ריח ניחוח

Many precepts in our Law are the result of a similar course adopted by the same Supreme Being. It is, namely, impossible to go suddenly from one extreme to the other: it is therefore according to the nature of man impossible for him suddenly to discontinue everything to which he has been accustomed. Now God sent Moses to make [the Israelites] a kingdom of priests and a holy nation (Exod. 19:6) by means of the knowledge of God. Comp. "Unto thee it was showed that thou mightest know that the Lord is God (Deut. 4:35); "Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the Lord is God" (ibid. 5:39). The Israelites were commanded to devote themselves to His service; comp. "and to serve him with all your heart" (ibid. 11:13); "and you shall serve the Lord your God" (Exod. 23:25); "and ye shall serve him" (Deut. 13:5). But the custom which was in those days general among all men, and the general mode of worship in which the Israelites were brought up, consisted in sacrificing animals in those temples which contained certain images, to bow down to those images, and to burn incense before them; religious and ascetic persons were in those days the persons that were devoted to the service in the temples erected to the stars, as has been explained by us. It was in accordance with the wisdom and plan of God, as displayed in the whole Creation, that He did not command us to give up and to discontinue all these manners of service; for to obey such a commandment it would have been contrary to the nature of man, who generally cleaves to that to which he is used; it would in those days have made the same impression as a prophet would make at present if he called us to the service of God and told us in His name, that we should not pray to Him, not fast, not seek His help in time of trouble; that we should serve Him in thought, and not by any action. For this reason God allowed these kinds of service to continue; He transferred to His service that which had formerly served as a worship of created beings, and of things imaginary and unreal, and commanded us to serve Him in the same manner; viz., to build unto Him a temple; comp. "And they shall make unto me a sanctuary" (Exod. 25:8); to have the altar erected to His name; comp. "An altar of earth thou shalt make unto me" (ibid. 20:21); to offer the sacrifices to Him; comp. "If any man of you bring an offering unto the Lord" (Lev. 1:2), to bow down to Him and to burn incense before Him. He has forbidden to do any of these things to any other being; comp. "He who sacrificeth unto any God, save the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed" (Exod. 22:19); "For thou shalt bow down to no other God" (ibid. 34:14). He selected priests for the service in the temple; comp. "And they shall minister unto me in the priest's office" (ibid. 28:41). He made it obligatory that certain gifts, called the gifts of the Levites and the priests, should be assigned to them for their maintenance while they are engaged in the service of the temple and its sacrifices. By this Divine plan it was effected that the traces of idolatry were blotted out, and the truly great principle of our faith, the Existence and Unity of God, was firmly established; this result was thus obtained without deterring or confusing the minds of the people by the abolition of the service to which they were accustomed and which alone was familiar to them. I know that you will at first thought reject this idea and find it strange; you will put the following question to me in your heart: How can we suppose that Divine commandments, prohibitions, and important acts, which are fully explained, and for which certain seasons are fixed, should not have been commanded for their own sake, but only for the sake of some other thing: as if they were only the means which He employed for His primary object? What prevented Him from making His primary object a direct commandment to us, and to give us the capacity of obeying it? Those precepts which in your opinion are only the means and not the object would then have been unnecessary. Hear my answer, which win cure your heart of this disease and will show you the truth of that which I have pointed out to you. There occurs in the Law a passage which contains exactly the same idea; it is the following: "God led them not through the way of the land of the Philistines, although that was near; for God said, Lest peradventure the people repent when they see war, and they return to Egypt; but God led the people about, through the way of the wilderness of the Red Sea," etc. (Exod. 13:17). Here God led the people about, away from the direct road which He originally intended, because He feared they might meet on that way with hardships too great for their ordinary strength; He took them by another road in order to obtain thereby His original object. In the same manner God refrained from prescribing what the people by their natural disposition would be incapable of obeying, and gave the above-mentioned commandments as a means of securing His chief object, viz., to spread a knowledge of Him [among the people], and to cause them to reject idolatry. It is contrary to man's nature that he should suddenly abandon all the different kinds of Divine service and the different customs in which he has been brought up, and which have been so general, that they were considered as a matter of course; it would be just as if a person trained to work as a slave with mortar and bricks, or similar things, should interrupt his work, clean his hands, and at once fight with real giants. It was the result of God's wisdom that the Israelites were led about in the wilderness till they acquired courage. For it is a well-known fact that travelling in the wilderness, and privation of bodily enjoyments, such as bathing, produce courage, whilst the reverse is the source of faint-heartedness: besides, another generation rose during the wanderings that had not been accustomed to degradation and slavery. All the travelling in the wilderness was regulated by Divine commands through Moses; comp. "At the commandment of the Lord they rested, and at the commandment of the Lord they journeyed; they kept the charge of the Lord and the commandment of the Lord by the hand of Moses" (Num. 9:23). In the same way the portion of the Law under discussion is the result of divine wisdom, according to which people are allowed to continue the kind of worship to which they have been accustomed, in order that they might acquire the true faith, which is the chief object [of God's commandments]. You ask, What could have prevented God from commanding us directly, that which is the chief object, and from giving us the capacity of obeying it? This would lead to a second question, What prevented God from leading the Israelites through the way of the land of the Philistines, and endowing them with strength for fighting? The leading about by a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night would then not have been necessary. A third question would then be asked in reference to the good promised as reward for the keeping of the commandments, and the evil foretold as a punishment for sins. It is the following question: As it is the chief object and purpose of God that we should believe in the Law, and act according to that which is written therein, why has He not given us the capacity of continually believing in it, and following its guidance, instead of holding out to us reward for obedience, and punishment for disobedience, or of actually giving all the predicted reward and punishment? For [the promises and the threats] are but the means of leading to this chief object. What prevented Him from giving us, as part of our nature, the will to do that which He desires us to do, and to abandon the kind of worship which He rejects? There is one general answer to these three questions, and to all questions of the same character: it is this: Although in every one of the signs [related in Scripture] the natural property of some individual being is changed, the nature of man is never changed by God by way of miracle. It is in accordance with this important principle that God said, "O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me," etc. (Deut. 5:26). It is also for this reason that He distinctly stated the commandments and the prohibitions, the reward and the punishment. This principle as regards miracles has been frequently explained by us in our works: I do not say this because I believe that it is difficult for God to change the nature of every individual person; on the contrary, it is possible, and it is in His power, according to the principles taught in Scripture; but it has never been His will to do it, and it never will be. If it were part of His will to change [at His desire] the nature of any person, the mission of prophets and the giving of the Law would have been altogether superfluous.

