. Yaakov Emden (Mitpachas Sefarim to Emunas Chachamim, ch. 10) writes that the early idolaterscated were familiar to the differences and similarities between the so-called “rationalist” approaches to idolatry and the more with the proper way of worshipping God—as was known to mankind from Adam’s time—yet they purposely chose tothose corrupt forms of worship to give powers to other, perceived forces. “mystical/omnisignificant” approaches.) those forms of worship to give powers to other, perceived forces. 103 This does not seem consistent with Maimonides’ stated reasons for the laws of ritual impurity (cited above). 106 (Klein 2018, pp. 320–23, 327–28). 103 This does not seem consistent with Maimonides’ stated reasons for the laws of ritual impurity (cited above). 104 See also Ricanati (to Ex. 20:3) who writes that every idolatrous act serves to strengthen the powers of impurity. 107 104 See also Ricanati (to Ex. 20:3) who writes that every idolatrous act serves to strengthen the powers of impurity. (105Klein Emunas 2018, pp.Chachamim 215–43)., ch. 23 (see also Mitpachas Sefarim there). (This author is working on penning a volume dedicated to the 108 105 Emunas Chachamim, ch. 23 (see also Mitpachas Sefarim there). (This author is working on penning a volume dedicatedMaharitdifferences to bases the himself and similarities on a series between of linguistic the so-called particularities “rationalist” in approaches Maimonides’ to idolat phraseology,ry and the more the merits “mystical/omnisignificant” of which are differences and similarities between the so-called “rationalist” approaches to idolatry and the more “mystical/omnisignificant”beyondapproaches.) the scope of this study and require expertise in both Hebrew and Judeo-Arabic. approaches.) 109 Laws106 (Klein of Deos 2018,2:2 pp. and 320–23,Shmoneh 327–28). Perakim (Maimonides’ introduction to Tractate Avos), ch. 4. 106 (Klein 2018, pp. 320–23, 327–28). 110 R.107 Gedaliah(Klein 2018, Nadel pp.(1923–2004) 215–43). makes a similar point; however, he warns that the drive to worship God in ways 107 (Klein 2018, pp. 215–43). that108 areMaharit more bases concrete himself can on lead a series directly of linguistic to idolatry, particularities if taken in in the Maimonides’ wrong direction phraseology, (Shilat the 2004 merits, pp. of 122–23). which are beyond the 108 Maharit bases himself on a series of linguistic particularities in Maimonides’ phraseology, the merits of which111 areR. Yosefbeyondscope Leib the of this Bloch study (1860–1929) and require writes expert thatise in Maimonides both Hebrew didand notJudeo-Arabic. “God forbid” think that displacing idolatry was 109 scope of this study and require expertise in both Hebrew and Judeo-Arabic. the onlyLawsreason of Deos for 2:2 the and commandments Shmoneh Perakim of (Maimonides’ ritual sacrifices. introduction Rather, to in Tractate R. Bloch’s Avos), estimation, ch. 4. Maimonides sought to 109 110 Laws of Deos 2:2 and Shmoneh Perakim (Maimonides’ introduction to Tractate Avos), ch. 4. offer aR. rational Gedaliah explanation Nadel (1923–2004) for ritual makes sacrifices. a similar Even point; though however, Maimonides he warns that himself the drive may to have worship believed God thatin ways the that entire are more 110 R. Gedaliah Nadel (1923–2004) makes a similar point; however, he warns that the drive to worship God in ways that areconcrete more can lead directly to idolatry, if taken in the wrong direction (Shilat 2004, pp. 122–23). concept of ritual sacrifices cannot be explained, he notes that such sacrifices do have this added benefit which may concrete can lead directly to idolatry, if taken in the wrong direction (Shilat 2004, pp. 122–23). 