Weaning Away from Idolatry: Maimonides on the Purpose of Ritual Sacrifices
Abstract
:1. Maimonides’ Position
1.1. Limited Permission for Ritual Sacrifice
- 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).
- One who brings offering to the gods shall be destroyed—only to Hashem alone! (Ex. 22:19).
- For you shall not prostrate yourselves to another god (Ex. 34:14).
1.2. Downplaying 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).
1.3. Commandments to Counter Idolatry
- The prohibition of wearing wool-linen 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 crossdressing. 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 Mars 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 Gersonides 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 sin of idolatry.
1.4. Ritual Sacrifice to Contest Idolatry
- 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 Ten Commandments 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 altars 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 Baal Peor, which involve ritual body exposure.
- 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 sacred, 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 wine-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 drinking 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 meats 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
- 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 Sabbath serves to prevent one from deifying either work or inactivity by providing the proper balance between the two.41
- 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 Jerusalem 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
- 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 meat, 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 rabbis instituted that it is forbidden to slaughter an animal such that its blood will spill into a vessel, pit, or any other receptacle.45
- 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
2. Difficulties with Maimonides’ Position
2.1. Nachmanides’ Objections
2.2. Other Commentators’ Objections
2.3. Maharit’s Questions
2.4. Negating the Law
2.5. Historical Fallout
2.6. Contradictions in Maimonides’ View
3. Defending Maimonides
3.1. Answer #1: Maimonides’ Explanation Is Not the Only Valid One
3.2. Answer #2: Maimonides Only Wrote for the Perplexed
3.3. Answer #3: Maimonides Only Addresses Private Altars and/or Voluntary Sacrifices
3.4. Answer #4: Idolatrous Practices Are Gateways to Impurity
3.5. Answer #5: Maharit—Ritual Sacrifice Is Not a Concession to Idolatry
3.6. Ritual Sacrifice Began as a Legit Practice
3.7. Precedent for Rejecting Once-Beloved Forms of Worship
4. Potential Midrashic Proof to Maimonides’ Position
5. Conclusions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
1. | Maimonides (there) explains that while God certainly could have changed human nature, He did not want to. |
2. | Kapach translates the Judeo-Arabic 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, 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 Kiddushin 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. David ha-Naggid (1222–1300) also follows this reasoning, see (Ha-Naggid 1981, p. 4). |
9. | All of the verses cited above are from the Prophets. 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 Levites 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 (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 Commandment #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 Elijah at Mount Carmel. 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 “death” 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 Jerusalem Talmud (JT Avodah Zarah 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 society. 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 peace-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. |
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 Hinduism, for example see R. Zvi Pesach Frank’s responsa 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, gold, 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 Zohar (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 prohibitions 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 (Mitzvah #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 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 “taste” sacrifices in the same way that a human being tastes the food that he or she eats. |
33. | 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. | Nachmanides to Lev. 17:11 disagrees with Maimonides’ explanation for the prohibition of eating blood, yet seems to cite Maimonides’ rationale approvingly in his commentary to Deut. 12:23. (See also Ritva in Sefer ha-Zikaron, Parashas Acharei-Mos). |
35. | This explanation is also cited by Gersonides (Lev. 1, Purpose #12–13). |
36. | One example of a similar practice in Roman times is documented by R. Shlomo ibn Verga (1460–1554). He writes that the Temple of Venus had a statue with a phallic device that was used to deflower virgin girls brought in for that purpose. The priests would then gather the blood of the girls’ broken maidenheads and knead it into dough used for baking bread. The men who ate those breads would then be rendered “holy”. The girls themselves were not allowed to marry afterwards, but would instead prostitute themselves at high prices to anyone who came to the temple, because people believed that any man who engaged in intercourse with them would be absolved of all his sins. The monies received from their services would be split between sustaining the girls and paying the administrating priests of the temple (Cohen 2007, p. 14). |
37. | (Ratzabi 1993, p. 192). Others take note of the carefully-worded prohibition of prostitution. Instead of using the common word for prostitute, zonah (זונה) in that context, the Torah (Deut. 23:18) uses the word kedeisha (קדשה). The word kedeisha implies a connection between prostitution and the “holy” (קדוש), as if to purposely include “sacred prostitution” in the banned category of prostitution. The idea of widespread ritual prostitution or temple prostitution in ancient idolatrous cults has been accepted by mainstream academia, who find examples of words that resemble kedeisha in other ancient Semitic languages. However, this idea is not uniformly accepted, (see Westenholz 1989, pp. 245–65; Glatt-Gilad 2011, p. 596; DeGrado 2018, pp. 1–33). |
