How would you respond to the claim that korbanos are "God's food"? How would you account for the similarities between our korban tamid and idolatrous parallels? We look to the tamid for answers.
Sure. It seems somewhat arbitrary to designate sacrifice to Gods other than the God of Israel as their mealtime whereas when it comes to the jewish God to ascribe spiritual significance to it (particularly when peshuto shel mikra seems to back up what the substitute rabbi was saying). Either elevate both or allow the surface meaning to stand. Why is the jewish God getting better treatment?
Valid question. My response is that I challenge this argument on two scores. The first is your claim that the peshuto shel mikra seems to back up what the substitute rabbi was saying. There are numerous pesukim which undermine the substitute rabbi's perspective. To quote the pesukim that the Rambam mentions in the Moreh 3:32: “Does Hashem delight in burnt-offerings and sacrifices as in obedience to the voice of Hashem? Behold! – to obey is better than a choice offering, to be attentive [is better] than the fat of rams” (1 Shmuel 15:22). "What need do I have for your numerous sacrifices?” (Yeshayahu 1:11). "For I did not speak with your forefathers, nor did I command them, on the day I took them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings or peace-offerings. Rather, it was only this thing that I commanded them, saying: ‘Listen to My voice, that I will be your God and you will be My people; and you will go on the entire way that I command you, so that it will be well for you’” (7:22-23). And there are more.
The second grounds on which I challenge your argument is that just because one CAN apply spiritual significance to other deities doesn't mean that such explanations are warranted, or have any grounding in historical reality. For example, I could come up with a purely symbolic explanation of the Eucharist, but no matter how compelling that explanation is on its own terms, it doesn't reflect the historical reality of the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation (i.e. the teaching of the Catholic Church, "the change of the whole substance of bread into the substance of the Body of Christ and of the whole substance of wine into the substance of the Blood of Christ" - to quote Wikipedia). Similarly, if you can show historical evidence that these idolators understood their korbanos this way, then I would accept that evidence. As it stands, based on my (admittedly limited) reading, they believe they were actually providing for the needs of their gods.
Wow, you're speedy. Ok, not to be getting too involved, however, I, like you, do not profess to know the intention of the ancients, jew or gentile, when bringing sacrifice. Your article and my comment were referring to Pentateuch verses only. Those pesukim from the neviim are certainly used by Rambam to build his case of sacrifices having value only insofar as they serve to wean the israelites off of idolatry. However, in context, they can easily be read as saying that mere sacrifice to the neglect of morality is undesirable, not that korbanos have no intrinsic value per se. Ramban, for one (to vayikra 1:9), rejects Rambam's approach in part by citing the selfsame pesukim that you do. Sefer haChinuch as well subscribes to korbanos having symbolic meaning and would likewise need to fend off the prophetic verses that you quote. They would need to explain those pesukim differently than how Rambam reads them (did not check the local meforshim). All the above assuming no shift in Israel's approach to korbanos from the Pentateuch days to the prophets (to use your mashal, l'havdil, how some christian denominations indeed now view communion as symbolic only, although christianity as a whole subscribed to a more physical understanding earlier on in its history).
Yeah, speaking of "not to be getting too involved," this probably isn't the place to hash out the entire machlokess between the Rambam and the Ramban in terms of korbanos.
My main (second) point is that we have a long tradition, in Torah she'bi'Chsav and Torah she'baal Peh, which establishes the mitzvos as being for OUR benefit, not God's. The Ramban agrees with this framework, even though he takes issue with the Rambam's view of korbanos in particular. That is my basis for having different default assumptions for our system vs. that of the idolators. If you could show me similar evidence in their traditions, then I'd accept that as well.
Not sure why whatever you're citing and explaining about jewish sacrifices can't also be applied to non-jewish ones.
Can you elaborate on your question? I'm not sure I understand.
Sure. It seems somewhat arbitrary to designate sacrifice to Gods other than the God of Israel as their mealtime whereas when it comes to the jewish God to ascribe spiritual significance to it (particularly when peshuto shel mikra seems to back up what the substitute rabbi was saying). Either elevate both or allow the surface meaning to stand. Why is the jewish God getting better treatment?
Valid question. My response is that I challenge this argument on two scores. The first is your claim that the peshuto shel mikra seems to back up what the substitute rabbi was saying. There are numerous pesukim which undermine the substitute rabbi's perspective. To quote the pesukim that the Rambam mentions in the Moreh 3:32: “Does Hashem delight in burnt-offerings and sacrifices as in obedience to the voice of Hashem? Behold! – to obey is better than a choice offering, to be attentive [is better] than the fat of rams” (1 Shmuel 15:22). "What need do I have for your numerous sacrifices?” (Yeshayahu 1:11). "For I did not speak with your forefathers, nor did I command them, on the day I took them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings or peace-offerings. Rather, it was only this thing that I commanded them, saying: ‘Listen to My voice, that I will be your God and you will be My people; and you will go on the entire way that I command you, so that it will be well for you’” (7:22-23). And there are more.
The second grounds on which I challenge your argument is that just because one CAN apply spiritual significance to other deities doesn't mean that such explanations are warranted, or have any grounding in historical reality. For example, I could come up with a purely symbolic explanation of the Eucharist, but no matter how compelling that explanation is on its own terms, it doesn't reflect the historical reality of the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation (i.e. the teaching of the Catholic Church, "the change of the whole substance of bread into the substance of the Body of Christ and of the whole substance of wine into the substance of the Blood of Christ" - to quote Wikipedia). Similarly, if you can show historical evidence that these idolators understood their korbanos this way, then I would accept that evidence. As it stands, based on my (admittedly limited) reading, they believe they were actually providing for the needs of their gods.
Wow, you're speedy. Ok, not to be getting too involved, however, I, like you, do not profess to know the intention of the ancients, jew or gentile, when bringing sacrifice. Your article and my comment were referring to Pentateuch verses only. Those pesukim from the neviim are certainly used by Rambam to build his case of sacrifices having value only insofar as they serve to wean the israelites off of idolatry. However, in context, they can easily be read as saying that mere sacrifice to the neglect of morality is undesirable, not that korbanos have no intrinsic value per se. Ramban, for one (to vayikra 1:9), rejects Rambam's approach in part by citing the selfsame pesukim that you do. Sefer haChinuch as well subscribes to korbanos having symbolic meaning and would likewise need to fend off the prophetic verses that you quote. They would need to explain those pesukim differently than how Rambam reads them (did not check the local meforshim). All the above assuming no shift in Israel's approach to korbanos from the Pentateuch days to the prophets (to use your mashal, l'havdil, how some christian denominations indeed now view communion as symbolic only, although christianity as a whole subscribed to a more physical understanding earlier on in its history).
Yeah, speaking of "not to be getting too involved," this probably isn't the place to hash out the entire machlokess between the Rambam and the Ramban in terms of korbanos.
My main (second) point is that we have a long tradition, in Torah she'bi'Chsav and Torah she'baal Peh, which establishes the mitzvos as being for OUR benefit, not God's. The Ramban agrees with this framework, even though he takes issue with the Rambam's view of korbanos in particular. That is my basis for having different default assumptions for our system vs. that of the idolators. If you could show me similar evidence in their traditions, then I'd accept that as well.
Ok. B4 I go, see https://judaism.stackexchange.com/q/140686/34188 where Ramban seemingly contradicts himself in this matter. Till next time