The latest – and loopiest – ‘peace’ formula advanced by the former head of the security services is… submission in slow motion.
-
Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me
– A proverb of disputed origin
-
Stupid is as stupid does
– From the movie, Forest Gump
There is something about the discourse on the Palestinian issue that seems to induce the total evaporation of the mental faculties of otherwise ostensibly intelligent human beings.
Perplexing questions
How else can we explain the occurrence of so many perplexing – and vexing – phenomena? For example: Why is it that the feasibility of Palestinian statehood has been repeatedly disproven, but somehow never discredited – and certainly never discarded? How can it be that the land-for-peace formula has been undermined neither by the accumulation of past failures nor the accumulating evidence of its future implausibility? What makes any professed Zionist advocate a policy whose prospects for success are so slim and whose chances of ruinous failure so great?
Why do so many, who purportedly endorse rationality in human behavior, embrace such irrationality in their political credos?
But even more disturbing questions as to the conduct and motives of adherents/advocates of Palestinian statehood and the landfor- peace formula arise from their determined denial of the failure of their dogmatic doctrine and the devastation that endeavors to implement it have wrought.
Cavalier and contradictory claims
Prior to the Oslo process, the land-for-peace/ two-staters explained sagaciously that Palestinian terror attacks were the acts of extremists, driven by frustration at the lack of a peace-process. However, once the peace process was implemented, and Palestinian terror attacks not only continued but increased dramatic ally, they explained that these were acts of the extremists trying to impede the peace process – whose previous absence was invoked as the cause of their “frustration” that allegedly precipitated the pre-process terror.
So, according to the “enlightened” two-staters, terror is produced both by the lack of – and the existence of – the peace process. Go figure!
One of the main arguments put forward previously by two-staters was economic. Without peace, they warned, there could be no economic prosperity.
But then the violence of the 2000 intifada erupted, and the negotiations with the Palestinians ground to a halt. Yet lo and behold, with nary a peace process on the horizon, Israel’s economy strengthened, then surged, then soared – and another loony-left legend bit the dust. But get this! Now Israel’s economic success is being blamed for Israel’s apathy toward peace – or rather the lack thereof.
Thus in a September 2010 article entitled “Why Israel Doesn’t Care About Peace” Time magazine wrote: “The truth is, Israelis are no longer preoccupied with the matter [peace]. They’re otherwise engaged; they’re making money.”
So whereas previously peace was presented as necessary for attaining economic prosperity, now economic prosperity is being blamed for not attaining – or at least, not pursuing – peace. Confusing, isn’t it? They just can’t seem to stick to the story line.
More contradictory claims
Of course the whole raison d’etre – both moral and substantive – for initiating the Oslowian peace process on the basis of landfor- peace was the claim that was there was a credible peace partner (i.e. “someone to talk to”) with whom a sustainable agreement could be struck. Thus, according to the twostaters, territorial withdrawal could be achieved by a negotiated bilateral agreement.
However, when it soon became clear that this was not the case, rather than jettison the idea of territorial withdrawal, they jettisoned the idea that it should be negotiated. So the notion of unilateral withdrawal was born – which culminated in the disastrous “disengagement” from Gaza.
When confronted with the debacle into which the Gaza abandonment rapidly deteriorated, two-staters refused to admit error. Instead they now tried to excuse/explain the failure by complaining that the withdrawal had not been the product of a negotiation process – the acknowledged impossibility of which was presented as the need for unilateral measures in the first place. You couldn’t make this stuff up!
But wait, there’s more. Having apparently despaired once again of resurrecting the negotiations anytime soon, two-staters have rediscovered unilateralism, which now seems back in favor with them–big time, on the pages of The New York Times no less.
Thus, in a recent op-ed – endorsed this week by Tom Friedman (itself a reason for caution and concern) – a trio of prominent two-staters announced: “We recognize that a comprehensive peace agreement is unattainable right now… It now seems highly unlikely that the two sides will return to negotiations – but that does not mean the status quo must be frozen in place.” They then issued a call for – wait for it – “constructive unilateralism.”
Plumbing new depths of absurdity
You’ve got to hand it to The New York Times. When it comes to publishing delusional drivel on the Israeli-Palestinian issue the “newspaper of record” is difficult to match. But even by the Times’ standards, the April 23 opinion piece, “Peace Without Partners” by Ami Ayalon, Orni Petruschka and Gilead Sher plumbed new depths of absurdity – leaving one to puzzle over whether the only journalistic criterion for publication in the paper’s opinion section is denigration of Israeli settlements or support for Israeli withdrawal.