as a burnt offering: [the kohen] must burn the animal with the intention that it is a burnt offering. (Torat Kohanim 1:58) a fire offering: When he slaughters [the animal], he must slaughter it with the intention [to burn it completely in] fire. Every [instance of the word] אִשֶּׁה in Scripture, is an expression related to אֵשׁ, “fire." pleasing: gives Me contentment, for I said [My commandment], and My will was fulfilled!” End quotation from Rashi. But the Rav did not explain what "for the fire" means. And in Gemara (Zevachim 46:b) they said: "To exclude unfinished burning," and he explains here that we slaughter it in order to place it over the burning wood fire upon the altar, not to place it over the coals that chill and go dim. And it seems to me that one needs to intend that the fire consume it completely, and not to roast it a little. And this relates to the rebellious son (Sanhedrin 70a): "Like midcooked thieve's meat." And in Tractate Eruvin: "Neither cooked nor consumed." (Eruvin 29b) And there are some that explain there: "To exclude unfinished burning." (Zevachim 46a) His intention was to place over wood fire, as it is written "over the fire on the wood," and not over straw fire nor kindling fire. It is like the matter we learned: "finished oven with straw and mulch." (Shabbat 36b) And behold, in this verse the reason for the sacrifices is that they are "a fire offering with a pleasing odor to the Lord." But the Rambam said in the Guide for the Perplexed (3:46) that the reason for the sacrifices was for the sake of the Egyptians and Chaldeans, in whose lands Israel used to live and dwell, who would worship the bull and the sheep. Because the Egyptians worshipped a lamb, and the Chaldeans worshipped demons that appeared to them as goats. And the people of India to this day never slaughter a cow. For this reason (God) commanded to slaughter these three species in God's name to make known that the matter which (the pagans) thought of as the ultimate sin is what (the Israelites) will sacrifice to their Creator and their sins will be attoned for. For thus are bad beliefs healed, which are ailments of the soul, since every ailment and illness is healed through its opposite. These are his words and he continues at length. This is rubbish! They have healed a great hurt and a great difficulty lightly! The table of the Eternal is made polluted. (Malachi 1:12) For they are not only to remove [false beliefs] from the hearts of the wicked and fools of the world. Doesn't Scripture say that they are "food of the gift offering, for a pleasing odor?" (Leviticus 3:16) And also due to the idiocy of the Egyptians their illness won't be healed this way. Rather it would increase suffering, because the intention of the aforementioned wicked ones was to worship the constellations of the sheep and the ox, which have power, according to their thinking. And therefore they don't eat them in deference to their power and strength. But if they are slaughtered for the Revered Name, this would be an honor for them... Since the deeds of people are determined by thought, speech and action, God, may He be blessed, commanded that when he sins, he brings a sacrifice and place his hands upon him corresponding to the deed, and confess with his mouth corresponding to the speech, and burn the innards and the kidneys, as they are the instruments of thought and desire. And the limbs [of the sacrifice] correspond to the hands and feet of a person that does all of his work. And he sprinkles the blood on the altar corresponding to the blood of his soul, so that a person think in doing all of this that he sinned to God with his body and his soul, and it is fit for him that his blood be spilled and his body burnt; were it not for the kindness of the Creator, who took an exchange and ransom from him [in] the sacrifice - that its blood be instead of his blood and its soul be instead of his soul. And the central limbs correspond to his central limbs. And the portions with which to sustain the teachers of Torah [are so] that they will pray for him. And the daily sacrifice is because there is no saving the community from always sinning. And these words are tenable [and] grab the heart, like the words of classic homiletic teachings (Shabbat 87a). And in the way of truth (mysticism), the sacrifices contain a hidden secret...