111 R. (1860–1929) writes that Maimonides did not “God forbid” think that displacing idolatry was the only reason be part of God’s reason for making such commandments. Nonetheless, R. Bloch concedes that pagan idolaters 111 R. Yosef Leib Bloch (1860–1929) writes that Maimonides did not “God forbid” think that displacing idolatry was the onlyfor reason the commandments of ritual sacrifices. Rather, in R. Bloch’s estimation, Maimonides sought to offer a rational explanation for the commandments of ritual sacrifices. Rather, in R. Bloch’s estimation, Maimonides sought to offer a rationaloffered explanationforritual ritual sacrificessacrifices. Even in order though to feed Maimonides a very human himself drive may have to offer believed sacrifices that the to aentire higher concept cause. of Byritual instituting sacrifices thecannot be for ritual sacrifices. Even though Maimonides himself may have believed that the entire concept of ritual sacrificesTorah’s cannotexplained, system be ofhe sacrifices, notes that God such sought sacrifices to replacedo have idolatry’s this adde roled benefit in filling which this may need be with part an of acceptableGod’s reason outlet for (makingBloch such explained, he notes that such sacrifices do have this added benefit which may be part of God’s reason for1949 making,commandments. pp. such 199–201). Even Nonetheless, contemporary R. Bloch philosophy concedes that recognizes pagan idolaters this internal offered drive ritual for sa sacrifice.crifices in For order example, to feed thea very late human commandments. Nonetheless, R. Bloch concedes that pagan idolaters offered ritual sacrifices in order to feed Dr.a very Rogerdrive human Scrutonto offer sacrifices (1944–2020) to a openshigher hiscause. book By withinstituting an undisputed the Torah system truism, of “The sacrifices, desire God for sought sacrifice to isreplace rooted idolatry’s deep in role in drive to offer sacrifices to a higher cause. By instituting the Torah system of sacrifices, God sought to replace idolatry’sall offilling us” role (Scruton inthis need 2014 with, p. an 1). acceptable outlet (Bloch 1949, pp. 199–201). Even recognizes this internal filling this need with an acceptable outlet (Bloch 1949, pp. 199–201). Even contemporary philosophy recognizes112 Ritva this driveinternal in Sefer for ha-Zikaron,sacrifice. For Parashas example, Vayikra the lateoffers Dr. Roger a similar Scruton resolution, (1944–2020) arguing opens his that book the with Torah an un embracesdisputed thetruism, general “The desire drive for sacrifice. For example, the late Dr. Roger Scruton (1944–2020) opens his book with an undisputed truism,concept “Thefor desire ofsacrifice ritual is sacrifice rooted deep in order in all to of wean us” (Scruton the Jews 2014, from p. idolatry,1). but at the same time rejects certain details of such 112 for sacrifice is rooted deep in all of us” (Scruton 2014, p. 1). worship Ritva to in achieve Sefer ha-Zikaron, the same goal.Parashas R. Vayikra Chaim offers Palagi a (1788–1868)similar resolution, offers arguing a similar that explanation the Torah inembraces his work theLev general Chaim concept(to of 112 ritual sacrifice in order to wean the Jews from idolatry, but at the same time rejects certain details of such worship to achieve Ritva in Sefer ha-Zikaron, Parashas Vayikra offers a similar resolution, arguing that the Torah embraces the generalOrach concept Chaim of§54). ritual sacrifice in order to wean the Jews from idolatry, but at the same time rejects certain details of such worship tothe achie sameve goal. R. Chaim Palagi (1788–1868) offers a similar explanation in his work Lev Chaim (to Orach Chaim §54). R. Mordechai Comtino (1430–1480) writes in his commentary to the Guide that in his commentary to the Pentateuch, the same goal. R. Chaim Palagi (1788–1868) offers a similar explanation in his work Lev Chaim (to Orach Chaim §54). R. Mordechai Comtino (1430–1480) writes in his commentary to the Guide that in his commentary to the Pentateuch, he already he already refuted Nachmanides’ objections to Maimonides’ stance. Alas, this passage from Comtino’s commentary R. Mordechai Comtino (1430–1480) writes in his commentary to the Guide that in his commentary to the Pentateuch, herefuted already Nachmanides’ objections to Maimonides’ stance. Alas, this passage from Comtino’s commentary to the Pentateuch has Guide refuted Nachmanides’ objections to Maimonides’ stance. Alas, this passage from Comtino’s