Indeed, the very oxymoronic nature of the title, “Peace without Partners,” testifies to the nonsensical nature of its content, which not only resurrects the failed formula of unilateral retreat but suggests a new one – of “unilateral peace” whatever that might mean.
For Israelis, the article should be a matter of grave concern, especially in view of the prominent positions held by some of the authors. Ayalon served as commander of Israel’s navy and Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency), while Sher was chief of staff to prime minister Ehud Barak.
It is thus difficult to know what is more disturbing: Whether people who held such senior positions of responsibility actually believe in the viability of their preposterous proposals, or whether they don’t, but found it appropriate to publish them anyway.
The kernel of their “ingenious” initiative is the notion of preemptive surrender by means of staged, slow-motion submission to maximalist (at least in the interim) Palestinian demands.
Get this: “Israel should first declare that it is willing to return to negotiations anytime… that it has no claims of sovereignty on areas east of the existing security barrier. It should then end all settlement construction east of the security barrier and in Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem.”
Leaving aside for the moment the question of with whom such negotiations should be conducted, an unelected president whose term expired more than three years ago, or his likely Judeophobic Islamist successor, the question is: What would be left to negotiate once Israel has rescinded any demands to virtually the entire area of Judea and Samaria –apart from unconditional evacuation of the IDF and the unconditional removal of all the settlements – including the large settlement blocs?
‘Disputed’ territories become ‘occupied’
In a single stroke, Israel would have conceded that it no longer considers these “disputed” territories but indeed “occupied.” The significance of this distinction should not be underestimated.
For by voluntarily voiding its claims to any affinity with the land, Israel will have deemed itself indelibly an “occupier” and all settlements “illegal,” since it would have no power to legalize their existence. Now, while this is an outcome that might not be overly disagreeable to the authors, it does create some considerable difficulty for their next proposal.
While ostensibly acknowledging that some lesson might be learned from the disengagement experience, they sally forth with a suggestion that reveals just how flat their learning curve really is. To read is to be amazed.
“Under our proposal, the Israeli Army would remain in the West Bank until the conflict was officially resolved with a final-status agreement. And Israel would not physically force its citizens to leave until an agreement was reached.”
But why should the Palestinians offer any quid pro quo to negotiate the withdrawal of the IDF when Israel has apriori acceded sovereignty to them and ceased all construction of the settlements, condemning them to inevitable decay and eventual disintegration? Indeed, what would be the justification for any further IDF deployment in the sovereign territory of others – especially as that deployment itself is likely to be cited as the major grievance precipitating the belligerency between the sides.
A giant ‘South Lebanon’
Thus, unless one ascribes copious quantities of altruism to the Palestinians – hitherto a trait largely conspicuous by its absence – this is an irresistibly tempting invitation for them to draw out the resolution of the conflict endlessly. After all, in the situation created, time would be unequivocally on their side – with zero incentive to make any concession.
In effect, Judea and Samaria would be transformed into a giant “South Lebanon” with the added burden of a resident Israeli civilian population.
With prolonged Israeli military presence indefensible internationally, and prolonged Israeli civilian presence untenable physically, what possible reason would there be for the Palestinians to negotiate? In such circumstances, the most compelling policy choice for them would be to do nothing and wait for time to take its course, for inexorable international pressure on the IDF to withdraw from their sovereign territory and for the strangled settlements to be depopulated and fall apart.
True, the authors do suggest that some preparatory measures should be undertaken. Thus they propose that Israel “should create a plan to help 100,000 settlers who live east of the barrier to relocate within Israel’s recognized borders.”
Conveniently – but predictably – the authors offer no information not only as to how this multi-billion-dollar plan – involving about 10 times more people than in the disengagement – is to be financed; nor as to where this envisioned relocation is to be implemented, the impact it will inevitably have on the cost of housing (and thus on “social justice”), on the labor market, the environment, among a host of other factors that would be significantly, and even dramatically influenced by relocating even this small percentage of the “settlers who live east of the barrier” to areas west of it.
Palestinian attitudes
The Ayalon et al. piece is riddled with additional defects, non-sequiturs and fallacies – which constraints of time and space compel me to refrain from responding to. Perhaps the best way to convey just how detached from reality this harebrained scheme is, is to confront its proposals and prognoses with the positions of senior Palestinian Authority officials (i.e. from the allegedly “moderate” Fatah rather than the overtly radical Hamas).
For example, the article claims that “Palestinian statehood would undermine the Palestinians’ argument for implementing a right of return for Palestinian refugees, since the refugees would have a state of their own to return to.” Really? Compare this with the position articulated by Abdullah Abdullah, Palestinian ambassador to Lebanon during last year’s debate on the Palestinians’ unilateral bid for statehood – which Ayalon et al. warmly endorse.
