(1) Son of man, take a tile and place it before you, and trace upon it a city, Jerusalem. (2) Lay siege against it, and build forts against it, and cast up a mound against it; set camps also against it, and set battering rams all around it. (3) You shall take an iron plate and set it as an iron wall between you and the city. Set your face against it. It will be besieged, and you will lay siege against it. This will be a sign to the house of Israel.
1. Ezekiel lived through the siege and Babylonian siege of Jerusalem (597 bce) and the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple (586 bce). In these verses, יי commands Ezekiel to create a model of Jerusalem. The setting of this portion of Ezekiel takes place prior to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. What is the purpose of this model?
Rabbi Elazar says: "from the day the Temple was destroyed a wall of iron separating Israel from God was set in place (nifsaka), as it is written, 'You shall take an iron plate and set it as an iron wall between you and the city' (Ezekiel 4:3).
1. According to the above translation, How does Rabbi Elazar understand the verse from Ezekiel?
a. What does this understanding say about the relationship between tefillah and sacrificial offerings? Which is more important?
2. According to scholar Dr. Baruch Bokser, z"l, argues that the verb nifsaka means remove. In which case, the new translation would be:
Rabbi Elazar says: "from the day the Temple was destroyed a wall of iron separating Israel from God was removed (nifsaka)..."
a. According to this new translation, how does Rabbi Elazar understand the relationship between tefillah and sacrificial offerings? Which is more important?
אמר ריש לקיש
מאי דכתיב (ויקרא ז, לז) זאת התורה לעולה למנחה ולחטאת ולאשם
כל העוסק בתורה כאילו הקריב עולה מנחה חטאת ואשם
אמר רבא האי לעולה למנחה עולה ומנחה מיבעי ליה אלא אמר רבא כל העוסק בתורה אינו צריך לא עולה (ולא חטאת) ולא מנחה ולא אשם.
Reish Lakish teaches:
"What is the meaning of the following verse:
'This is the Torah/Instruction of the whole-burnt offering, the grain offering, the sin offering, and the other sin offering (Leviticus 7:27)?'
It means that all who studies Torah it is as if they sacrificed all 4 of these offerings."
Rava understands the verse differently and teaches:
"It means all who study Torah do not need any of the 4 offerings."
1. In your own words, describe how Resh Lakish understands the verse from Leviticus and how Rava understands the same verse.
2. What is the difference between the opinions of Rava and Resh Lakish?
3. Based on this source, how do each of the two rabbis understand our discussion about tefillah? Which position do they take?
4. Whose opinion do you naturally gravitate towards? Why? Can you find any personal meaning in the opinion of the rabbi with whom you do not naturally agree?
Rambam, Guide for the Perplexed 3:32
The commandment regarding sacrifices was not essential [to Torah], rather it comes as an intermediary step in order to push off the inclination to worship idols that had mislead the people. The commandment comes only as a process and foundation for proper service of God alone.