Parashas Pinchas: Making Meaning of Mussafim

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this blog post, and click here for a larger version of this chart.

Parashas Pinchas: Making Meaning of Mussafim

The final topic in Parashas Pinchas (Bamidbar Chapters 28-29) is the mussafim (additional offerings) which were brought in the Beis ha’Mikdash (Holy Temple) on the moadim (holidays). These korbanos (offerings) are described as “mussafim” (additional) because they are considered to be additions to the korban tamid (continual offering) which was brought twice each day: once in the morning and once in the afternoon. 

In the present day, when the Beis ha’Mikdash has not been rebuilt, the average Jew encounters these mussafim in two primary ways: (a) the krias ha’Torah (public Torah readings) on the moadim, in which we read the pesukim (verses) from our parashah corresponding to the mussaf of that day, and (b) the tefilas mussaf (additional prayer), which was instituted to parallel the korban mussaf, and in which the prevailing custom is to recite the contents of each mussaf during the middle berachah (blessing). 

Although I have not taken a survey, I suspect that the vast majority of Jews hear and recite these pesukim do so mindlessly, without giving any thought as to the number or type of animal offered in each korban and without thinking about why each mussaf is offered on each day. It is difficult enough to relate to the idea of korbanos in general, and even more difficult to derive any meaning or value from reciting the particular requirements for these holiday offerings.

I, too, suffered from this “mussafic apathy” from the day I learned to daven (pray) right up until this past Pesach. I was davening my tefilas mussaf like any other Yom Tov (holiday), and when I read the pesukim which describe the mussaf of Pesach, I had an epiphany. I realized that the the mussaf of Pesach was exactly the same as the mussaf of Rosh Chodesh (the New Month). Then I took a look at the mussaf for Shavuos and noticed that it was also exactly the same. 

“Huh,” I though to myself, “That’s interesting.” On a whim, I decided to look up the other mussafim – and that’s when the gears started turning. As you can imagine, the facts were incredibly detailed. Since it was Yom Tov, and I couldn’t write, I made a visual representation of all the mussafim using Magic: the Gathering tokens and dice (see below) so that I could more easily spot any patterns and anomalies. After finding these patterns and anomalies, I was able to formulate specific questions. These questions led to answers which yielded insight into the different moadim and their interrelationship. 

You can figure out the key by comparing it to the chart above. There is one error, though: there are supposed to be seven lambs for Shemini Atzeres - not just one. 

Here is a list of most (if not all) of these questions – many of which I subsequently discovered were noted by the Abravanel [1] in his commentary on Bamidbar:

1) Why do we offer a single lamb for the korban tamid? Or, if you prefer, why do we bring a lamb for the tamid once in the morning and once in the afternoon? 

2) Why is the tamid included here at all, considering the fact (a) that it isn’t a mussaf, and (b) the Torah already dealt with the tamid way back in Parashas Tetzaveh (Shemos 29:38-46)? 

3) Why are these four species of animal – and only these four species – used as mussafim?  

4) Why do the mussafim of all the moadim involve all four species (bull, ram, lamb, he-goat) whereas the mussaf of Shabbos only involves lambs? Or, if you prefer, why do the daily tamid and the mussaf of Shabbos only involve lambs, whereas the mussafim of all the other moadim involve all four species? 

5) Why are the mussafim of Rosh Chodesh, Pesach, and Shavuos exactly the same? 

6) Why do we offer 2 bulls for Rosh Chodesh, Pesach, and Shavuos, but only 1 bull for Rosh ha’Shanah, Yom ha’Kippurim, and Shemini Atzeres? Alternatively, why are the mussafim of Rosh ha’Shanah and Shemini Atzeres – and Yom ha’Kippurim, if you do’t count the additional he-goat – exactly the same?  

7) Why is the “default number” of rams one? (“Default” in the sense that all mussafim that have rams have only 1, with the exception of Sukkos.) 

8) Why is the “default number” of lambs seven? (“Default” in the sense that all mussafim that have lambs have 7, with the exception of Sukkos.) 

9) Why do we bring 2 rams on Sukkos? Do we understand this to be “a requirement of 2” or “double the requirement of the usual 1”? 

10) Why do we bring 14 lambs on Sukkos? Do we understand this to be “a requirement of 14” or “double the requirement of the usual 7”? 

11) Why, on Sukkos, do we bring 13 bulls on Day 1, 12 on Day 2, 11 on Day 3, etc.? In other words, why do the bulls diminish at all, and why do we start with 13 and end with 7? 

12) Why do we bring a sin-offering with each of the mussafim except for Shabbos? What does this sin-offering atone for? And why a he-goat? 

13) Why, on Yom ha’Kippurim, do we bring an extra he-goat as a sin-offering? 

14) Why, on Shavuos, do we bring a special korban mussaf in addition to the regular one? What accounts for the unique composition of this mussaf, which contains features we don’t see elsewhere – that is, two loaves of bread, seven more lambs in addition to the seven lambs of the regular mussaf, another he-goat as a sin offering in addition to the he-goat sin offering of the regular mussaf, and two more lambs brought as shlamim (peace-offerings)? And if this is really a mussaf, why isn’t it mentioned in Parashas Pinchas?   

15) Why are the bulls, rams, and lambs of the mussafim offered as olah (burnt-offerings), but the he-goat offered chatas (sin-offerings)? 