In a September 2010 interview with the Lebanese Daily Star, Abdullah asserted that statehood “will never affect the right of return for Palestinian refugees” and that even refugees in the Palestinian territories “will not be considered citizens.”
He went on to declare: “When we have a state accepted as a member of the United Nations, this is not the end of the conflict. This is not a solution to the conflict. This is only a new framework that will change the rules of the game.”
Abdullah was not the only senior Palestinian official to express this view. Take for example Saeb Erekat. While still functioning as the head of the Palestinian Steering Committee, he wrote in the Guardian (December 10, 2010): “Today, Palestinian refugees constitute more than 7 million people worldwide – 70 percent of the entire Palestinian population. Disregarding their legitimate legal rights enshrined in international law… to return to their homeland, would certainly make any peace deal signed with Israel completely untenable.”
So if you were a betting man, who would you put your money on for having a firmer grasp of Palestinian perspectives: senior Palestinian officials or Ayalon et al.?
Palestinian attitudes (continued)
Many Palestinians may well enthusiastically embrace the call made by “Peace Without Partners” (Did they really call it that?). One of them might well be Abbas Zaki, a member of Fatah’s central committee, who in a May 7, 2009 interview on ANB TV let the cat out of the bag, when he declared: “With the two-state solution, in my opinion, Israel will collapse, because if they get out of Jerusalem, what will become of all the talk about the Promised Land and the Chosen People? What will become of all the sacrifices they made – just to be told to leave? They consider Jerusalem to have a spiritual status. The Jews consider Judea and Samaria to be their historic dream. If the Jews leave those places, the Zionist idea will begin to collapse. It will regress of its own accord. Then we will move forward.”
Of course he is right. And everyone – deep in their gut – knows it. Even the two-staters.
The only ray of light?
Perhaps the only ray of light in the whole preposterous proposition of unilateral peace is that it does in fact specify measures that should be implemented – only in reverse! Instead of withdrawing claims of sovereignty over Judea and Samaria, Israel should impose it.
Instead of giving financial inducements to Jews to leave Judea and Samaria, they should give Palestinians them to do so, as I have argued on previous occasions. Well, at least we have established the principle that financing population movements is acceptable – and that could be a big step forward. Now all we have to do now is decide which population and in which direction.
www.martinsherman.net
@ yamit82:
dweller says:
So what did the so-called “paschal lamb” actually represent? Refering back to one of Moses earlier conversations with the Pharaoh provides a clue: after the first four of G-d’s ten attacks against Egypt (Blood, Frogs, Lice and Wild Animals), the Pharaoh had started to give way… but he still refused to allow the Hebrews to leave the country in order to sacrifice to our G-d in the desert, as Moses was demanding. “You can hold your festival right here in Egypt,” he said (Sh’mot 8:21 – 8:25 in christian “bibles”). Moses’s response to this suggestion was quite reasonable:
“We can’t possibly do that,” he said, “because we are going to sacrifice the Egyptians’ god to Adonai our God! If we were to sacrifice their god right in front of them, wouldn’t they pelt us with rocks?” (Sh’mot 8:22 – 8:26 in christian “bibles”).
The verse just quoted is virtually incomprehensible in christian “bibles” – for example, the translation given in King James’s Per-Version reads: “It is not meet so to do; for we shall sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians to Adonai our G-d: lo, shall we sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians before their eyes, and will they not stone us?” The problem with this translation is that it’s too literal: Moses was a Hebrew and idolatry disgusted him, so he called the Egyptians’ “god” to’évah, a disgusting thing (or in the vernacular of the 17th century, an “abomination”).
Now the purpose of the seh should be starting to become clear: it was the Egyptians’ “god”. It is known from modern archæology that the ancient Egyptians worshipped various types of animal, but is there any other support in the Scriptures for this hypothesis? Well, not directly, but there is indirect support for it: when Yosef entertained his brothers for luncheon (B’réshit 43:16), it is reported that
“They had laid [one table] for Yosef by himself, and [another table] for his brothers by themselves, and [a third] for the Egyptians who were eating with him by themselves, because Egyptians would not [sit at the same table to] eat together with Hebrews – that was disgusting to Egyptians” (B’réshit 43:32).
Why should it have been “disgusting” to Egyptians to sit down at the same table with Hebrews to eat? Did they really hate them that much? The narrative doesn’t indicate that they hated Yosef, and it must have been well-known that he was a Hebrew. This, however, had nothing to do with racial prejudice – the text doesn’t say that the Egyptians hated Hebrews, merely that they found it “disgusting” to sit at the same table with them to eat.