commentary to the Pentateuchto thenot Pentateuch yet has been found. has not Nonetheless, yet been found. later in Nonetheless,his commentary later to the in hisGuide commentary, Comtino writes to the that Maimonides, Comtino only writes meant that that God not yet been found. Nonetheless, later in his commentary to the Guide, Comtino writes that Maimonides only meantMaimonides thatintroduced God only the meant concept that of ritual God introducedsacrifice in general the concept as a conce of ritualssion to sacrifice help wean in generalthe Jews asfrom a concession idolatry; but to Maimonides help wean would introduced the concept of ritual sacrifice in general as a concession to help wean the Jews from idolatry; but Maimonidesthe Jewsadmit would from that idolatry; the details but of the Maimonides Torah’s rules would for ritual admit sacr thatifice the purposelydetails of deviate the Torah’s from idolatro rules forus ritualpractice sacrifice (Schwartz purposely and Eisenman admit that the details of the Torah’s rules for ritual sacrifice purposely deviate from idolatrous practice (Schwartz deviateand Eisenman2016, from pp. idolatrous487–88; 515). practice (Schwartz and Eisenman 2016, pp. 487–88, 515). ,מזבח) follows follows Rashi’s Rashi’s elucidation elucidation that thata matzeivah a matzeivah is the issame the as same a mizbeach as a (מצבה) pp. 487–88; 515). 113 This113 translationThis translation of theof the Hebrew Hebrew word word matzeivahmatzeivah ,2016 except, altar), that except it is built that out it is of built one outstone of (see one TB stone Avodah (see Zarah TB Avodah 53b and Zarah R. Chananel53b and R.there Chananel and Tosafos there to and TB AvodahTosafos Zarah מזבח) ,(follows Rashi’s elucidation that a matzeivah is the same as a mizbeachaltar (מצבה) This translation of the Hebrew word matzeivah 113 altar), except that it is built out of one stone (see TB Avodah Zarah 53b and R. Chananel there and Tosafos to TBto Avodah TB16b).Avodah Zarah Zarah 16b). 16b). NachmanidesNachmanides (there) (there) disagrees disagrees with with Rashi’s Rashi’s approach approach andand argues that that if if aa matzeivahmatzeivah isis also also an an altar, altar, then then why why does does the Torah Nachmanides (there) disagrees with Rashi’s approach and argues that if a matzeivah is also an altar, then why doesthe Torahthedifferentiate Torah differentiate between between the shunned the shunned matzeivahmatzeivah and the legitimateand the legitimatemizbeach, if themizbeach Canaanites, if the served Canaanites idolatry served on both idolatry types of altars (as evident from many Scriptural passages). Instead, Nachmanides explains that idolaters would erect a pillar and/or plant a differentiate between the shunned matzeivah and the legitimate mizbeach, if the Canaanites served idolatry on bothon types both of altars types of altars (as evident from many Scriptural passages). Instead, Nachmanides explains that idolaters (as evident from many Scriptural passages). Instead, Nachmanides explains that idolaters would erect a pillar and/ortree plant to marka the entrance to an idolatrous temple. This pillar is called a matzeivah and the tree is called an asherah. God rejected would erect a pillar and/or plant a tree to mark the entrance to an idolatrous temple. This pillar is called a matzeivah tree to mark the entrance to an idolatrous temple. This pillar is called a matzeivah and the tree is called an asherah. Godboth rejected of these monuments which served utilitarian purposes for idolatry, but did not reject the mizbeach, which was the accepted and the tree is called an asherah. God rejected both of these monuments which served utilitarian purposes for idolatry, both of these monuments which served utilitarian purposes for idolatry, but did not reject the mizbeach, which was the acceptededifice upon which ritual sacrifices were offered (whether for God or whatnot). (See also Nachmanides (to Gen. 28:18) who edifice upon which ritual sacrifices were offered (whether for God or whatnot). (See also Nachmanides (to Gen. 28:18)explains who that