ניחוח (of the root נוח, “to repose”, “to draw satisfaction from …”) — an odour of ניחוח: one that causes satisfaction to Me by the knowledge that I gave commands and that My will was executed (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 6 10; Zevachim 46b).

Pleasing fragrance. This instructs us about the proper intention we should have when bringing an offering. Instead of focusing on the fact that the offering atones for our sin, we should consider it as only a pleasing fragrance of what we intend to do in the future. This is comparable to a good scent that travels a distance and indicates that the source of the scent is something good, in the same way, an offering proclaims that we will do good deeds in the future. A burnt-offering (עולה): To grow higher (לעלות) in our spiritual level and the importance of our deeds and character traits.

Were I hungry, I would not tell you, for Mine is the world and all it holds.

'והקטיר הכהן את הכל המזבחה, עולה אשה ריח ניחוח לה, “and the priest shall cause all of it to burn up on the altar, it is a burnt-offering, an offering by fire of pleasing odor to the Lord.” According to the plain meaning of the text the entire purpose of the legislation concerning animal-sacrifices is for man’s benefit. G’d takes a delight in His most perfect creation, i.e. man, for whose sake the entire universe has been created. The purpose of the species is to be so governed by its intellect that it will remain free from sin just like the angels in heaven (who have no evil urge. Ed.)
If, perchance, man does commit a sin, due to the evil urge which has been planted within man, it is appropriate that he repent and recognise his inadequacy vis-a-vis his Creator whose will he transgressed. Such a sinner must turn inward recognising that the sin he committed affected both his body and his spirit. Seeing that everything man does involves three components, the physical deed, the planning, and his power of speech, i.e. communicating his thoughts, the Torah commanded man to bring a sacrifice to atone for his sin and to place his hands (weight) on the sacrificial animal in order to atone for the physical action involved in the sin committed. He has to confess the sin with words in order to make up for having misused the power of speech given to him when he committed a sin. He has to burn up the inner organs of the animal including the kidneys, seat of his thoughts, in order to make up for the faulty thinking which resulted in his committing a sin. In this manner the atonement will involve three stages just as commission of the sin involved three separate parts of his personality.
Strictly speaking, the sinner’s own blood should have been sprinkled on the altar in order for him to obtain forgiveness; however, by performing the rites set out by the Torah, G’d, in His generosity, accounts this for the sinner as if his own blood had been sprinkled on the altar. Man is to think of these procedures in those terms when his sin-offering is being burned up.
By rights, most people are guilty of the four death-penalties decreed by the Torah for a variety of sins, i.e. stoning, death by burning, death by asphyxiation, and death by the sword. When the priest takes the animal and forces it to the ground in preparation for slaughter this symbolizes the penalty of death by stoning. It is as if the sinner had agreed that he himself is deserving of this penalty. When the animal is slaughtered and its neck is severed it is as if the sinner had confessed that he himself was guilty of such a penalty. Severing of the windpipe of the slaughtered animal is equivalent to performing the death penalty by asphyxiation, whereas burning up of the fat parts, etc., is equivalent to the owner/sinner admitting that he himself was guilty of that penalty.