Everything falls into place, though, if you read this in the context which concludes that the Egyptians worshiped lambs. The Hebrews were sheep-keepers by occupation, a fact that Yosef later warned his brothers not to disclose to the Pharaoh, advising them to lie and tell him they were cattle-keepers “because the Egyptians found anyone who kept sheep disgusting” (B’réshit 46:34). The Hebrews’ normal diet would therefore have been lamb (or mutton) and it is not at all surprising that the Egyptians should have found it “disgusting” to sit at the same table with people who were eating their “god” (or one of its “parents”)!
dweller says:
Read the whole verse: Ex12:5 Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year; ye shall take it from the sheep, or from the goats;
Goats as well!!! Hmmm what does that do to your Christian theology about sacrificial lambs? Are sheep and goats the same for you? Was your J guy a sacrificial GOAT?
@ dweller:
I have one comment in moderation and another went into the ether
You may if you have the time and inclination to read about what is atonement and sacrifices in Judaism here and why you know Zilch about Judaism.
http://mordochai.tripod.com/atonement.html#top
@ dweller:
Laws of sacrifice continued
http://mordochai.tripod.com/atonement.html#top
Chapter 2 of Vayikra is one that christians studiously ignore because it doesn’t fit into their ideology at all – it deals with bloodless flour (or “meal”) offerings. Four types of flour-offering are mentioned:
min’h?ah, uncooked flour to which oil and l’vonah (“frankincense”, an aromatic gum-resin used in making incense) have been added (verses 1-3);
min’h?ah ma’afeh tannur, oven-baked bread or “wafers” (verse 4);
min’h?ah al hamah?avat, pan-baked pastry (verses 5-6); and
min’h?at marh?eshet, deep-pan pastry (verses 7-10).
t5rt555
These are followed by some general regulations applicable to all flour-offerings, namely that no flour-offering may be “leavened” or mixed with fruit-juice (verse 11) – although verse 12 provides that such things may be offered as bikkurim (the first part of a harvest that the farmer was required to bring to the Temple as an offering) – and that every flour-offering had to be accompanied by salt (verse 13) – and the chapter ends with with some specific provisions relating to the first omer of barley (a dry measure equal to about 2.8 litres, 4.9 imperial pints or 5.9 US pints) that Yisraél was commanded to cut at the conclusion of the first festival day of Pesah?, to be presented to G- d the following morning as a t’nufah (a type of offering that the kohén would “wave” over the Altar) – see Vayikra 23:15, D’varim 16:9.
Chapter 3 deals with voluntary sh’lamim offerings (sometimes called “peace-offerings”): these offerings have no conection at all with atonement for sins, so we need not discuss them in any detail here, except to mention that the blood of these sacrificial animals, too, had to be applied to the Altar, even though they had nothing to do with atonement.
Chapters 4 & 5 deal with two different types of offering that are connected with atonement: h?ata’t or “sin sacrifice” (ch.4) and asham or “guilt sacrifice” (ch.5). Both are appropriate only in respect of violations committed unintentionally; the defiant and wilful sinner has no possibility of atonement available to him and must “carry his guilt”—
…any man – whether a citizen or a [naturalised] foreigner – who intentionally does [anything unlawful] taunts Adonai and that person will be cut off from his nation because he has treated Adonai’s words contemptuously and deliberately violated one of His commandments; that person will be cut off for sure – his guilt [will remain] with him” (B’midbar 15:30-31).
—that is, his guilt remains with him for the rest of his life; only by sincere and contrite repentance and devoting himself to selfless, charitable acts can he hope to “redeem” himself (see below).
The h?ata’t (“sin sacrifice”) provisions of chapter 4 are the “fines” that a Court is to impose upon a person convicted of unintentionally violating a prohibitive commandment, i.e. a person who has been found guilty of doing something “that may not be done”…
Adonai spoke to Mosheh and said: Speak to the Yisraélite people and say “If any person unintentionally violates one of Adonai’s commandments [about things] that may not be done and he does one of them…” (Vayikra 4:1-2).
Four cases of h?ata’t sacrifice are dealt with: the first three relate to situations where the nation’s judicial leaders – that is to say, the Chief Kohén (verses 3-12), the “Assembly”, i.e. the Synhedrion or Supreme Court (verses 13-21) or the King (verses 22-26) – have made a flawed legal decision and has thereby caused many of the common people to violate one of the Torah’s prohibitions. In those circumstances, the common people who dutifully followed their ruling are not held responsible (after all, the Torah itself commands us in D’varim 17:12-13 to do exactly as they say), and those rulers (who are subject to Torah Law just as the rest of us are) are “fined” for causing the nation to sin: the Chief Kohén is “fined” an ox, as are the Synhedrion, and the King is fined a male goat. The fourth case of h?ata’t sacrifice detailed in chapter 4 (verses 27-35) relates to a private individual who unintentionally does something that the Torah forbids. The “fine” in this case is either a female goat (verses 27-31) or a female lamb (verses 32-35).
