Abravanel

Don Isaac Abravanel, sometimes spelled Abarbanel (1437-1508) was a probing and penetrating Jewish thinker, as well as a prolific
Biblical commentator. The holy day of Yom Kippur is discussed in Leviticus 16. The day’s services in the
Tabernacle had been conducted exclusively by Aaron, the high priest. Centuries later, when King
Solomon built the Temple in Jerusalem, Yom Kippur services were officiated by Aaron’s descendants.

“And God spoke unto Moses, after the death of the two sons of Aaron,
when they drew near before God, and died…And it shall be a statute
forever unto you. In the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month,
you shall afflict your souls, and shall do no manner of work. For on this
day shall atonement be made for you…”

As our chapter relates, the high priest had his hands full performing all the Yom Kippur rites, as
Abravanel lays out in a methodical and heady essay. See Abravanel’s World.

Note, Abravanel writes, how each task links the particular job to Aaron. To list three examples, we find:
“Herewith shall Aaron come into the holy place”, “And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats”, and
“And Aaron shall present…” Tractate Yoma (the Aramaic word referring to Yom Kippur) pertains to the
day of atonement. Abravanel quotes liberally from it in his groundbreaking essay.

Let us touch briefly on Abravanel’s opening remarks. The high priest was not permitted to sleep Yom
Kippur night. And since food tends to make a man sleepy, the high priest was given very little to eat the
day before Yom Kippur. That means, he was going into the 24-hour fast day, with its grueling work load,
practically on empty.

Abravanel points out more. On Yom Kippur day, the high priest performed his tasks while standing. At
the first crack of dawn, he submerged in a ritual bath. When he emerged from the purifying waters, he
donned the eight priestly garments, before washing his hands and feet.

And then Aaron got down to the business of procuring atonement for himself, his family, and brethren.
Consider the high priest’s crammed schedule, a study in perpetual motion until dusk.

He:

•  Walked to the Temple’s spot designated for slaughtering the daily burnt offering, and did the ritual slaughtering
• Collected the animal’s blood, dashing some of it on the altar
•  Entered the sanctuary to offer incense on the golden altar
•  Trimmed the menorah’s lights, preparing them for the lighting
•  Attended to the follow up activities associated with the morning burnt offering, including the
  service for gift offering and wine libation

Beside the daily Temple chores, on Yom Kippur the high priest had additional tasks to do.

• The additional animal sacrifices took into account rites featuring the Yom Kippur bull and seven
  sheep. If Yom Kippur fell on Sabbath, the high priest officiated with those accompanying
  sacrifices (two sheep, the gift offerings, and wine libation).

In between certain tasks, the high priest again and again submerged in purifying waters, as well as
washed his hands and feet. Several times throughout the course of the day, he changed holy garments.
Some were donned for the daily routines; others worn for Yom Kippur activities.

Bible students, of course, should not lose sight of the high priest’s quintessential focus of Yom Kippur –
procuring atonement for the Hebrews. Thus, he confessed wrongdoing as he stood in contrition over the
sin offerings.

Torah protocol determined how to cast lots and choose which of the two goats was slaughtered in the
Temple, which one shunted off to a distant desert cliff (the high priest delegated that latter job to a
priestly colleague).

Yom Kippur’s workload, indeed, kept the high priest on the go for an entire day. “And this shall be an
everlasting statute unto you, to make atonement for the Children of Israel because of all their sins once
in the year.”

At the end of the day, divine promise came from Above: “For on this day shall atonement be made for
you, to cleanse you. From all your sins shall you be clean before God.”

Don Isaac Abravanel, sometimes spelled Abarbanel (1437-1508) was a probing and penetrating Jewish thinker, as well as a prolific
Biblical commentator. In Leviticus 19, readers learn about Biblical values. For Abravanel, the topic boils
down to three words – imitation of God (imitatio Dei). Let us elaborate on this heady topic of man
striving to emulate the Maker, as a vehicle to acquire Biblical values.

“And God spoke unto Moses saying, speak unto all the congregation of
the Children of Israel and say to them. You shall be holy, for I your God
Almighty am holy.”

Abravanel questions God’s commanding Moses to convene “all the congregation of the Children of
Israel.” If the purpose was to teach the Hebrews the Ten Commandments, as our chapter implies, then,
what’s the rationale? The nation already heard God utter the Ten Commandments on Sinai. Soon
thereafter, those commandments had been carved into stone Tablets. Hence, the Jews were well-versed
in them. Abravanel concludes his question – why the repeat of the Ten Commandments here?

Truthfully, the reason why God dispatched His messenger to gather the Hebrews, and adjure them to
comply with Heaven’s directives, had to do with preparing them for what was in store – entering into
the divine covenant (Leviticus 26). The Creator wanted to indelibly impress upon the Chosen People the
Ten Commandments and other core teachings. They would stand the Hebrews in good stead.

Abravanel continues and explains why our chapter, though it generally tracks the Torah-giving Sinai
event, is not a carbon copy, per se. Simply, there was no reason for our chapter to replicate Sinai.
Instead, here is another major takeaway.

God wanted to disabuse the Hebrews of an erroneous notion, a vile one at that. The people should not
infer or believe that Torah truths are a by-product of man’s intellect or rationale. Certainly not. The
guiding force and authority behind the divine commandments are, well, the Divine, God the source.