the Torah allowed a mizbeach but not a matzeivah so as not to completely outlaw ritual sacrifice. This is somewhat explains that the Torah allowed a mizbeach but not a matzeivah so as not to completely outlaw ritual sacrifice. This is somewhatreminiscent of Maimonides’ stance.) reminiscent of Maimonides’ stance.) R. Samson Hirsch (1808–1888) resolves the difficulty with Rashi’s position by explaining that a mizbeach is manmade, R. (1808–1888) resolves the difficulty with Rashi’s position by explaining that a mizbeach is manmade,while a matzeivah is naturally-occurring. Accordingly, in the pre-Sinaiatic era, a naturally-occurring altar was an appropriate while a matzeivah is naturally-occurring. Accordingly, in the pre-Sinaiatic era, a naturally-occurring altar was an appropriatevenue for worshipping God because the main way His presence was manifest in creation was through nature. However, once venue for worshipping God because the main way His presence was manifest in creation was through nature. However,the Torahonce was given at Sinai, the Torah itself became the most important vehicle for the recognition of God, albeit it requires the Torah was given at Sinai, the Torah itself became the most important vehicle for the recognition of God, albeit it morerequires work on man’s part. Because of this, in the post-Sinaiatic world, a manmade altar is most appropriate for serving God more work on man’s part. Because of this, in the post-Sinaiatic world, a manmade altar is most appropriate for serving(see GodR. Hirsch’s comments to Gen. 28:18, 33:20 Deut. 16:22). (see R. Hirsch’s comments to Gen. 28:18, 33:20 Deut. 16:22). 114 Rashi to Deut. 16:22 paraphrasing Sifrei (ad loc.). 114 Rashi to Deut. 16:22 paraphrasing Sifrei (ad loc.). 115 When citing this Midrash, Abarbanel’s version reads: “The king said, ‘He should always eat them [i.e., the unslaughtered and 115 When citing this Midrash, Abarbanel’s version reads: “The king said, ‘He should always eat them [i.e., the unslaughteredmoribund and animals] at this table and on his own he will refrain.’” Based on this, R. (1843–1921) understood moribund animals] at this table and on his own he will refrain.’” Based on this, R. David Zvi Hoffmann (1843–1921) understoodthat Abarbanel’s proof to Maimonides’ position is from the Midrash comparing ritual sacrifices (in general) to unslaughtered that Abarbanel’s proof to Maimonides’ position is from the Midrash comparing ritual sacrifices (in general) to unslaughteredand moribund animals. This would indeed suggest that legitimate sacrifices have no inherent value but are—like idolatrous and moribund animals. This would indeed suggest that legitimate sacrifices have no inherent value but are—like idolatroussacrifices—akin to unslaughtered and moribund animals, which are considered abominable. R. Hoffmann raises several issues sacrifices—akin to unslaughtered and moribund animals, which are considered abominable. R. Hoffmann raises several issues

Religions 2021, 12, 363 23 of 26

but did not reject the mizbeach, which was the accepted edifice upon which ritual sacrifices were offered (whether for God or whatnot). (See also Nachmanides (to Gen. 28:18) who explains that the Torah allowed a mizbeach but not a matzeivah so as not to completely outlaw ritual sacrifice. This is somewhat reminiscent of Maimonides’ stance.) R. Samson Raphael Hirsch (1808–1888) resolves the difficulty with Rashi’s position by explaining that a mizbeach is manmade, while a matzeivah is naturally-occurring. Accordingly, in the pre-Sinaiatic era, a naturally-occurring altar was an appropriate venue for worshipping God because the main way His presence was manifest in creation was through nature. However, once the Torah was given at Sinai, the Torah itself became the most important vehicle for the recognition of God, albeit it requires more work on man’s part. Because of this, in the post-Sinaiatic world, a manmade altar is most appropriate for serving God (see R. Hirsch’s comments to Gen. 28:18, 33:20 Deut. 16:22). 114 Rashi to Deut. 16:22 paraphrasing Sifrei (ad loc.). 