38. | |
39. | This does not necessarily fit with Maimonides’ four reasons for the laws of ritual purity and impurity (Guide 3:47): First, he explains that they distance people from whatever is disgusting. Second, they reinforce the sanctity of the Holy Temple and holy foodstuff by limiting the situations in which one may enter the Sanctuary or eat sacred foods. Third, they serve to give some credence to taboos that were already widely observed in the ancient world. Fourth, they serve to limit the scope of said taboos only to the realm of the sacred and not the realm of the ordinary, thereby making life much easier. |
40. | The Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 2:3) mentions an idolatrous practice known as oros levuvin (עורות לבובין). R. Yonah ibn Janach (990–1055) explains that this refers to a practice attested to by Greek historians whereby idolaters would remove the heart from a live animal and offer it as a sacrifice (Bacher 1896, p. 238). See also Maimonides’ commentary to the Mishnah there. This author has been unable to find outside corroboration for such a practice. (See Tierney 1922, p. 81) who describes a Dionysian ritual which involved cutting out the heart of a sacrificial goat. |
41. | (See Kasher 2004, pp. 60–61; Izakson 2004). |
42. | For a full study of those structural and cosmological similarities, (see McCullough 2007; as well as Garfinkel and Mumcuoglu 2019, pp. 1–17). For an analysis of how temple-building was the responsibility of the king in both Biblical and pagan milieus, (see Kapelrud 1963, pp. 56–62). Most interestingly, (see Ricks and Carter 1994, pp. 152–76) who compares various common themes that run through various accounts of temple building in ancient pagan cults, the Bible, and even Mormons. (In a future work, this author hopes to discuss if/how Maimonides’ approach can help explain the appearance of pagan mythemes in the Bible.) |
43. | See Abarbanel (to Lev. 18:3) who writes that the Egyptians were keen on eating blood, while the Canaanites were not. |
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 (accessed 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), Adam 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 Vayikra explains that Balaam simply borrowed the concept of ritual sacrifice from the Jews who had already received the Torah at Mount Sinai. 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. Shem 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. |
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). (Leo Strauss 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 revolution that began in Enosh’s generation. |
67. | |
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 Second Temple 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 Malachi 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 Biblical Hebrew 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, Emor §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). |
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. | |
78. | |
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 Temurah 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 Eliezer, 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 peshat, 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 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 Kabbalah/mysticism. Marcus (2016, pp. 265–66, 306) reports a story he heard from R. Moshe Sofer’s son, R. Shimon Sofer (1820–1883): One time, R. Shimon Sofer was strolling with his father alongside the Danube River in Pressburg (modern-day Bratislava) 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. Frankfurt sits at the confluence of the Main and Rhine 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 Kohen 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 Zevachim 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 Megillah 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 Shiloh 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. | |
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. |
101. | Emunas Chachamim, ch. 10. |
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 purposely chose to corrupt 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). |
104. | See also Ricanati (to Ex. 20:3) who writes that every idolatrous act serves to strengthen the powers of impurity. |
105. | Emunas Chachamim, ch. 23 (see also Mitpachas Sefarim there). (This author is working on penning a volume dedicated to the differences and similarities between the so-called “rationalist” approaches to idolatry and the more “mystical/omnisignificant” approaches.) |
106. | |
107. | |
108. | Maharit bases himself on a series of linguistic particularities in Maimonides’ phraseology, the merits of which are beyond the scope of this study and require expertise in both Hebrew and Judeo-Arabic. |
109. | Laws of Deos 2:2 and Shmoneh Perakim (Maimonides’ introduction to Tractate Avos), ch. 4. |
110. | R. Gedaliah Nadel (1923–2004) makes a similar point; however, he warns that the drive to worship God in ways that are more concrete can lead directly to idolatry, if taken in the wrong direction (Shilat 2004, pp. 122–23). |
111. | R. Yosef Leib Bloch (1860–1929) writes that Maimonides did not “God forbid” think that displacing idolatry was the only reason for the commandments of ritual sacrifices. Rather, in R. Bloch’s estimation, Maimonides sought to offer a rational explanation for ritual sacrifices. Even though Maimonides himself may have believed that the entire concept of ritual sacrifices cannot be explained, he notes that such sacrifices do have this added benefit which may be part of God’s reason for making such commandments. Nonetheless, R. Bloch concedes that pagan idolaters offered ritual sacrifices in order to feed a very human drive to offer sacrifices to a higher cause. By instituting the Torah’s system of sacrifices, God sought to replace idolatry’s role in filling this need with an acceptable outlet (Bloch 1949, pp. 199–201). Even contemporary philosophy recognizes this internal drive for sacrifice. For example, the late Dr. Roger Scruton (1944–2020) opens his book with an undisputed truism, “The desire for sacrifice is rooted deep in all of us” (Scruton 2014, p. 1). |