Chapter 5, the last of the five chapters on personal (as opposed to communal) offerings, is about asham (“guilt”) sacrifices. It deals with a number of different cases—
a. A person who is a witness in some kind of legal proceedings who either has seen something or knows about it and denies this on oath (verse 1), or
b. a person who has become tum’ah-contaminated by touching any of the various objects or dead animals that are “sources” of tum’ah-contamination and, not realising that he is contaminated, has then eaten consecrated food or entered the Sanctuary, thereby (unintentionally) “incurring guilt” (verse 2), or
c. a person who has become tum’ah-contaminated by touching a human corpse or any other person who is tum’ah-contaminated because he or she has experienced a genital discharge and, not realising that he is contaminated, has then eaten consecrated food or entered the Sanctuary, thereby (unintentionally) “incurring guilt” (verse 3), or
d. a person who has sworn an oath to do something either harmful or beneficial (for example, if he swore an oath to fast or to eat on a stated day) and who then unintentionally broke that oath, but later realised what he had done (verse 4)
—in each of these cases, if the offender later confesses his guilt he is “fined” an amount that depends on his personal means: either a female lamb or a female kid (verse 6); or, if he cannot afford that, a pair of doves or pigeons one of which is offered as a guilt-sacrifice and the other as an olah (verses 7-10); or, if he is so poor that he cannot even afford a pair of doves or pigeons, one-tenth of an eifah (i.e. about 2.8 litres, 4.9 imperial pints or 5.9 US pints) of flour, to which oil and l’vonah (“frankincense”, an aromatic gum-resin used in making incense) were not to be added (verses 11-13), unlike the min’hah offering specified in chapter 2 (see above). This type of “sliding-scale” guilt-offering is referred to in Rabbinic literature as korban oleh v’yoréd (a term not found in the Torah), literally “a rising and falling offering”.
The second half of chapter 5 deals with three other types of case. The first of these is unintentional violation of consecrated property – the offender must offer a male goat with a value of at least two silver shekels as an asham sacrifice and must also repay to the Temple the value of the property that he misappropriated plus an additional 20% (verses 15-16). The second case arises when a person believes that he might have violated a prohibition commandment, but is not sure about it – he too must offer a male goat with a value of at least two silver shekels as an asham offering (verses 17-19). The third case covers several different types of dishonesty: refusing to return the security in respect of a loan; robbery; fraud or stealing by retaining lost propery that he has found; and committing perjury in proceedings relating to any civil claim. In all these cases, the guilty party must offer a male goat with a value of at least two silver shekels as an asham sacrifice, and must also return or repay the value of the property involved plus an additional 20% (verses 21-26).
@ dweller:
Many graves of ancient Egyptian people have been found which include the remains of animals wrapped in cloth, including sheep.
Concerning sheep in the religious context of Egypt, the God Khnum had the head of a ram. From the earliest beginnings of Egyptian civilisation Khnum, originally the god of the source of the Nile and believed to have created all the other hundreds of gods and goddesses, was worshipped. Revered as the most important of the gods he was believed to have been self created and it was he who made the first egg from which arose all of creation in its entirety.
Also in ancient Egypt the god Heryshaf, a creator and fertility god who was said to have been born in primeval waters, was represented by the figure of a man with the head of a ram or as a ram. In Egyptian mythology he was identified with Ra and Osiris
During the period of the Exodus in Ancient Egypt, the lamb was deified and worshiped as a god. By Egyptian law, it was therefore forbidden to harm a lamb in any way; such an act was considered a crime punishable by death.
For this reason, Moses refused Pharaoh’s initial offer that the Jews bring their sacrifice to G-d while remaining in Egypt, following the third plague of lice. Moses explained to Pharaoh that it would be impossible for his people to sacrifice these animals in this land because the Egyptians would execute us for carrying out this ceremony (Exodus). 8:21 And Pharaoh called for Moses and for Aaron, and said: ‘Go ye, sacrifice to your G-d in the land.’
8:22 And Moses said: ‘It is not meet so to do; for we shall sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians to the Lord our God; lo, if we sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians before their eyes, will they not stone us?
8:23 We will go three days’ journey into the wilderness, and sacrifice to the Lord our God, as He shall command us.’
The Almighty, therefore, tested the faithfulness of the Jewish people by commanding them to kill Egypt’s cherished god, and place the lamb’s blood on their doorposts, displayed for all of their neighbors to see. Those Israelites who, like Abraham, demonstrated that they feared nothing but the G-d of Israel were deemed worthy to have their homes “passed over” during the tenth and final plague.