115 When citing this Midrash, Abarbanel’s version reads: “The king said, ‘He should always eat them [i.e., the unslaughtered and moribund animals] at this table and on his own he will refrain.’” Based on this, R. David Zvi Hoffmann (1843–1921) understood that Abarbanel’s proof to Maimonides’ position is from the Midrash comparing ritual sacrifices (in general) to unslaughtered and moribund animals. This would indeed suggest that legitimate sacrifices have no inherent value but are—like idolatrous sacrifices—akin to unslaughtered and moribund animals, which are considered abominable. R. Hoffmann raises several issues with this reading of the Midrash, the foremost of which is that this variant is unattested to in the various edition of Vayikra Rabbah and (Hoffmann 1976, p. 61). 116 Vayikra Rabbah §22:8. 117 See Abarbanel’s introduction to Leviticus, ch. 4. Later, R. Avraham Leiblohn (a 19th century Polish sage) writes in Kesef Mezukak (to Lev. 1:9) writes that Nachmanides’ questions on Maimonides’ position should really be directed against this Midrash, not Maimonides. R. Moshe Isserles in Toras ha-Olah (2:1) also cites this Midrash as possibly supporting Maimonides’ position, but ultimately finds this Midrash as insufficient because it does not account for all the details in the Torah’s laws of ritual sacrifice. 118 See TB Chullin 16b–17a. 119 Emunas Chachamim ch. 10 (see also Eshed ha-Nechalim to Vayikra Rabbah, there). Solomon Gottlieb Stern (Kochav-Tov) of Rechnitz (1807–1883), a Hungarian Maskil, wrote in the newspaper ha-Levanon (7 January 1869) that Maimonides simply follows Chazal in his rationalizing of ritual sacrifices, even though he does not cite this idea in their name. Stern mentions this Midrash as Maimonides’ source, and notes that Abarbanel already wrote that this Midrash proves Maimonides’ position. R. Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin (1816–1893) replied to this claim in a letter published in ha-Levanon (11 February 1869) that this Midrash is only discussing why non-sacrificial meat was forbidden for the duration of the Jews’ stay in the desert, but says nothing about the reasons for ritual sacrifices in general. He thus independently makes the same point as R. Bascilla. Interestingly, R. Berlin’s nephew R. Baruch ha-Levi Epstein in Tosefes Brachach (to Lev. 1:2) also cites this Midrash as a source for Maimonides’ point of view, apparently unaware that his illustrious uncle had already rejected this proof-text. (The full archives of the ha-Levanon newspaper are accessible online at: http://jpress.nli.org.il (accessed on 13 May 2021).) 120 Eitz Yosef (to Vayikra Rabbah there). 121 R. Meir Simchah of Dvinsk in Meshech Chochmah (to Lev. 17:7) provides a different answer. He notes that given that the Talmud connects the elimination of the Evil Inclination for idolatry with the merit of the Holy Land (see Klein 2018, cited above), once the Jews entered the Holy Land, idolatry would pose less of a challenge. 122 For example, (Berman 2020, pp. 4–9). 123 A popular internet meme known as “Rule 34” jokes that contemporary pornography has fetishized every possible act that one can think of; the same could be said of the cultic rites in the ancient world in which pagans granted omnisignificance to everything and incorporated every aspect of life into their idolatrous worldview. Life and religion were so intertwined in the ancient world, that Jan Assmann wrote of ancient Egpyt, “It is virtually impossible to draw a clear-cut distinction between culture in general and religion in particular” because everything possible became part of religion (Assmann 2008, p. 10). 124 In his Nineteen Letters, R. Samson Raphael Hirsch criticizes Maimonides’ approach to the reasons behind the commandments by chiding him for looking outwards to Greco-Arabic philosophy, instead of inwards to Judaism itself. This controversial passage was understandably censored in later Hebrew translations of R. Hirsch’s work (Shapiro 2015, pp. 122–28). Religions 2021, 12, 363 24 of 26