The Creator desires – and commands – man to emulate Him. Biblical values are God driven. He wants
Jews to walk in His ways, cleaving unto Him. As for man, the ultimate aim to strive toward piety and
wholesomeness, should not be portrayed as a philosophical pursuit, or an exercise in any other
academic study.

Abravanel clarifies precisely what is meant by our verse: “You shall be holy, for I your God Almighty am
holy.”Though the earlier chapter cautioned Jews to stay clear of sexual mischief, holiness is predicated
on more than moderation of sex. Holiness means moderation, as per the Torah’s ethos. Period.

Jews strive to regulate all manners of life, sanctifying it to the fullest. They may enjoy spousal intimacy,
but not overdo it. It’s fine to enjoy food and drink, but not overdo it. The same goes for all pleasures. A
gluttonous lifestyle is an anathema to holiness. “You shall be holy” encapsulates a mindset, a way of life.

Precede with caution, might be the operative catch-phrase, when we speak of physical pleasures.
Notwithstanding, ascetism and other radical philosophies that stress, and are obsessed with, self-
flagellation sorely miss the point; they have no place in Judaism.

For Abravanel, “You shall be holy, for I your God Almighty am holy” guides Jews, a lodestar. The Maker is
completely apart from things physical. How apt for a servant to draw inspiration and guidance from his
master! Biblical values may be viewed from that prism.

Don Isaac Abravanel, sometimes spelled Abarbanel (1437-1508) was a probing and penetrating Jewish thinker, as well as a prolific
Biblical commentator. Arguably, Leviticus 20, parasha Kedoshim, speaks about one of the Torah’s most vicious and hateful
crimes imaginable – the slaying of babies in the name of religion. Indeed, this insidious and
reprehensible practice to Molech unmasks the grotesque face of idolatry.

“And God spoke unto Moses saying: Moreover, you shall say to the
Children of Israel. Whosoever he be of the Children of Israel or of the
strangers that sojourn in Israel, that gives of his seed unto Molech, he
shall surely be put to death. The people of the land shall pelt him with
stones.”

Unequivocally, the God of Israel will have no part of it. Capital punishment fits the egregious crime: he
“that gives of his seed unto Molech, he shall surely be put to death.”

Abravanel discusses the very nature of Biblical infanticide, a ghoulishly, graphic discussion at that. See
Abravanel’s World. What was the horrendous rite, and why would a father even remotely consider
harming a child, let alone delivering a healthy and beautiful baby to a monstrous child eater?

For starters, Abravanel dismisses some classical Biblical commentators who attempt to play down the
enormity of Molech madness, let us label it. If it was as innocuous as some Bible expounders posit
(priests approached a fire, baby in tote, before returning it to dad’s open arms), the Torah would not
have come down so hard on the perpetrators.

Bible students, Abravanel insists, will find answers in the words of the prophet Jeremiah, chapter 7.
“And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their
sons and their daughters in the fire, which I commanded not. Neither came it into My mind.” Jeremiah
writes explicitly; Molech meant death by fire. Deafening drumming, too, played a part in serving
Molech. It drowned out an infant’s bloodcurdling cries for its mother and father to come help.

Readers should not put forth that the Torah’s prohibition of Molech madness differs from the idolatrous
practices to which Jeremiah refers. Abravanel brings support from Kings (2:23): “And he defiled Tophet,
which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, that no man might make his son or his daughter to pass
through the fire to Molech.”Clearly, the valley of the son of Hinnom witnessed man’s basest behavior.
For Abravanel, the ceremonial murders followed a precise protocol, featuring pathological priests.

What drove a father to psychosis? Why columns of fire? To answer the second question first, Abravanel
believes that Molech was a form of sun worship, the so-called “king” (in Hebrew ‘melech’). The ancients,
especially the Egyptians, feared the great ball of fire, deifying it, for it “rules” (in Hebrew ‘molech’) the
stars. At root, they were mesmerized and enamored by fire, one of the four basic elements.

But what brought a father to go off the deep end, erasing every line of nature and norm? In a word, it
was sheer delusion. Consider the man who has many sons and daughters. He believed that by sacrificing
one child to the sun-king, he could protect his remaining offspring. To be facetious, of course, this fair-
minded and courteous child devouring god curtailed its appetite at one infant per family, sparing and
shielding the child’s surviving siblings.

The Torah sought to stamp out such lunacy and misguidedness, and hence issued the strongest
deterrent possible: He “that gives of his seed unto Molech, he shall surely be put to death. The people of
the land shall pelt him with stones.”

Don Isaac Abravanel, sometimes spelled Abarbanel (1437-1508) was a probing and penetrating Jewish thinker, as well as a prolific
Biblical commentator. The topic of Biblical leprosy began in Leviticus 13 and continues into Chapter 14.
Here the emphasis is on the cleansing of a Biblical leper, essentially a two-step cathartic process.
Abravanel delves into the sacrifices (step two) a Biblical leper brings to the Tabernacle. From a leper’s
offerings, Abravanel imparts a theological cornerstone of Jewish faith.

“And God spoke unto Moses saying: This shall be the law of the leper in
the day of his cleansing. He shall be brought to the priest.”