You are confusing the Lamb or goat passover sacrifice with the Temple sacrifices. Israel had yet to be given the Laws of Temple sacrifice till later at Sinai. It had nothing to do with innocence in Jewish tradition and there were alternative and acceptable sacrifices other than animals
“Atonement” by sacrifice
Specific details concerning the laws of sacrificing are contained in the first few chapters of the book Vayikra. Chapter 1 deals with the law of the olah or “burnt offering” (called a “holocaust” in some some very old books), a type of animal offering that was burned in its entirety on the Great Altar (the meat of the majority of animal offerings was eaten by the kohanim or “priests”, and only small parts of their offals were actually burned on the Altar). Three different types of olah sacrifice are described in this chapter: cattle (verses 1-9), smaller animals, i.e. sheep and goats (verses 10-13), and fowls (verses 14-17).
Offering an olah sacrifice had the effect of obtaining “forgiveness” for a person who had “sinned” in certain circumstances (Vayikra 1:4), but this did not apply to all offences – the Torah prescribes specific penalties for many types of offence in the places where they are detailed. Thus, for example, a thief who stole farmyard livestock and slaughtered or sold it was required to repay five equivalent animals for every beef and four for every sheep or goat that he stole (Sh’mot 21:37), and was “forgiven” for committing the theft after paying his “fine” – he was not required to offer any animal sacrifice at all. This is exactly the sentence passed by King David on the fictitious “man” in Natan’s parable (see Sh’muél Beit 12:1-6, and note that David does not actually sentence the “man” to death in verse 5, because the crime of stealing livestock does not carry the death-penalty – he merely remarks indignantly that the “man” deserved to die because of his heartlessness). Incidentally, David did suffer the “sentence” that he unwittingly passed on himself – he “lost” four of his own children (one of them in an allegoric sense): the baby that he conceived with Bat-Sheva while she was still technically married to Uriyyah died (Sh’muél Beit 12:18), his daughter Tamar was raped by her half-brother Amnon (13:14), Amnon himself was subsequently killed (13:29), and so was Avshalom (18:15).
It is important to understand that even in those cases where no specific penalty is prescribed and an olah was appropriate, it was the penitent’s act of bringing the offering (equivalent to paying his “fine”) that resulted in him being “forgiven” for the offence he had committed, and not the animal’s death or its “blood”. It is common for christians to cite just part of Vayikra 17:11 and claim that this verse “says” that blood-sacrifice is the only way “atonement” can be accomplished; however, Vayikra 17:11 is a continuation of the previous verse which deals with the absolute prohibition against eating blood and merely adds
“….for an animal’s life is in its blood and so I have reserved it for you to be applied to the Altar to make atonement for your souls, because [an animal’s] blood can make atonement for a person”
from which it is apparent that an animal’s blood only “makes atonement” when it is “applied to the Altar”.
@ yamit82:
The Egyptians had, quite literally, hundreds of gods — including plants, animals & spirits of every kind & description — some of which are among those ‘insulted’ by the specific plagues that were visited upon the Egyptians.
However, I’m unaware of the lamb being one of those gods — let alone, of it having been ‘forbidden’ to them for food.
If the lamb was included in the Egyptian pantheon of deities, it certainly wasn’t a major one — certainly not significant enough for THAT to have been the reason it was chosen to be connected to the FINAL plague of the Death of the Firstborn.
So I don’t know where Kahane got this curious claim — which I’ve NEVER heard anybody else (of ANY religious or confessional persuasion) to maintain.
If you have a source for his assertion, I’ll gladly — and eagerly — welcome the opportunity to check it out.
The lamb has always been a symbol for innocence.
And the further fact that the lamb specifically chosen for the Pesach seder was EXPLICITLY REQUIRED to be “without spot or blemish” seems to confirm the particular significance here of the matter of innocence.
@ Wallace Brand:
I’ll keep it in mind.
@ Ted Belman:I recently bought for three of my grandchildren an excellent novel for young adults entitled “People of the Book” by Geraldine Brooks. Adults will enjoy it too. Its chief protagonist is a young woman who is an Art Restorer who has been hired to work on a rare illuminated Haggadah. As she goes through it and finds defects to repair, the story goes back in time to when the damage was carried out. Anyone with children or grandchildren at age 12 to 22 may want to get copies for them. There is an interesting twist at the end.