References Assmann, Jan. 1996. The Mosaic Distinction: Israel, Egypt, and the Invention of Paganism. Representations 56: 48–67. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2928707 (accessed on 18 May 2021). [CrossRef] Assmann, Jan. 2005. Moses as Go-Between: John Spencer’s Theory of Religious Translation. In Renaissance Go-Betweens: Cultural Exchange in Early Modern Europe. Edited by Andreas Höfele and Werner von Koppenfels. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, Available online: https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110919516.163/html (accessed on 18 May 2021). Assmann, Jan. 2008. Of God and Gods: Egypt, Israel, and the Rise of Monotheism. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, Available online: https://muse.jhu.edu/book/8740 (accessed on 18 May 2021). Bacher, Wilhelm, ed. 1896. Sepher Haschoraschim. Berlin: Mekizei Nirdamim, Available online: https://tablet.otzar.org/book/book. php?book=100587 (accessed on 18 May 2021). Bakst, Yishayahu Mordechai. 2012. ke-Ayal Taarog. Jerusalem: Machon Yerushalayim, Available online: https://tablet.otzar.org/book/ book.php?book=186817 (accessed on 18 May 2021). Berman, A. 2020. Ani Maamin: Biblical Criticism, Historical Truth, and the Thirteen Principles of . Jerusalem: Maggid Books. Binder, Stephanie E. 2012. , On Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways between Christians and Jews. Leiden: Brill, Available online: https://brill.com/view/title/22047 (accessed on 18 May 2021). Biton, Daniel, ed. 2012. Chemdas Yamim. Jerusalem: Machon Hamaor, vol. 2. Bloch, Yosef Yehuda Leib. 1949. Shiurei Daas. : , vol. 1, Available online: https://tablet.otzar.org/ book/book.php?book=194891 (accessed on 18 May 2021). Burton, Shnayor Z. 2019. Mishnas Yaakov, New York. Cassuto, Umberto. 2005. The Goddess Anath: Canaanite Epics of the Patriarchal Age, Scholar PDF ed. Skokie: Varda Books. Chait, Israel. 2011. Philosophy of Torah. Charleston: CreateSpace. Cohen, Eliezer, ed. 2007. Shevet Yehudah, Jerusalem. DeGrado, Jessie. 2018. The qdesha in 4:14: Putting the (Myth of the) Sacred Prostitute to Bed. Vetus Testamentum 68: 8–40. Available online: https://brill.com/view/journals/vt/68/1/article-p8_8.xml?language=en (accessed on 18 May 2021). [CrossRef] Garfinkel, Yosef, and Madeleine Mumcuoglu. 2019. The Temple of Solomon in Iron Age Context. Religions 10: 198. Available online: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/10/3/198 (accessed on 18 May 2021). Glatt-Gilad, David A. 2011. Qedeshah. In The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Greenfield, Jonas C. 1993. The Aramean God Hadad. In Eretz-Israel: Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Studies. Avraham Malamat Volume, Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23624586 (accessed on 18 May 2021). Ha-Naggid, David. 1981. Midrash Rabbi David ha-Naggid Al Shel Pesach. Jerusalem: Wagschall Publications, Available online: https://tablet.otzar.org/book/book.php?book=83889 (accessed on 18 May 2021). Haran, Menachem. 1978. Seething a Kid in its Mother’s Milk. In Eretz-Israel Archaeological, Historical, and Geographical Studies. H. L. Ginsberg Volume, Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23617896 (accessed on 18 May 2021). Haran, Menachem. 1983. The Kid in its Mother’s Milk and the Kid Sucking its Mother’s Milk. Tarbiz 52: 3. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23596004 (accessed on 18 May 2021). Hartman, David. 1977. Maimonides: Torah and Philosophic Quest. : Jewish Publication Society. Henshke, David. 1996. On the Question of Unity in Maimonides’ Thought. Daat: A Journal of & Kabbalah 37: 37–51. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24216897 (accessed on 23 May 2021). Hershler, Moshe, ed. 1982. Sefer ha-Batim, Sefer Mitzvah. Jerusalem: Shalem Institute, Available online: https://tablet.otzar.org/book/ book.php?book=8678 (accessed on 18 May 2021). Hoffmann, David Zvi. 1976. Sefer Vayikra Mefurash be-Yidei David Tzvi Hoffmann. Jerusalem: Mossad HaRav Kook, vol. 1, Available online: https://tablet.otzar.org/book/book.php?book=14527 (accessed on 18 May 2021). Izakson, Miron. 