“And it shall be on the seventh day, that he shall shave off all his hair from his head and his beard and
his eyebrows, even all his hair shall he shave off. And he shall wash his clothes, and he shall bathe his
flesh in water and be clean.” This, we may call it, describes the first stage of the cleansing of a Biblical
leper – bathing and laundering.

The second phase of the cleansing of a Biblical leper pertains to sacrifices. It is on this phase that
Abravanel provides Bible students with a pillar of Jewish belief. “And on the eighth day he shall take two
he-lambs without blemish, and one ewe-lamb of the first year without blemish…” The Torah writes
explicitly regarding two male and one female lambs. What were their functions?

The first male lamb served as a guilt offering (“And the priest shall take one of the he-lambs, and offer
him for a guilt offering…”). The second lamb was a female, and it acted as sin offering (“And the priest
shall offer the sin offering…”). Finally, the third of three animals for purposes of cleansing a Biblical
leper was a he-lamb. It functioned as a burnt offering (“And afterward he shall kill the burnt offering.”).
Here, according to Abravanel, is the theological implication of the Biblical lepers three animal sacrifices.

Judaism posits that everything that occurs to the Chosen People, everything that the nation experiences,
stems from divine providence. Put even more succinctly, the Creator painstakingly pays each Hebrew
according to his deeds (or misdeeds).

Let us apply this guiding principle to a Biblical leper. When he is afflicted with the dreadful disorder, he
needs to look inwardly, scrutinizing his conduct and speech. Why am I facing this hardship, he ponders?
Where did I go astray from God’s commandments?

It could be that the fellow’s introspection will jar his memory, and yield insights. Clarity might ensue. He
might even recall his misdeed that triggers an obligation to bring a sin offering to the Tabernacle. If,
however, the man can’t remember his transgression, then he would offer a guilt offering. Bear in mind,
that for a man who senses wrongdoing, but can’t pinpoint his error, a guilt offering is viewed as a
provisional stop-gap measure and sacrifice. Thus, the Torah requires a Biblical leper to bring one sin
offering and one guilt offering. This reflects reality, as wise Solomon teaches: “For there is not a
righteous man upon the earth, who does good and sins not.”

Consequently, a Biblical leper first brings his guilt offering (he-lamb), for he is in the dark about what he
did wrong. Next, the fellow brings a sin offering (ewe-lamb). This covers a sinner in cases of minor Torah
infringements, whereby he asks for atonement. It also garners forgiveness for egregious sins he recalls.

Finally, according to Abravanel, after the two initial sacrifices (guilt and sin offerings) restore a Biblical
leper to a healthier religious place, he brings a burnt offering (he-lamb). This further fosters and
cements closeness with the Almighty.

Don Isaac Abravanel, sometimes spelled Abarbanel (1437-1508) was a probing and penetrating Jewish thinker, as well as a prolific
Biblical commentator. Leviticus 15, parasha Metzora, discusses certain oozing conditions that afflict man, resulting in his
spiritual defilement. (When the Temple stood, these conditions had even more practical ramifications.)
Abravanel understood that this topic would tend to confuse Bible students, and so he prefaces his verse-
by-verse commentary with basic remarks that will hold readers in good stead.

“And God spoke unto Moses and to Aaron saying: Speak unto the
Children of Israel and say unto them. When any man has an issue out of
his flesh, his issue is [spiritually] unclean.”

See Abravanel’s World for the entire introduction to the perplexing subject matter at hand. Indeed, the
verses discussing bodily secretions or fluids need context, as they are not a result of medical illnesses.
Our chapter also lays out the remedies for those individuals experiencing oozing or to use Torah
parlance – “an issue out of his flesh.”

Abravanel begins his preface by citing ancient medical and science books. Doctors and anatomists, he
writes, identify three stages in man’s digestive tract. The first one is his stomach, where food processing
initiates the breakdown of food. Concentrated nutrients next travel to the liver, veins, and arteries,
where they are absorbed and assimilated. Waste material and excess food intake get eliminated through
the intestines and colon, after having passed through the liver. Some waste passes through the urinary
tract. Clearly, Abravanel continues, at that late stage of digestion, no nutritional value remains from the
food originally ingested. Because it holds no value, it does not and cannot remain in a man’s body.

As a testament to God’s natural, human processes, Jewish law does not deem man’s waste product an
object that causes or triggers defilement. Obviously enough, man cannot live without regularly relieving
himself of these unwanted waste products. Thus, after a man goes to the bathroom, he need only wash
his hands and make a blessing.

When the Temple stood and the priests officiated in the holy compound, they would, of course,
throughout the day, relieve themselves. When they did, they did not become spiritually defiled, for the
reasons we have been discussing. Hence, after washing up, they continued with their service, without
having to wait until sunset, or any other remedial measures discussed in our chapter.

Until now, Abravanel only began to introduce what our chapter is NOT discussing. But what is the root
cause of the oozing about which the Torah speaks? Why are there negative connotations to man
experiencing “an issue out of his flesh?”

In a nutshell, oozing bespeaks moral misconduct. It is man’s exaggerated sexual activity, more than
anything else, that triggers spiritual defilement – a badge of shame for turpitude. To be sure, the Torah
is not taking issue with kosher spousal intimacy. It does, though, unequivocally call for curbing senseless,
animal exuberance.

