Vayikra 5772

Within the realm of symbolism it is often the case that less is more. Just as the power and effectiveness of a mashal is not a function of its own elegance but rather the extent to which its elements correspond to that of the nimshal, so the power of a symbolic object is not in its size, weight, or cost but rather in its ability to represent that for which it stands. Thus, a smaller, lighter, or even more inexpensive item may serve its purpose in a manner superior to its alternative. Let us keep this in mind as we explore just one of the many facets of the sacrificial laws, the central theme of this week’s portion.

The Korban Olah, entirely burnt on the altar, is generally a voluntary sacrifice, yet it serves as atonement. For what sins does it atone? Here we have an apparent contradiction in the words of Chazal. Toras Kohanim (cited in Rashi, Zevachim 5B) says that it atones for the failure to fulfill a positive command of the Torah. However the Talmud Yerushalmi (Yoma 8:7) contends that it atones for sinful thoughts. The Chasam Sofer suggests that it may depend on the particular animal used for the offering. The Olah of cattle (discussed at Vayikra 1:3-9) atones for the neglect of the positive command; the Olah of sheep (discussed at Vayikra 1:10-13) atones for the illicit thoughts. Now the Chasam Sofer does not explain the basis for this distinction. One would be tempted to say that failure to perform an act is worse than a mere thought and thus requires a “bigger” atonement; thus the distinction is rooted in the comparative size difference between a bull and a ram.

But there may be something deeper here. A point reiterated again and again in the commentaries to Vayikra is that a Korban is a symbolic self-sacrifice, where the animal represents the person who is bringing the offering. (See Sfas Emes, Vayikra 5643 for a fascinating comparison of a Korban to the Akeidas Yitzchak, where the ram replaced the human offering.) We may then ask: Is there a difference between the bull and the ram in their symbolism? Does a person choose one or the other merely on the basis of expense or convenience, or does the choice reflect different aspects of self-sacrifice?

Rav Hirsch in his commentary reveals a fundamental difference between cattle and sheep. A bull is a beast of burden; it bears its master’s yoke. A sheep is shepherded by its master; it is the object of nurturing and tender care. Says Rav Hirsch, when a person feels that he has been remiss in his responsibilities to G-d and wishes to make amends, he wills himself to serve as the bull bearing his master’s yoke. When a person sees himself as inappreciative of G-d’s kindnesses, he wills himself to be the sheep, cared for and pampered. Thus, the choice of animal is connected to the message the person wishes to communicate to G-d.

The words of the Chasam Sofer now take on a new poignancy. Does the bull enjoy its burdens? Perhaps yes, but probably it does not. Yet it does its duty in any case. The bull therefore does not atone for the illicit thought – the bull may have illicit thoughts of its own; it atones for a failure to perform one’s duty, specifically the neglect of a positive commandment. The sheep, however, as the object of his master’s care and devotion is undoubtedly wholehearted in reciprocating his master’s love; the slightest thought of rebellion or defiance would be a betrayal. Thus the person who wishes to make amends for such thoughts represents himself as the sheep.