@ Ted Belman:
Here is another in a similar context
Divrei Torah Moses Speaks To Paraoh “No Retreat No Compromise ”
K A H A NE The magazine of the authentic Jewish Idea
Shavat –5737 February – 1977
DIVREI TORAH
“And Pharaoh called to Moses, saying: Go and worship the L-rd. Only your sheep and cattle will remain – your children will also go with you. And Moses said: You will also give us offerings and sacrifices for the L-rd our G-d, and our flocks will go with us…” (Shmot 10:24-26)
The ninth plague-darkness – has struck Egypt with a vengeance and Pharaoh breaks. Step by step he has retreated and after the eighth plague – locusts – he was prepared to allow the Jews to leave except for their children. Now he surrenders almost entirely as he agrees that all the Jews can leave. He only asks one thing, one compromise, one small victory for himself, that the Jewish cattle remain behind.
Consider; the Jews have been slaves for 210 years. They have lived in misery and persecution. They suffered decrees such as the one casting their male children into the sea. They cried out unto the L-rd for freedom and salvation. Now, apparently the great moment has arrived! Pharaoh agrees that they shall go free! What does it matter that he asks for their cattle? Give it to him! The main thing is peace and salvation and we are willing to give up cattle for peace!
But Moses knows that this is not the purpose of the freedom of the Jewish people and of the story of the slavery and exodus. He is not prepared to compromise one inch because he knows what the purpose of G-d is. When Moses first entered the presence of Pharaoh and said: “The L-rd, G-d of the Hebrews, has said: Let my people go!” Pharaoh contemptuously answered: “Who is the L-rd? I know not the L-rd and will not let Israel go!” Here is where the battle was joined. Here is the purpose and aim of creation – to have the world recognize the dominion and kingship of the L-rd being challenged. Pharaoh must be made to recognize and totally acknowledge the sovereignty of the L-rd over him and his people. He cannot make compromises; he cannot strike bargains. He must submit totally!
“And I shall be glorified through (the defeat of) Pharaoh and his army and Egypt shall know that I am the L-rd.” Only the total defeat of the wicked can raise and honor the name of the L-rd, says the Biblical commentator Rashi. This is why there will be no compromise with Pharaoh. He must totally submit, he must totally surrender.
And even when he apparently does this, after the plague of the first born, when he runs to Moses and says: “Get out, take your flocks with you, just leave and ask the L-rd to bless me!” Moses refuses and in the words of the Mechilta; “And he called unto Moses and Aaron in the middle of the night and said: get up and leave! Said Moses unto him: No, we have been ordered not to leave our houses until morning. What are we, thieves that we should slink out in the night? No, we will leave only in the morning with an upraised arm before the eyes of all the Egyptians!”
Not one inch of retreat here. The lesson of the L-rd being the Omnipotent, King of the universe must be seen and acknowledged.
The lesson is an eternal one and must be learned in our time, too. The question of peace in the Middle East is a question of the Arabs and the world acknowledging the total sovereignty of the All Mighty. There can be no compromise on this. It is only a peace that comes with Arabs submitting to the yoke of the heavenly kingdom that will be a permanent one and the Jew who gives up part of his land as a compromise, violates the entire purpose of the rise of the Jewish State and the demand of the All Mighty that the nations acknowledge Him as King. There can be no retreat from land because that is in essence a retreat also from the Kingship of the L-rd.
Anyone reading this Rav Kahane article and is not on my personal list to receive the weekly articles written by Rav Kahane and would like to be, please contact me at:
BarbaraAndChaim@gmail.com
@ Ted Belman:
The editing tool did not allow it when I tried to edit Here it is Link Here
@ Wallace Brand:
I think you will find this essay informative Link Here
@ yamit82:
Why no link? Did you write it?
I appreciate the posting. To drive the matter home, Exodus and the Huggaddah say “And God brought us out of Egypt ? not through an angel, not through a Seraph-type angel, and not through a messenger. But rather, it was the Holy One, blessed be He, Himself alone in all His glory.”
Obviously, the Exodus stressed God and God alone is responsible for our deliverance. This is the theme throughout the Haggaddah.
@ emmess:
You are partially correct. Sacrifices are not made for the benefit of G-d but for us.
The Scriptural position on “Atonement”
The Temple Sacrifices and Offerings
@ Wallace Brand:
Good question as it goes to the essence of who and what Jews are supposed to be and the true message of Passover.
Sabbath Hagadol, the great Sabbath.
The Sabbath preceding the Passover, This is the ultimate message of the enormous Exodus from Egypt, of Passover itself. Sabbath Hagadol that gives us the lesson without which Passover, the Jewish people itself, lose all reason for being. Sabbath Hagadol commemorating the basic lesson of Judaism: Faith, real faith, faith in G-d who really is greater than the mighty Pharaoh. Sabbath Hagadol, The great Sabbath, that began more than 3,000 years ago on a Sabbath in Imperial Egypt.