“And it came to pass in the first month of the second year, on the first
day of the month, that the Tabernacle was erected…Then the cloud
covered the Tent of Meeting and the glory of God filled the Tabernacle.
And Moses was not able to enter the Tent of Meeting, because the cloud
abode thereon, and the glory of God filled the Tabernacle.”

Bible studies with Don Isaac Abravanel’s commentary (also spelled Abarbanel) has withstood the test of
time. For over five centuries, Abravanel has delighted – and enlightened – clergy and layman alike,
offering enduring interpretations of the Bible.

Don Isaac Abravanel (1437-1508) was a seminal Jewish thinker, scholar, and prolific Biblical
commentator. Chapter 40 concludes the book of Exodus, a chapter dedicated to the execution of God’s
commandment to the Hebrews to build for Him a house. When finished, “the cloud covered the Tent of
Meeting and the glory of God filled the Tabernacle.”

A “cloud covered the Tent of Meeting and the glory of God filled the Tabernacle…” Quite extraordinary –
to understate. How are Bible students supposed to understand these divine props (“the cloud and glory
of God”) Abravanel asks? See Abravanel’s World for the full treatment of this intriguing essay.

For our purposes here, however, we focus on Abravanel’s explanation of the last verse cited above:
“And Moses was not able to enter the Tent of Meeting, because the cloud abode thereon…”

Here is the context, according to Abravanel. After the Hebrews sinned with the golden calf, Moses
showed his displeasure by setting up his tent outside of the Jewish encampment. Furthermore, the
prophet brought the holy ark with him. Ensconced within the ark were the ten commandments etched
in stone tablets.

However now, when the Tabernacle was complete, Moses removed the holy ark from his tent and
placed it in the holy of holies. At that juncture, God’s sanctuary assumed its new name: The Tent of
Meeting. Going forward, Divine communications with the prophet would emanate from the holy of
holies, specifically from the ark’s covering consisting of two cherubs.

“And Moses was not able to enter the Tent of Meeting, because the cloud abode thereon, and the glory
of God filled the Tabernacle.” According to Abravanel, the verse acknowledges and confers great
prestige upon the Tabernacle. That is, the Creator’s earthly haunt bespoke divine glory and rapture, that
even the greatest of all prophets, Moses, was barred from entry. Initially, that is.

Here’s the caveat. Moses would be able to enter the holy of holies when the Maker called him, thereby
granting the prophet permission and authorization, as per the upcoming verse. “And God called unto
Moses, and spoke unto him out of the Tent of Meeting saying…” From that juncture onward, Moses was
allowed free access to the planet’s holiest place, as we learn from Numbers 9:8.

Don Isaac Abravanel, sometimes spelled Abarbanel (1437-1508) was a probing and penetrating Jewish thinker, as well as a prolific
Biblical commentator. He sets forth a religious axiom in Leviticus 9: Divine Providence. Support comes
from a later verse in our chapter. “And there came forth fire from before God, and consumed upon the
altar the burnt offering and the fat. And when all the people saw it, they shouted, and fell on their
faces.”

“And it came to pass on the eighth day, that Moses called Aaron and his
sons, and the elders of Israel.”

Abravanel’s discussion of Divine Providence and the fire that descended from heaven upon the altar can
be found inAbravanel’s World. For our purposes here, we mention one of the four rationales in
Abravanel’s essay to explain “the fire from before God.”

We begin with the premise: the Almighty wanted to sanctify and consecrate His altar, and His
Tabernacle via a heavenly fire. One reason had to do with educating the Hebrews, schooling them in
esoterica. Below is Abravanel’s approach.

Man’s psyche and intellect grapples with the concept of Divine Providence. Essentially, here is the
quandary. God is too exalted and man is too small for Divine Providence to exist – a bridge too far.
People contend with a second paradox, when it comes to fathoming the presence of Divine Providence,
that mystical force by which the Maker relates to man. It is, how can a non-physical Creator, One Who
lacks senses (eyes to see, a nose to smell, hands to touch etc.) view or perceive that which man does or
says or thinks – every word and every deed?

Enter the fire on the altar in the Tabernacle. God, in His desire to inculcate within the Chosen People’s
hearts the manifestation of Divine Providence, sent fire from above. It was an object lesson. Despite the
yawning gap between the exalted Creator and His puny creations, still and all, Divine Providence is a
mighty force at work in the world.

God wanted the Hebrews to see with their eyes the unfolding miracle. Here was a divine flame that
flouted nature, seeing that fire is both weightless and airy. Yet, it bolted and barreled downward from
heaven, “and consumed upon the altar the burnt offering and the fat.” A gobsmacked Hebrew
encampment “shouted, and fell on their faces.”

For Abravanel, the fiery wonder was God’s method of teaching His people about Divine Providence. Just
as He performed a miracle and harnessed a flame to descend upon an altar, so too does the Creator
relate to man – via Divine Providence – wondrously bringing it down to the world.

Don Isaac Abravanel, sometimes spelled Abarbanel (1437-1508) was a probing and penetrating Jewish thinker, as well as a prolific
Biblical commentator. In Leviticus 12, we read about the laws of women who give birth, and their
ensuing obligation to bring sacrifices to the Tabernacle.

