Parashat VaYikra deals with sacrifices. The idea of sacrifices puts many of us off. That reaction prevents us from studying the details of sacrifice, although they have much to teach us about rituals. In fact, parashat VaYikra is the first to provide us with a systematic presentation of what is expected of us if we wish to approach God. Thus, this parasha is fundamental to ritual in general, and religious rituals in particular.

The parasha begins with a description of the primary forms of bringing a sacrifice before God: the burnt offering (olah) and the grain offering (minhah). It establishes that the ritual requires the selection of an appropriate, unblemished animal – that must be male, in accordance with the gender preference of biblical discourse.

The offering must then be brought to the holy place – the entrance of the Tent of Meeting – to be sacrificed before God. The sacrificial ritual includes laying a hand upon the head of the offering, which constitutes the expiation ritual. Afterwards, the person making the offering slaughters the sacrifice. The priest then dashes the blood against the sides of the altar, flays the animal, cuts it up into sections, and burns them upon the altar. The ritual would appear to constitute the basis for approaching God.

We learn that the ritual requires that we employ fitting, appropriate elements, and that it be performed in the place chosen for meeting God (the Tent of Meeting). The ritual itself always constitutes expiation for sin, even if it was not specifically intended for that purpose, and it comprises four primary elements: laying of a hand, slaughtering, dashing the blood on the altar, and burning the entire sacrifice.

It would appear that the sacrifice operates on two levels. It serves both as a gift to God and to represent the person approaching God. The gift aspect shows us that a gift must be personal, and it is thus offered by means of the giver laying a hand upon it. The giver relinquishes what is his, and hands it over completely to the receiver. The aspect of approaching God is expressed in symbolically transferring oneself to the sacrifice by means of laying one’s hand upon it. By slaughtering the animal, the person detaches from his self, relinquishing part of his own being, then casts himself before God (by dashing the blood), and finally offers himself entirely to God through the sacrifice.

It would, therefore, seem that approaching God requires a holy place, choosing an appropriate gift, as well as a willingness to be fully present in the meeting, and the absolute surrender of the self to God. One can also learn from this that the encounter with God must be preceded by self-examination. Sacrifices represent contrition for “sin.” The sacrifice is an expression of regret. The means for atoning for our sins is our readiness to give our souls to God, and only after that our bodies.

Thus, we find that our encounter with God in prayer requires a holy place and a willingness to give, first by giving our spiritual self, rendering it bit by bit before God, and then by dedicating our physical self to the daily task of freeing ourselves from sin.

As we see, even our modern struggle to find relevant means appropriate for encountering God can benefit from a careful examination of the sacrificial ritual and the adoption of some of its ideas in our own lives.

“If any one sins in that he hears a public adjuration to testify and though he is a witness, whether he has seen or come to know the matter, yet does not speak, he shall bear his iniquity” (Leviticus 5:1).

1. Why? Is it is a sin not to testify? Are we obligated to testify in regard to every transgression? Theft? Murder?

2. Does this verse also apply to future offences that may be prevented by testifying, or only to offences that have already been committed?

3. “Does not speak” to whom? And what if one chooses to act to prevent the offence rather than speak?

4. What if a person “does not speak” because he believes he does not think an offence has been committed?

5. What if a person “does not speak” because the offence was committed long ago?

6. What if a person “does not speak” because he thinks the authorities will not understand?

7. What if a person “does not speak” because he does not think the offence is serious, or because he knows the offender and believes that he regrets his wrongdoing and will not repeat it?

8. What if…?

Rabbi Elimelech said: I am guaranteed a place in the world to come.
When I stand before the heavenly court and they ask me “did you pursue Torah and mitzvoth?” I will say “no.”
When they ask “did you pray as required?” I will say “no.”
When they then ask “did you perform good deeds as required?” I will again be unable to give any answer.
They will immediately rule: “You speak the truth. For telling the truth you merit a place in the world to come.”

          (Martin Buber, The Hidden Light)

Would an earthly court rule the same way?