“Speak unto all the congregation of Israel, saying: In the tenth day of this month, they shall take to them every man a lamb…”
It is a special, an awesome commandment, one that is given to every Jew, hence the unique words “Speak unto all the congregation.” Take a lamb and bind it up for four days.
You believe that this is a simple commandment. Hardly. The lamb is more than an animal; it is the very god of Egypt. It is a deity, a hallowed creature before whom the Egyptian bows and whose meat dare not touch his mouth. And the Jews, “every man” thereof, are commanded to take this lamb, this Egyptian god, the deity of their masters, and tie it to their beds, to their posts, bind it up. And when the astonished and outraged Egyptian masters will ask: “What are you doing? The answer shall be: We shall soon slaughter this lamb, the deity, your god, and eat it.
Do you still think this is a simple, bland commandment? It is a commandment fraught with danger to life, a commandment that surely sent fear down the spines of the Jewish slaves. Nor does the Almighty stop there. He insists on a policy of extremism, of goading the gentile. Not content with a commandment that cries desecration of the Egyptian god, that taunts him with the sight of his deity bound up, the G-d of Israel insists that the Jew add salt to the wound.
“And they shall eat the flesh in that night, roasted with fire… eat it not partially cooked, nor boiled in water, but roasted with fire, its head with its legs and with its insides complete.”
This is what Passover is all about; only this! This is Judaism, what Judaism is all about; only this! This is what the duty and the role and the essence of the Jew is all about; only this! To affirm to the world, but first to ourselves that the L-rd, the G-d of Israel, is. That He truly does exist, that He is the One, the only One, that He, only He, directs the world, the fate of man, the destiny of His people. That whatever will be for the Jew will be only because He so decrees. That the gentile has no relevance to the Jewish fate, that the Pharaohs of all time, the ones in Egypt and the ones in Washington are utterly irrelevant to what will be with the Jew.
On the Great Sabbath in Egypt, the L-rd taught us the lesson that we since trampled in the dust. The lesson that the Jew must raise high, must flaunt the glory and Omnipotence of his G-d. That the world must be compelled to see their deities, their gods and idols, bound up and humiliated and destroyed. That one must goad the gentile in order to raise high the banner of the L-rd. That Kiddush Hashem, the sanctification of the Name of the G-d of Israel, demands an open, fearless, flaunting sacrifice of the idols and deities of the gentiles that deny the uniqueness of the G-d of Israel, His exclusiveness, His Oneness! The lamb is openly tied and those who tremble and whisper: “But we dare not goad the gentile,” are silenced.
The lamb is slaughtered and roasted whole fully and openly. It cannot be hastily covered in a pot where it will not be seen. Its identity cannot be disguised by cutting its body into pieces. We cannot escape the danger of the gentile by avoiding confronting and goading him. No. Precisely the opposite!
The lamb is taken openly. The lamb is slaughtered openly. And those who cringe in populism and whisper: “But one dare not goad the gentiles…” are silenced by the Jewish G-d himself through his commandment.
From the Passaover Haggadah, “The Paschal Lamb, which our ancestors ate during the existence of the Temple — why was it eaten? * * *
The days of blood sacrifices are long gone.
Hoshea – Hosea – Chapter 14
3. Take words with yourselves and return to the Lord. Say, “You shall forgive all iniquity and teach us [the] good [way], and let us render [for] bulls [the offering of] our lips.
Hoshea, speaking for God, sounds the knell for the end of sacrifice in favour of prayer. Thus, only an epikores (sp) would believe that with the building of the third (some say 4th) Temple, blood sacrifices would be initiated.
@ yamit82:
Sacrifice
isWAS the central element of Temple worship.You have a thing for blood, Yamit.
But nobody’s blood is ever going to make you well
— or make you a better man, either.
Blood is a symbol, a reminder.
But you make it an idol — every bit as much an idol as a statue of Dagon
(or — for that matter — of haNitzri).
I was right. You ARE [sigh…] nutty as a fruitcake.
In Avraham’s day, a half-shekel would’ve been equivalent to one-fifth of an ounce of silver — maybe $8.00 [USD] today.
What’s the exchange rate on the shekel today? — 4 to the dollar? So a half-shekel would bring, what, 13 cents?
I just TOLD you I don’t .
— You think I’m lying?
How?
The “foundation of what I claim to believe”
— didn’t come by anything outside of me.
And nothing outside of me will destroy that foundation EITHER.
Build away, with my blessings.
Who ever told you that THAT’s what I ‘claim to believe’? — not I.
As usual, you’ve understood nothing about what I’ve said.
Maybe; but IF so, then I predict that said movement will have a different definition of “real,” from yours.