“And God spoke unto Moses, saying: Speak unto the Children of Israel
saying, If a woman gives birth to a boy…gives birth to a girl…And when
the days of her [spiritual] purification are fulfilled…she shall bring a lamb
of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon or a turtle dove
for a sin offering unto the door of the Tent of Meeting unto the priest.”

Abravanel asks: Why do moms bring burnt offerings and sin offerings? And secondly, he questions the
order or sequence of the two sacrifice types. Generally, sin offerings precede burnt offerings and not
the other way around. Finally, Abravanel wonders about a mother’s need to bring a sin offering
altogether. What was her misdeed that necessitates atonement?

Abravanel has the following to say. For brevity we omit what Abravanel writes on topic, according to the Talmudic
sages. SeeAbravanel’s World.

Abravanel’s straightforward explanation follows. Post birth, moms have a wait period to restore their
spiritual cleanliness. After that time frame elapsed, they ascended the Holy Mount to bring sacrifices.
Burnt offerings are meant to foster closeness with the Creator. Obviously, a woman who experiences
excruciating and perilous childbirth, has gone through much. She feels close to God for surviving the
ordeal, hence a burnt offering.

But what about her sin offering? Why must she bring it? Abravanel assumes, that a person does not
suffer in this world for naught. Trial and tribulation transpire as a result of transgression. In our context,
Abravanel believes that somewhere, mother erred – though the Torah is mum as to her sin. A sin
offering atones for her past misdeed, whatever it was.

In closing, Abravanel discusses the order of both sacrifices, and teaches Bible students the significance
of the sequence. Beginning with a burnt offering illustrates the birth mom’s first or main intent in going
to the Temple; it is to spiritually attach to the Creator. Next, she brings a sin offering. Although she can’t
recall or put her finger exactly on what she did, she intuitively understands that nevertheless, some sin
took place. A sin offering serves, if you will, as a divine safety net or insurance policy for past and
inadvertent wrongs.

Don Isaac Abravanel, sometimes spelled Abarbanel (1437-1508) was a seminal Jewish thinker, penetrating scholar, and prolific Biblical
commentator. Leviticus (Vayikra) 1 deals with animal sacrifices, specifically burnt offerings. The wording,
Abravanel notes, “When any man of you brings an offering unto God”, appears clumsy. The words “of
you”seem superfluous. If we omit them, the verse would read succinctly: “When any man brings an
offering…”

“And God called unto Moses, and spoke unto him out of the Tent of the
Meeting saying, speak unto the Children of Israel, and say unto them:
When any man of you brings an offering unto God, you shall bring your
offering of the cattle, even of the herd.”

Although the words “of you” address Jewish men and women, commanding them to bring offerings,
Abravanel adds that the verse does not negate Gentiles from also bringing animal sacrifices to
Jerusalem’s holy Temple. They certainly can, and did.

Abravanel elaborates, in the name of classic, medieval Biblical commentators. They explain that “of you”
rules out renegade Jews. Hebrew apostates are not permitted to offer animal sacrifices in the Temple,
for they have disowned their Jewish heritage.

Gentiles, on the other hand, didn’t disavow Judaism; they simply never embraced it. Hence, should a
non-Jew be inspired to draw closer to the Almighty – and bring an animal sacrifice as a means of doing
so – that would be perfectly acceptable.

When it comes to sacrifices and Hebrew renegades, however, it presents a different story, as
mentioned. Willfully, they rebel against God. Given their wretched conduct, why should the priests
accommodate them by accepting their offerings?

In sum, “When any man of you brings an offering unto God”reads quite well. The phrase, Abravanel
teaches, informs Bible students that some Jews, but not all of them, may bring sacrifices. Unequivocally,
the Bible conveys a powerful message to Jewish apostates. Either they mend their noxious ways, or they
become personae non gratae in the holy Temple.

“And when any one brings a meal offering unto God, his offering shall be
of fine flour. And he shall pour oil upon it, and frankincense thereon.”

Bible studies with Don Isaac Abravanel’s commentary (also spelled Abarbanel) has withstood the test of
time. For over five centuries, Abravanel has delighted – and enlightened – clergy and layman alike,
offering enduring interpretations of the Bible.

Don Isaac Abravanel (1437-1508) was a seminal Jewish thinker, penetrating scholar, and prolific Biblical
commentator. Chapter 2 in Leviticus continues to discuss sacrifices in the Tabernacle. Here we turn to
meal offerings, of which there are four types.

Abravanel links and matches up the four kinds of meal offerings with four distinct groups or groupings
of people.

• Group 1, characterized by “fine flour”, matches up with righteous individuals, as verse implies.
  This grouping speaks about pious folks. They are pure in conduct, both in their own estimation
  as well as in the eyes of others.
•  Group 2 is the mirror opposite of the first grouping; they do evil and others see the evil they
  perpetrate. The operative verse is: “And when you bring a meal offering baked in the oven…”
  On account of their unbridled and red-hot impulses, these scofflaws flout the commandments.

Groups 3 & 4 comprise the middle ground, men who are neither totally righteous or wholly rotten, as
Abravanel will illustrate.