Tanchuma Shelach 14 explains the concept of animal sacrifice in a similar way when writing about Genesis 22,13 where the Torah reports Avraham as sacrificing the ram as a burnt-offering in lieu of his son.” The word תחת used by the Torah, which we translated as “in lieu of,” is the cause of the Midrash saying that whenever Avraham prepared a part of that animal either its blood or its fat-parts, etc., he first recited a prayer beginning with the words: “may it be Your will O Lord that the sacrificial service I am about to perform should be considered as if it had been performed on my son. The animal’s blood should be considered as Yitzchak’s blood, its body which is being burned as if Yitzchak’s body had been burned.” G’d accepts the sinner’s offering in place of the sinner and grants him atonement. This is an expression of G’d’s great love for His creatures. This explanation of the purpose of sacrifice is one that satisfied one’s heart even though it appears to limit the value of animal sacrifice to sin or guilt-offerings.
The fact that the Torah calls such a sacrifice as “a fire-offering of sweet odour for the Lord,” reflects the love with which G’d relates to a repentant sinner. [These sacrifices and the atonement that follows are restricted to unintentionally committed sins. Ed.]

A Midrashic approach (Tanchuma Pinchas 12). Assaph writes in Psalms 50,12: “if I were hungry I would not tell you, for Mine is the world and all it holds.” In verse 9 in the same psalm we read: ‘I will not take (claim) from your estate a single bull, no he-goats from your pen, for Mine is every animal of the forest, the beasts on a thousand mountains.” Rabbi Simon said thirteen different attributes of G’d’s mercy have been recorded seeing the Torah writes: “the Lord passed in front of him (Moses) etc.” (Exodus 34,6). Is there then anyone who can be called merciful if he entrusts His own food-supply to the cruel (i.e. man)? The idea that G’d would let man decide how much food and what kind of food to feed G’d is so totally ridiculous as not being worth discussing! This is the meaning of Palms 50,12, i.e. we are to read it as a question highlighting the absurdity of G’d making man the arbiter of how much He should consume!
Rabbi Yehudah son of Simon said that G’d told man that He had put 10 categories of domesticated (non-carnivorous) beasts at his disposal, 3 of which were easily accessible to him i.e. oxen (cattle) sheep and goats (Deut. 14,4). The other 7 categories are: the hart, the deer, the yachmur, the akko, the dishon, the teo, and the zamir. Seeing they are difficult for you to access I have not demanded that you offer to Me the pure animals which are free-roaming. The only ones which I have asked you to use as sacrificial animals are the ones that feed on your trough, i.e. have ben domesticated by you, the ones you do not have to hunt. This is the meaning of the verse: “If I am hungry I would not tell you.”
Rabbi Yitzchack drew attention to the verse in Numbers 28,2 את קרבני לחמי, “My sacrifice, My bread, etc.” Can one then speak of G’d “eating” or “drinking?” You should learn a lesson from what we know about the ministering angels. David writes in Psalms 104,4: “His messengers are fiery flames.” To the question what sustains the ministering angels, i.e. what kind of food to they subsist on, the answer given is that they are sustained by the זיו השכינה, “the brightness and splendour of the Shechinah, as we know from Proverbs 16,15 באור פני מלך חיים, “in the light of the king’s face there is life.”
Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: “we can learn all this directly from what the Torah told us about Moses. We have been told in Exodus 34,28 that while Moses was on Mount Sinai he neither ate bread nor drank water. If Moses, while only on a mission for G’d did not need physical food, how much less does G’d Himself need such food? This is the meaning of “if I were hungry, I would not tell you (to supply Me.).”