2004. Iconoclast’s Credo. Haaretz Newspaper. December 31. Available online: https://www.haaretz.com/1.4842442 (accessed on 18 May 2021). Kahane, Kalman, ed. 1956. Sefer ha-Zikaron. Jerusalem: Mossad HaRav Kook. Kapach, Yosef, ed. 1957. Meor ha-Afeilah. Jerusalem: Available online: https://tablet.otzar.org/book/book.php?book=103265 (accessed on 18 May 2021). Kapach, Yosef, ed. 1972. Moreh ha-Nevuchim. Jerusalem: Mossad HaRav Kook, vol. 3. Kapelrud, Arvid S. 1963. Temple Building, a Task for Gods and Kings. Orientalia 32: 56–62. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/ stable/43079513 (accessed on 18 May 2021). Kasher, Menachem Mendel. 1967. Torah Shleimah. Jerusalem: Machon Torah Shleimah, vol. 22, Available online: https://tablet.otzar. org/book/book.php?book=149317 (accessed on 18 May 2021). Kasher, Asa. 2004. Yahadut ve-Elilut; Tel Aviv: Ministry of Defense. Katzenelson, Yehuda Leib Binyanim. 1928. ha-Talmud ve-Chachmas ha-Refuah; Berlin. Available online: https://tablet.otzar.org/book/ book.php?book=12668 (accessed on 18 May 2021). Katzenellenbogen, Mordechai Leib, ed. 1985. Sefer ha-. Jerusalem: Shalem Institute, Available online: https://tablet.otzar.org/ book/book.php?book=8599 (accessed on 18 May 2021). Kaufmann, Yechezkel. 1960. The Religion of Israel: From Its Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Religions 2021, 12, 363 25 of 26

Klein, Reuven Chaim. 2018. God versus Gods: Judaism in the Age of Idolatry. White Plains: Mosaica Press, Available online: https: //amzn.to/36a05Kt (accessed on 18 May 2021). Kook, Avraham Yitzchak. 1939. Olas Riyah. Jerusalem: Mossad HaRav Kook, vol. 1, Available online: https://tablet.otzar.org/ book/book.php?book=601656 (accessed on 18 May 2021). Kook, Avraham Yitzchak. 1984. Maamarei ha-Raayah; Jerusalem. Available online: https://tablet.otzar.org/book/book.php?book=1524 89 (accessed on 18 May 2021). Kook, Avraham Yitzchak. 2004. Shemonah Kvatzim; Jerusalem, vol. 1. Available online: https://tablet.otzar.org/book/book.php?book= 151167 (accessed on 18 May 2021). Landy, Moshe Avraham, ed. 2020. Torah & Rationalism: Understanding Torah and the Mesorah. New York: Feldheim Publishers. Leiner, Yerucham. 1951. Maamar Zohar ha-Rakia; New York. Available online: https://beta.hebrewbooks.org/22142 (accessed on 18 May 2021). Marcus, Aharon. 2016. Keses ha-Sofer. Jerusalem: Mossad HaRav Kook, Available online: https://tablet.otzar.org/book/book.php? book=601553 (accessed on 18 May 2021). Margolios, Reuven, ed. 1953. Milchamos Hashem. Jerusalem: Mossad HaRav Kook, Available online: https://tablet.otzar.org/book/ book.php?book=155211 (accessed on 18 May 2021). Margolios, Reuven, ed. 1957. Sheilos u-Teshuvos Min ha-Shamayaim. Jerusalem: Mossad HaRav Kook, Available online: https: //tablet.otzar.org/book/book.php?book=155535 (accessed on 18 May 2021). McCullough, Lori. 2007. Dimensions of the Temple: The Temple Account in 1 Kings 5-9 Compared with Ancient Near Eastern Temple Paradigms. Master’s thesis, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA. Available online: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/ download?doi=10.1.1.566.2914&rep=rep1&type=pdf (accessed on 17 May 2021). Montgomery, James A. 1914. The Wailing of Hadad-Rimmon. Journal of Biblical Literature 33: 1. Available online: https://www.jstor. org/stable/3259062 (accessed on 18 May 2021). [CrossRef] Orenstein, Walter. 1983. The Maimonides Rationale for Sacrifice. Hebrew Studies 24: 33–39. Available online: http://www.jstor.org/ stable/27908807 (accessed on 23 May 2021). Phillips, Shmuel. 2019. Judaism Reclaimed: Philosophy and Theology in the Torah. White Plains: Mosaica Press, Available online: https://amzn.to/3hztEM7 (accessed on 18 May 2021). Pinchot, Roy. 1999. The Deeper Conflict Between Maimonides and Ramban over the Sacrifices. Tradition 33:3. Available online: https://traditiononline.org/the-deeper-conflict-between-maimonides-and-ramban-over-the-sacrifices/ (accessed on 20 May 2021). Pritchard, James B., ed. 1992. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relation to the Old Testament, 3rd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Ratner, Robert, and Bruce Zuckerman. 