• Group 3 portrays men who acknowledge their flaws, yet manage to conceal their true selves to
  others. “…a meal offering baked on a griddle”captures this grouping. In Hebrew, the term
  “griddle” shares its root with the verb meaning “to hide”, hence the link.
• Group 4 includes those who are oblivious to their seedy actions, although others correctly
  assess these people’s shortcomings. They are compared to “…a meal offering of the stewing
  pan.”Again, Abravanel deduces his observation, based on the Hebrew term for “stewing pan.”
  Literally, it refers to hissing sounds or jeering noises, both would be the disapproving reactions
  that passers-by might express when encountering unsavory characters.

Don Isaac Abravanel, sometimes spelled Abarbanel (1437-1508) was a probing and penetrating Jewish thinker, as well as a prolific
Biblical commentator. Leviticus 4 covers the subject of sin offerings in the Tabernacle. Here, Abravanel
transports Bible students beyond textual explanation, pivoting into theology. We shall explain.

“And God spoke to Moses saying, speak unto the Children of Israel
saying. If any one shall sin through error, in any of the things which God
commanded not to be done, and shall do any one of them…”

The Torah portion of Vayikra, successively, covers burnt offerings (chapter 1), meal offerings (chapter 2),
and peace offerings (chapter 3). Vayikra’s two concluding chapters (4 and 5) pertain to sin and guilt
offerings respectively.

What, Abravanel questions, can we learn from the sequence of these five chapters? To the point, why
does the Torah begin with voluntary sacrifices (burnt, meal, and peace offerings) before moving onto
obligatory sacrifices (sin and guilt)?

Abravanel supplies an answer that goes to the heart of Judaism’s understanding of God: He is
benevolent. Unequivocally, the Creator seeks the good and positive – traits associated with those
sacrifices that are brought out of good will and love. Those characteristics are common to burnt, meal,
and peace offerings. Love of the Maker motivated people to bring them, as they are not obligatory.

On the other hand, Hebrews brought sin and guilt offerings in order to rectify untoward conduct. Thus,
they were obligatory, and underscored serving God out of fear or angst.

For Abravanel, a pattern emerges that highlights God’s inner nature, one that desires people to behave
and serve Him out of affection, not anxiety. In this way, when the Torah launches sections pertaining to
blessing or curse, the section of blessing precedes that of curse. Sequence illustrates God as kind.

Jewish prophets, too, recognized this fundamentally favorable aspect of God, underscoring God’s love.
Hence, when the prophets spoke of sacrifices, they stressed burnt offerings – exclusively. King David in
Psalms put it this way: “Then will You delight in the sacrifices of righteousness, in burnt offering…” The
Creator equates righteousness with burnt offerings, and not sin offerings that bespeak man’s baseness.

Abravanel brings a second proof from Scripture, this one from the prophet Isaiah. “Even them will I bring
to My holy mountain, and make them joyful in My house of prayer; their burnt offerings and their
sacrifices shall be acceptable upon My altar…”

How the Maker deeply desires that man will not succumb to immorality, instead clinging only to good
and bringing sacrifices of love to His altar!

Don Isaac Abravanel, sometimes spelled Abarbanel (1437-1508) was a probing and penetrating Jewish thinker, as well as a prolific
Biblical commentator. Leviticus 13 covers the mysterious and elusive subject of Biblical leprosy.

“And God spoke unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying: When a man shall
have in the skin of his flesh a rising, or a scab, or a bright spot, and it
become in the skin of his flesh the plague of leprosy, then he shall be
brought unto Aaron the priest, unto one of his sons the priests. And the
priest shall look upon the plague…and pronounce him spiritually
unclean.”

On Biblical leprosy, in short, Abravanel poses two basic questions:

• When it comes to Biblical leprosy, why does the Torah require the suspected, spiritually
  contaminated man to summon a priest in order to determine his status – spiritually clean or
  unclean? After all, in no other cases of malady does the Torah require a priest’s input.
•  Why doesn’t the Torah treat Biblical leprosy as other medical ailments? That is, why isn’t there
  medical intervention and/or natural remedies, such as prescribing emetics, laxatives, or
  purgatives? Of course, there are no shortages of treatment plans that practitioners are wont to
  administer. Alternatively, if the Torah wanted to eschew conventional medicine altogether, it
  could have urged these potential lepers to follow the example of Elisha. Recall, the prophet
  employed “unorthodox” means to heal Naaman, Aram’s military chieftain. Instead, we read
  here about quarantine: “Then the priest shall shut him up that has the plague for seven days.”

Abbreviated, Abravanel’s answer goes like this. Biblical leprosy bespeaks an imbalance within man. It
manifests itself through symptoms, as described in the verses above (skin eruptions, scabs, blotchiness
etc.). That is, initially Biblical leprosy appears as a dermatological disorder. Should things progress, this
imbalance results in the affected man emitting respiratory droplets, that pose a danger to those in close
proximity to him.

“When a man shall have in the skin of his flesh a rising”reveals a key clue to the infirmity; it attacks
man, insofar as he is delicately-tuned. If an imbalance throws him out of kilter, Biblical leprosy may
follow. Animals, however, lack man’s intricate inner balance, and thus are not at risk of contracting
leprosy. To be sure, Abravanel writes more on this arcane subject. For our purposes here, Biblical
leprosy falls under the purview of priests, since they are expert in matters of spiritual cleanliness or
contamination. Furthermore, because this malady isn’t a medical disorder, but rather indicates an inner
irregularity, there is no point to consulting with doctors or healers. See Abravanel’s World.