A rational approach: the matter of animal sacrifice and why it is useful may be understood in terms of the origin of the sin. Whether a sin is committed only in the mind or is actually carried out, the source of such sin is some spirit of impurity which has infected man’s soul. If man desires atonement for his sin it is essential that he expel this spirit of impurity first. If he succeeds in doing this he will be cleansed from his guilt. This is why in the case of a sin-offering it is incumbent upon him to offer the animal which symbolises such impurity, i.e. the goat or he-goat. When the animal is consumed the impure spirit of the sinner is consumed at the same time. and is burnt up on the altar. This is what the Talmud Yuma 21 had in mind when it spoke of “fire consuming fire,” i.e. the fire of the altar consumes the fire, (evil urge) which was burning in man when he committed the sin. This quality of the fire on the altar is so important that the Torah commanded that this fire never be allowed to go out (Leviticus 6,5 and 6,6).

In the third section of Moreh Nevuchim chapter 32, item 47 Maimonides writes concerning the reason behind the animal sacrifice legislation that the Torah wanted to uproot pagan practices amongst the Jewish people and that by sublimating the animal sacrifice ritual this could be achieved. The most important part of the legislation was that instead of sacrifices of living creatures being offered to idolatrous forces in temples dedicated to forces of nature, the Jew would learn to dedicate all he had to dedicate to the one and only G’d. The idolaters had imagined that by what they were doing they could reinforce the power of their respective horoscopes by offering their sacrifices to them and that in turn their horoscopes would bestow their largess upon them or at least protect them against harmful influences.
When the Egyptians worshipped the image of a sheep they did so in the knowledge that the horoscope of the sheep was of great influence in the celestial regions. They felt that the blessings bestowed on earth by means of flocks originated with that zodiac sign. It was generally perceived that essential food products such as milk, butter, etc., were all the “gift” of zodiac signs in the celestial regions. If the Egyptians did not want to be shepherds (compare Genesis 46,34), this was because they felt that acting as if they owned their “gods” was an insult to these gods who they perceived of as being the providers of their essential foodstuffs.
What applied to the Egyptians and their sheep applied to the Chaldaens and their attitude to cattle. They perceived the zodiac sign of the ox to be the source responsible for their food-supply. As a result they forbade that cattle be slaughtered, and abstained from eating beef. Indians still cling to such beliefs today and do not slaughter cows, (hence the expression “holy cow.”) This is why G’d commanded that just these species be sacrificed to G’d. This is why the Torah commenced the section dealing with animal sacrifice by referring to a person’s desire to offer מן הבקר ומן הצאן, “from the cattle or the flock” (1,2). The Torah wanted to let us know that these species were considered as so important in determining the fates of the heathens of those days. Henceforth, these very species would be featured in obtaining forgiveness for the trespasses committed by the Jewish people unintentionally. Faulty philosophies, i.e. religious beliefs, can be forgiven only when one reverses course. By dedicating the very thing one used to dedicate to idolatrous causes to a sacred cause approved by G’d, or better still, commanded by G’d, atonement for one’s former errors becomes possible. Diseases of the body are healed, i.e. reversed, when the balance of the body is restored by the person suffering from the disease reversing course, i.e. negating intake of what brought on the disease, etc. The same is true for spiritual imbalances which resulted in idolatrous philosophies. The Torah’s principal concern is the combating of false philosophies, false perceptions of who rules the universe and who has created it. This is why such sacrifices became “a fire-offering of pleasant odour to the Lord.” When the people unite in order to serve the Lord instead of idols, they thereby strengthen the unity of G’d. Idolatry, by definition, is the opposite of unity, in particular of the concept of the unity of G’d. This is the approach of Maimonides and his followers to the subject of animal sacrifice.
However much one might be tempted to accept Maimonides’ theory, the fact remains that righteous people long before the Torah had been given were in the habit of offering animal sacrifices not to idols- but to the one and only G’d. All of this preceded the times when idolatrous practices were introduced. Adam offered animal sacrifices (Chulin 60); Hevel, his son, also offered sheep, i.e. animal sacrifices (Genesis 4,4). Noach and his sons offered numerous animal sacrifices as thanksgiving after the deluge from which they had been saved (Genesis 8,21). G’d is on record as responding to these sacrifices by describing them as ריח ניחוח, “pleasant smelling odour.” All this occurred long before there were any Egyptians or Chaldaens.