112. | Ritva in Sefer ha-Zikaron, Parashas Vayikra offers a similar resolution, arguing that the Torah embraces the general concept of ritual sacrifice in order to wean the Jews from idolatry, but at the same time rejects certain details of such worship to achieve 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 refuted Nachmanides’ objections to Maimonides’ stance. Alas, this passage from Comtino’s commentary to the Pentateuch has not yet been found. Nonetheless, later in his commentary to the Guide, Comtino writes that Maimonides only meant that God introduced the concept of ritual sacrifice in general as a concession to help wean the Jews from idolatry; but Maimonides would admit that the details of the Torah’s rules for ritual sacrifice purposely deviate from idolatrous practice (Schwartz and Eisenman 2016, pp. 487–88, 515). |
113. | This translation of the Hebrew word matzeivah (מצבה) follows Rashi’s elucidation that a matzeivah is the same as a mizbeach (מזבח, altar), except that it is built out of one stone (see TB Avodah Zarah 53b and R. Chananel there and Tosafos to TB Avodah Zarah 16b). Nachmanides (there) disagrees with Rashi’s approach and argues that if a matzeivah is also an altar, then why does the Torah differentiate between the shunned matzeivah and the legitimate mizbeach, if the Canaanites served idolatry on both types of altars (as evident from many Scriptural passages). Instead, Nachmanides explains that idolaters would erect a pillar and/or plant a tree to mark the entrance to an idolatrous temple. This pillar is called a matzeivah and the tree is called an asherah. God rejected both of these monuments which served utilitarian purposes for idolatry, 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 Yalkut Shimoni (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). |
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] [Green Version]
- 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, Joshua A. 2020. Ani Maamin: Biblical Criticism, Historical Truth, and the Thirteen Principles of Faith. Jerusalem: Maggid Books. [Google Scholar]
- Binder, Stephanie E. 2012. Tertullian, 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. [Google Scholar]
- Bloch, Yosef Yehuda Leib. 1949. Shiurei Daas. New York City: Feldheim Publishers, 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. [Google Scholar]
- Chait, Israel. 2011. Philosophy of Torah. Charleston: CreateSpace. [Google Scholar]
- Cohen, Eliezer, ed. 2007. Shevet Yehudah, Jerusalem.
- DeGrado, Jessie. 2018. The qdesha in Hosea 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. [Google Scholar]
- 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 Haggadah 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. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society. [Google Scholar]
- Henshke, David. 1996. On the Question of Unity in Maimonides’ Thought. Daat: A Journal of Jewish Philosophy & 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. [Google Scholar]
- 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. [Google Scholar]
- 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-Pardes. 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. [Google Scholar]
- 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. Siddur 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=152489 (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. [Google Scholar]
- 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). [CrossRef]
- 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. [Google Scholar]
- 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 Rav 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: Mesopotamia, Ancient Israel, Ugarit, and Kirtland. In Temples of the Ancient World. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company. [Google Scholar]
- 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. London: 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. [Google Scholar]
- Scruton, Roger. 2014. The Soul of the World. Princeton: Princeton University Press, Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt5hhqq3 (accessed on 18 May 2021).
- Shapiro, Marc B. 2015. Changing the Immutable: How Orthodox Judaism Rewrites Its History. Oxford: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization. [Google Scholar]
- Shapiro, Ben. 2019. The Right Side of History, Digital ed. Northampton: Broadside Books. [Google Scholar]
- Shapiro, Aharon, and Yisrael M. Peles, eds. 2018. Imrei Dosa, Devarim–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, Astrology, 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]
- 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; Venice. 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 Yad Shaul. Tel Aviv. Available online: https://beta.hebrewbooks.org/36723 (accessed on 18 May 2021).
- Westenholz, Joan Goodnick. 1989. Tamar, Qědēšā, 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. [Google Scholar]
- Wyatt, Nicolas, ed. 2002. Religious Texts from Ugarit. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. [Google Scholar]
- Zweibel, Elimelech, ed. 2020. Eim la-Binah, Jerusalem.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Klein, R.C. Weaning Away from Idolatry: Maimonides on the Purpose of Ritual Sacrifices. Religions 2021, 12, 363. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12050363
Klein RC. Weaning Away from Idolatry: Maimonides on the Purpose of Ritual Sacrifices. Religions. 2021; 12(5):363. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12050363
Chicago/Turabian StyleKlein, Reuven Chaim. 2021. "Weaning Away from Idolatry: Maimonides on the Purpose of Ritual Sacrifices" Religions 12, no. 5: 363. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12050363
APA StyleKlein, R. C. (2021). Weaning Away from Idolatry: Maimonides on the Purpose of Ritual Sacrifices. Religions, 12(5), 363. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12050363