Don Isaac Abravanel, sometimes spelled Abarbanel, (1437-1508) was a probing and penetrating Jewish thinker, as well as a prolific
Biblical commentator. Leviticus 11 discusses Jewish dietary laws. In typical Abravanel fashion, he dives
into the subject of kashrut with fundamental questions. Here are two:

• Why did the Creator ban certain foods, as outlined in our chapter?
• Do dietary laws promote good health?

“And God spoke unto Moses and Aaron, saying unto them. Speak unto
the Children of Israel saying, these are the living things which you may
eat among all the beasts that are on the earth.”

Abravanel sharpens his queries, by telling Bible students that Jewish dietary laws can’t possibly be
about nutrition and health. Why? Everyone can observe the simple facts on the ground. Gentiles eat
nonkosher food, and yet are not the worse for it. Actually, they’re quite strong and hale.

And if our chapter intends to outlaw foods that are toxic or harmful, well, that simply isn’t the case. How
many deadly animals should have been written about explicitly, on account of the danger they present
to man – abundantly more dangerous than rabbits, camels, and swine – which the Torah does mention.

Abravanel strongly censures some Bible commentators for theorizing that Jewish dietary laws are about
good health. Patently false, he asserts. Heaven save us from such ludicrousness, Abravanel lambasts.

He continues. If the holy and divine Bible can be reduced to a medical digest or nutrition guide
companion, then it would dwarf in size and scope in comparison to other secular medical treatises or
texts. Again, the animals, fowl, and fish prohibited to Jews do not relate to healthy eating. Gentiles
freely partake of these banned animals, and yet they’re well-built, fit as a fiddle.

Abravanel’s entire essay on the topic of Jewish dietary laws may be found in Abravanel’s World.
However, for our purposes here, let us advance the following.

The holy Torah is not interested, per se, in healing or promoting man’s body, physicality. Instead, the
essential thing is to provide divine instruction on protecting and strengthening the soul. Hence, the
Torah forbids those foods that undermine the well-being of a Jew’s eternal inner being.

In sum, the all-important thing about Jewish dietary laws centers on purifying the soul, shielding it from
spiritual pollutants.

Don Isaac Abravanel, sometimes spelled Abarbanel (1437-1508) was a probing and penetrating Jewish thinker, as well as a prolific
Biblical commentator. Leviticus 27 concludes this third book of the five books of Moses. The subject
matter covers donations to the Tabernacle.

“And God spoke to Moses saying. Speak unto the Children of Israel and
say unto them. When a man shall clearly utter a vow of persons unto
God, according to your valuation.”

What type of utterance turns an oral pledge into a bone fide obligation? How are gifts valued, and by
whom? These are a sampling of questions Abravanel poses to Bible students. He also encourages
readers to investigate the placement of this section, suggesting that it should have been broached in the
previous Torah portion of Behar.

For our purposes here, we shall focus on Abravanel’s answer regarding the insertion here of this section
of pledges and donations to the Tabernacle and Holy Temple. Two rationales address the issue of
placement or juxtaposition.

One, the Book of Leviticus generally relates to priestly laws, the Tabernacle, and the altar. In that
light, it makes sense that Leviticus should conclude with a topic consistent with the book’s main theme.
Certainly, pledges and donations to the Tabernacle fit the bill, if you will. We are speaking about gifts
earmarked for usage by the priests and beneficial to the Tabernacle – a personnel or maintenance fund.

Two, the Torah takes a heavy-handed approach toward Hebrews who violate the sabbatical and
jubilee commandments. Non-compliance of these agricultural laws results in Jews being sent into exile.
The commandments surrounding pledges and donations to the Tabernacle serve as an excellent
connector, insofar as they are a subset of the bigger jubilee category.

How? Perhaps a farmer will decide to donate his field to the priests or Tabernacle, as per an upcoming
verse: “And if a man shall sanctify unto God part of the field of his possession…”

To sum up, Abravanel illustrates that the laws concerning pledges and donations to the Tabernacle are
under the general rubric of the jubilee commandment. As such, its placement here makes sense.

Don Isaac Abravanel, sometimes spelled Abarbanel (1437-1508) was a probing and penetrating Jewish thinker, as well as a prolific
Biblical commentator. Leviticus 26 offers Bible students a study into Abravanel’s inimitable style. The
topic of reward and punishment is, of course, a juicy one and of profound, general interest. For
Abravanel, the discussion begins with a critical analysis of the classic Biblical commentators, before
drawing his own conclusions. For the lengthy essay on reward and punishment, see Abravanel’s World

“If you walk in My statutes, and keep My commandments, and do them;
then I will give you your rains in their seasons. And the land shall yield
her produce, and the trees of the field shall yield their fruit.”