The whole subject of animal sacrifice dating back as it does to the first man is a subject replete with mystical significance. It contains hidden elements of the interrelations between different parts of G’d’s creation. We have touched upon this in the introduction to our commentary to the Torah under the heading “the fourth method.” All those who do understand these matters are duty-bound to conceal their knowledge and not publicise it indiscriminately. This knowledge may only be revealed for the sake of the Creator’s honour to selected individuals, exceptionally pious persons. David already indicated in Psalms 19,11 that the words of G’d which are sweeter than honey are for the ones who have displayed thorough understanding. Anyone lacking such attributes will find these mysteries of the Torah as exceedingly remote. These words are considered as עתיקים, dating back to primeval times (based on Chronicles I 4,22); they are like deep waters which cannot be explored by just anybody.

A kabbalistic approach sees in the word קרבן itself an allusion to G’d’s Unity. The word suggests that all of G’d’s various attributes are very close to one another just as His names are very close to each other, all part of One Unity. Anyone offering a sacrifice thereby reinforces this fabric of G’d’s Unity. This is the mystical dimension of the words והקטיר הכהן את הכל המזבחה, “that the priest will ensure that the All will be going up in flames on the altar.” The additional letter ה at the end of the word המזבחה does not wish to confuse us but is meant to explain a concept. That letter represents the final letter ה in the tetragram and as such it symbolises the attribute which “receives.” It is therefore also called מזבח. From this altar ideas rise higher and higher until in the course of their “rising” they become progressively more purified, end up as מחשבה טהורה, pure thoughts. We find similar constructions both in Chronicles II 29,27 where King Chiskiyah instructed the priests to offer burnt-offerings not למזבח but להמזבח, the extra letter ה alluding to the same concept as in our verse. Another example of this concept is found in Psalms 20,4 where David speaks about the ashes of the gift-offerings being received by G’d; he says ידשנה instead of ידשן, the extra letter ה conveying the same idea as the letter ה at the end of the word המזבחה in our verse. [In his chapter on כנויים, the meanings of well-known words or terms, the author of Pardes Rimonim defines the word קרבן as another word for the Shechinah seeing that the function of the Shechinah is to gather together all the “threads” and emanations so that after being gathered together they form a unity, i.e. demonstrate that they did not exist as independent ideas, entities, but all originate in the same whole. This may make the author’s words easier to understand. Ed.]
In our verse the Torah describes the result of the sacrificial rites being performed as עולה, אשה ריח ניחוח. The word עולה describes the smoke from the burned up parts of the animal rising heavenwards as far as the region represented by the letter ה in the word המזבחה which we just mentioned. Having reached that level, this very letter ה (i.e. what it represents) helps that offering to rise ever higher into the celestial regions. Once the smoke has ceased rising, the meat turns into fire; this is why the Torah added the description אשה, “a fire-offering” to the word עולה, “a burnt-offering,” which rises into celestial regions. Once the fire has burned itself out also, the whole becomes רוח spiritualised in the form of ריח, something that can neither be seen anymore, felt anymore, but can only be perceived by our sense of smell. This spirit is to “pull” the goodwill and the outpouring of it to earth via the attribute of Mercy.
The whole expression ריח ניחוח לה' may be perceived as related to the word נחה, “came to rest, settled.” We find that in the discussion between the prophet Elijah with his disciple Elisha who had balked at accepting the mantle of prophecy from Elijah unless the latter endowed him with twice as much רוח, spirit, as that possessed by his master Elijah, that the Book of Kings (II 2,15 relates that Elisha’s wish was granted and that this spirit came to rest on him. In a similar way the objective of the עולה--אשה--ריח ניחוח is to result in the desired divine qualities being bestowed on those who offer the sacrifice (and the whole people in the case of a public offering).
In Torat Kohanim Sifra Vayikra 1,59 the words עולה--אשה--ריח ניחוח are explained as follows: עולה לשם עולה, אשה לשם אשים,לשם ריח ניחוח, לשם נחת רוח לה', לשם מי שעשה את העולם. The meaning of this cryptic sentence is that the word עולה means that the person offering this sacrifice must intend that it reach the tenth emanation; however this does not mean it should be directed at, i.e. dedicated to that emanation. It means that from that region onwards the thoughts which prompted the offering will become capable of achieving their objective; from that region the offering will enter holy celestial domains.