1986. ’A Kid in Milk?’ New Photographs of KTU 1.23, Line 14. Hebrew Union College Annual 57: 15–60. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23507691 (accessed on 18 May 2021). Ratzabi, Yehuda, ed. 1993. Peirush Saadia Gaon le-Sefer Shemos. Jerusalem: Mossad HaRav Kook, Available online: https: //tablet.otzar.org/book/book.php?book=155126 (accessed on 18 May 2021). Ricks, Stephen D., and Michael A. Carter. 1994. Temple-Building Motifs: , Ancient Israel, Ugarit, and Kirtland. In Temples of the Ancient World. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company. Rubiés, Joan-Pau. 2006. Theology, Ethnography, and the Historicization of Idolatry. Journal of the History of Ideas 67: 4. Available online: https://muse.jhu.edu/article/204780 (accessed on 18 May 2021). Schneeblag, Shraga Feivel, ed. 1971. Beer Mayim Chaim. : vol. 3, Available online: https://tablet.otzar.org/book/book.php? book=7153 (accessed on 18 May 2021). Schwartz, Dov, and Esther Eisenman, eds. 2016. Peirush Kadmon al Moreh ha-Nevuchim: Beiuro Shel R. Mordechai ben Eliezer Comtino. Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University Press. Scruton, Roger. 2014. The Soul of the World. Princeton: Princeton University Press, Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt5 hhqq3 (accessed on 18 May 2021). Shapiro, Marc B. 2015. Changing the Immutable: How Rewrites Its History. Oxford: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization. Shapiro, Ben. 2019. The Right Side of History, Digital ed. Northampton: Broadside Books. Shapiro, Aharon, and Yisrael M. Peles, eds. 2018. Imrei Dosa, –Shoftim. Pardes Katz: Mesivta DeRashi, Available online: https://forum.otzar.org/download/file.php?id=63044 (accessed on 18 May 2021). Shilat, Yitzchak, ed. 2004. bi-Toraso shel R. Gedaliah. Maale Adumim: Shilat Publications, Available online: http://seri-levi.com/admin/ nadel.pdf (accessed on 18 May 2021). Silver, Akiva Moshe, ed. 2018. Midrash Pisron Torah. Jerusalem: Zichron Aharon, Available online: https://tablet.otzar.org/book/book. php?book=627663 (accessed on 18 May 2021). Sofer, Moshe. 2008a. Chasam Sofer, Yoreh Deah. Jerusalem: Machon Chasam Sofer, Available online: https://tablet.otzar.org/book/book. php?book=155826 (accessed on 18 May 2021). Sofer, Moshe. 2008b. Chasam Sofer, Orach Chaim. Jerusalem: Machon Chasam Sofer, vol. 1, Available online: https://tablet.otzar.org/ book/book.php?book=155825 (accessed on 18 May 2021). Stern, Josef. 1997. The Fall and Rise of Myth in Ritual: Maimonides versus Nahmanides on the Huqqim, , and the War Against Idolatry. Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy 6: 185–263. Available online: https://brill.com/view/journals/jjtp/6/2/ article-p185_1.xml (accessed on 18 May 2021). [CrossRef] Religions 2021, 12, 363 26 of 26

Thatcher, Oliver Joseph, ed. 1907. The Library of Original Sources: The Ancient World. New York: University Research Extension, Available online: https://archive.org/details/TheLibraryOfOriginalSourcesV01 (accessed on 18 May 2021). Tierney, Michael. 1922. A New Ritual of the Orphic Mysteries. The Classical Quarterly 16: 77–87. Available online: https://philpapers. org/rec/TIEANR-2 (accessed on 18 May 2021). [CrossRef] Trani, Yosef of. 1648. Tzafnas Paneach; . Available online: https://tablet.otzar.org/book/book.php?book=108491 (accessed on 18 May 2021). Weinberg, Yechiel Yaakov, and Pinchas Beiberfeld, eds. 1953. Sefer Zikaron Shaul. Tel Aviv. Available online: https://beta. hebrewbooks.org/36723 (accessed on 18 May 2021). Westenholz, Joan Goodnick. 1989. Tamar, Qˇedeš¯ a,¯ Qadištu, and Sacred Prostitution in Mesopotamia. The Harvard Theological Review 82: 2. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1510077 (accessed on 18 May 2021). [CrossRef] Wincelberg, Yaakov, ed. 2008. ha-Maspik le-Ovdei ha-Shem. Jerusalem: Feldheim Publishers. Wyatt, Nicolas, ed. 2002. Religious Texts from Ugarit. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Zweibel, Elimelech, ed. 2020. Eim la-Binah, Jerusalem.