The Torah portion of Bechukotai begins with a divine promise of agricultural reward in exchange for
compliance to God’s commandments. “If you walk in My statutes, and keep My commandments, and do
them; then I will give you your rains in their seasons…”

Incredulous, Abravanel leads with this bomb of a question: Why does the Torah list its reward for
commandment obedience in terms of physical or earthly blessing? Why does it not talk about the
spiritual delights attained by Torah observance, the kind that awaits the eternal soul after death? After
all, Abravanel continues, that is the sum total of man – to refine the soul in this world and reap
boundless benefit in the next one.

And then Abravanel probes further. It is precisely this gap, he argues, that allows enemies of the Torah
to charge that Jews don’t believe in reward and punishment for the soul in the Hereafter. Indeed, how
can compensation for devotion to Torah be expressed in terms of rain and agricultural produce, as vital
as they may be? Certainly, something is amiss.

Abravanel’s answer builds on the comments of an earlier Torah sage. The earthly rewards for keeping
the divine covenant mentioned here precludes mention of spiritual delights. That is because the blessing
of rain and bumper crops accrue to the nation as a whole. Even a few verses down, when the Torah
guarantees military victory (“And you shall chase your enemies, and they shall fall by the sword…”), still
that promise is a collective one. Thus, when our chapter focuses on material reward and punishment it
is because there cannot be rain on one righteous person’s fields, while his evil neighbors in the village
get none. The same infeasibility goes for military victory. Either an army wins or losses.

“If you walk in My statutes”,then, launches a discussion about what happens when the people
collectively keep God’s covenant. Underscoring the point is Hebrew grammar; the verbs are conjugated
in plural.

Abravanel moves on to make a crucial point about reward and punishment. There is, he writes, a key
distinction between what the Hebrews as a nation receive versus what each and every individual get for
commandment compliance (or non-compliance).

God judges each individual, each soul on its own merit, in accordance with his deeds. The prophet
Ezekiel reinforces the principle: “The soul that sins, it shall die.”A man’s soul’s reward and punishment
are not be a function of majority rule. Thus, even if the Hebrew people all are righteous, worthy of
otherworldly reward, should there be one scoundrel among them, he will not, to be colloquial, ride on
their coattails.

In sum, Leviticus 26 pertains to compliance (or lack thereof), as far as the nation is concerned.
Collectively, Jews stand to reap earthly reward or punishment, according to the majority’s conduct. The
story, however, changes abruptly when God stands in judgement over individuals. In the Book of
Deuteronomy, Abravanel will elaborate on the subject of personal, spiritual reward and punishment.

Don Isaac Abravanel, sometimes spelled Abarbanel (1437-1508) was a probing and penetrating Jewish thinker, as well as a prolific
Biblical commentator. Sabbaticals and jubilees are the main topics of discussion in Leviticus 25.
Sabbaticals are observed in Israel at the end of seven-year cycles; jubilees every fifty years. Across the
board, classical commentators contend that, essentially, both commandments are variations on the
same theme.

“And God spoke unto Moses in mount Sinai, saying. Speak unto the
Children of Israel and say unto them. When you come into the land
which I give you, then you shall keep a sabbath unto God. Six years you
shall sow your field…but in the seventh year shall be a sabbath of
solemn rest for the land.”

Abravanel sees the two commandments differently than his predecessors. He argues that the two
agricultural directives are far from being alike. If they’re really Bobbsey twins, he asks, then why does
the Torah refer repeatedly to sabbaticals as sabbaths – to be precise, seven times in this chapter?
Conversely, jubilees are not called sabbath once.

To be sure, for Abravanel, sabbaticals and jubilees are weighty subjects. And he devotes much time in
analyzing these two diverse, divine commandments. For our purposes here, we shall explain them in a
simple and straightforward manner. For the entire discussion, however, see Abravanel’s World.

Abravanel points out that God performed two overarching acts of kindness with His world. The first one
was the creation itself. Before creation, nothing existed. He brought existence, giving things their unique
form and specialness.

The second predominant gift was the holy Torah, given to the Chosen People. Observance enables the
Hebrews to achieve wholeness, and refine their souls. Where does Abravanel’s preface take us, and how
does it dovetail with sabbaticals and jubilees?

The Maker desired that His nation would work the land in ways that reflected God’s two grandiose
deeds – creation and Torah. Sabbaticals are reminiscent of the creation. In six days, He created heaven
and earth. On the seventh day He rested. Hence, sabbaticals are called sabbaths. By Jews working the
land six years and allowing it to lay fallow on the seventh year, they are recreating, as it were, God’s
creation of the world. The holy sabbath, falling on day seven of each week, is marked by repose, as Jews
refrain from work activities. This corresponds to the year of rest for land – every seven years.

Jubilees, as stated above, never get referred as sabbaths. This indicates that jubilees don’t
commemorate the creation of the world. At the end of seven cycles consisting of seven years each,
“then you shall make proclamation with the blast of the horn…And you shall hallow the fiftieth year, and
proclaim liberty throughout the land…it shall be a jubilee for you…”

Jubilees match up with the Law-giving event at Sinai. Bible students will recall that the Torah was
transmitted to the Hebrews fifty days after the Exodus from Egypt. Furthermore, the Torah arrived
amidst tumultuous blasts of a horn: “And the voice of a horn exceeding loud…”

In sum, sabbaticals and jubilees carry rich symbolism, and they herald the commemoration of the
creation and the revelation of the Torah at Sinai respectively.