The words אשה לשם אשים mean that the offering be addressed to both the “weaker” and the “stronger” attribute of Justice. The meaning is parallel to the Midrash which comments on the words קרבני לחמי “did you think I need the sacrifice as My food?” The meaning is that it should serve to assuage the “injured feelings” of the attribute of Justice; the sinner had offended that attribute by committing the sin which the sacrifice is to atone for. This is all part of G’d saying לאשי, “for My fires,” you bring it to these attributes of Mine. The emanation כבוד will receive the offering from the attribute פחד. We find a parallel statement in the Midrash Zutta on Song of Songs 1,15 on the words הנך יפה רעיתי, where the author interprets the word רעיתי as equivalent to פרנסתי, “My livelihood.” According to the Midrash, G’d said to Israel: “what you are presenting to Me in the form of fire-offerings I view as if it were intended to be My food, My livelihood.” This explains the addition of the letter ה at the end of the word, as normally the word “fire” is written as אש without the letter ה at the end. The letter ה in אשה is basically as superfluous as the letter ה in Psalms 8,8 צנה ואלפים כלם, “sheep and oxen all of them.” The word אשה meaning “woman” is alluded to by the Midrash in Song of Songs which perceives the Jewish people as being G’d’s “provider” by means of their sacrifices. The Midrash reads the word isheh as if the vowel under the letter ש had been a kametz, i.e. making the word into ishah, woman, provider for her husband. Another reason why the word is not spelled merely as אש is so as to draw our attention to the “fifth” emanation (from the tenth down) the emanation of גבורה also known as האש הגדולה, the “great (consuming) fire, the fiery attribute of Justice.” Compare Deut. 5,22 where the expression האש הגדולה occurs.
When the Torat Kohanim wrote the words ריח לשם ריח הניחוח, it meant that the Torah wants the person offering the sacrifice to concentrate on the heavenly source (seat of pure thoughts) from where all of G’d’s goodness is lavished on earth and G’d’s creatures. It is from that region that these intentions are drawn towards the attribute of Mercy and come to rest on there. [I believe that to sum up it is simpler to say that a sinner must first assuage the attribute of Justice before he can put the attribute of Mercy at ease. One cannot sin and by trying to bypass the attribute of Justice whom one has offended rely on the attribute of Mercy to deal with the attribute of Justice on our behalf instead of addressing it directly. Ed.]
Our verse concludes with the word לה' in order to indicate that in the final analysis the goal of the sin-offering is the attribute of Mercy, as unless that attribute were involved in interceding on our behalf no one could stand up to the attribute of Justice by himself. Torat Kohanim phrased this as “to the One who created the universe,” as without the existence of and active intervention by the attribute of Mercy the world such as we know it would not endure seeing man is so sinful. We know that already when G’d created the universe using the attribute of Justice, He decided to “co-opt” the attribute of Mercy in order to ensure that the universe would endure and not self-destruct (Bereshit Rabbah 12,15, see Rashi on Genesis 1,1).

Satisfaction before Me. I.e., it is not that Hashem is pleased by the fragrance of the sacrifice, for it is written (Tehillim 50:12): “If I were hungry I would not tell you...”

(Vayikra, Ibid.): "… a burnt-offering, a fire-offering, a savor, sweet, to the L–rd": "a burnt-offering" — to that end (i.e., he must have that intent); "a fire-offering" — to that end (i.e., to exclude charring it instead of burning it to ashes); "a savor" — to that end (to exclude roasting it beforehand); "sweet" (nichoach) — to give pleasure (nachath ruach); "to the L–rd" — to the Creator of the world.

MISHNA: It is stated with regard to an animal burnt offering: “A fire offering, an aroma pleasing to the Lord” (Leviticus 1:9), and with regard to a bird burnt offering: “A fire offering, an aroma pleasing to the Lord” (Leviticus 1:17), and with regard to a meal offering: “A fire offering, an aroma pleasing to the Lord” (Leviticus 2:2). The repetitive language employed concerning all of these different offerings is to say to you that one who brings a substantial offering and one who brings a meager offering have equal merit, provided that he directs his heart toward Heaven.

They who sit in his shade shall be revived: They shall bring to life new grain, They shall blossom like the vine; His scent shall be like the wine of Lebanon.