Now before you get too excited, I am sorry to inform you that we will not be answering all of these questions in this blog post – not even close. Most of the meforshim (commentators) only offer answers to a few of these questions and not others, and their answers are too localized for me to be able to extrapolate their overall approach to the extent that I would be able to reliably guess how they might answer the other questions. The only two meforshim I found who attempted to provide reasons for ALL the details of ALL the mussafim were the Ralbag and the Abravanel. Unfortunately, I did not find their answers compelling enough to write here – though I will cite a few examples from each of them below.

Instead of answering these questions I would like to focus on methodology. I will outline the four different approaches taken by the meforshim in their efforts to answer these questions. I will then offer several examples of each approach. Lastly, I will note the major advantages and disadvantages of each approach. 

Approach #1 – Structural: Personally, my favorite approach to questions like this is the minimalist “structural” approach. According to this approach, the mussafim are not symbolic. Rather, the patterns and anomalies in the mussafim reflect ideas about the moadim on which they are brought. By examining these discrepancies in light of all the information provided by Torah she’bi’Chsav (the Written Torah) and Torah she’baal Peh (the Oral Torah), one can arrive at a deeper understanding of the moadim. For example:

The daily tamid consists of one lamb, whereas the mussaf of Shabbos consists of two lambs. This structural pattern conveys the idea that Shabbos is “double” the weekday, in some sense. What does this mean? The mussafim themselves do not answer this question. To answer this question we must contemplate what we know about Shabbos in relation to the weekdays. We might draw a comparison from the fact that the Torah states, “and God blessed the 7th day and sanctified it” (Bereishis 2:3), which Chazal interpret to foreshadow the fact that Hashem gave Bnei Yisrael a double portion of mahn (manna) on Friday for the sake of Shabbos. Alternatively, perhaps the idea has to do with the fact that the freedom of melachah on Shabbos affords us double the opportunity to perfect ourselves in comparison to the weekday. Or maybe the idea has to do with the fact that we have a neshamah yeseirah (“extra soul”) on Shabbos (Taanis 27b), or that the mitzvah of oneg (enjoyment) results in double the enjoyment, or the fact that the weekday is primarily devoted to the needs of Olam ha’Zeh (This World), whereas on Shabbos we get to enjoy Olam ha’Zeh and Olam ha’Ba (The World to Come).  

Another example has to do with our initial observation: that the mussafim of Rosh Chodesh, Pesach, and Shavuos are exactly the same. This suggests that there is a common theme which unites these three moadim. Again, there are a number of directions we can proceed from there. Perhaps these reflect the three stages of Yetzias Mitzrayim (the Exodus from Egypt): Rosh Chodesh is the moed which represents the preparation stage while Bnei Yisrael were still enslaved in Mitzrayim (since this is when they were commanded in the mitzvah of Rosh Chodesh); Pesach is the moed about the Geulas Mitzrayim (Redemption from Egypt); Shavuos (according to some) is the moed about Matan Torah (the Giving of the Torah), which was the purpose and culmination of Yetzias Mitzrayim.  

A third example comes from the Bechor Shor’s [2] explanation of the mussaf of Shemini Atzeres. He notes that compared to the mussafim of the first seven days of Sukkos (e.g. 31 animals on Day 1, 30 on Day 2, etc.), Shemini Atzeres has relatively few (i.e. only 11). Why should that be? He answers that the term "atzeres" means "to detain" or "hold back." The idea of the holiday is that once Sukkos ends we won't have any more moadim until Pesach, Hashem wants to "hold us back" for one more day of rejoicing. In order to show us that He is doing this because of His love for us, and in order to demonstrate that He is not holding us back to obtain more korbanos, He therefore required the absolute minimum amount of korbanos: one bull, one ram, and the standard amount of lambs. 

The chief advantage of the structural approach is that it is extremely conservative. We simply note the small differences in the mussafim and make small moves based on our prior knowledge to derive small new insights into the moadim. But the minimalism of this approach is a double-edged sword: since we are given very little information from the korbanos themselves, and are forced to draw upon prior knowledge, this approach lends itself to a high degree of speculation. The first example illustrates this point: yes, we see that Shabbos is “double” the weekday, but see how many different ways there are to make sense of this! 

Approach #2 – Torah-Symbolic: This approach is a favorite among the more midrashically inclined meforshim, such as Rashi, the Ramban, and (of course) Chazal themselves, who authored the midrashim. The Abravanel takes this approach all the way, explaining every single detail of every korban in accordance with its Torah-based symbolism. However, he doesn’t maintain that the symbolism is uniform (i.e. bulls don’t always symbolize the same thing; the number 7 also doesn’t always symbolize the same thing). He also doesn’t always use the same “mode” of symbolism: some of his symbolism is based on textual evidence and allusions in Torah she’bi’Chsav, some is based on the physical qualities of the animals, and some of it is based on wordplay. Lastly, the Abravanel does not seem to think that this approach lends itself to absolute certainty, as indicated by the fact that he offers several different interpretations for many of the details. 

Here are a few examples to give you taste of this approach:

The two lambs of the korban tamid represent the two pivotal events in Jewish history, whose memory is “always” with us: the tamid shel shachar (morning continual offering) symbolizes Yetzias Mitzrayim, which was chronologically the first event; the tamid shel bein ha’arbayim (afternoon continual offering) symbolizes Matan Torah, which was chronologically later. The lamb (כבש) was chosen for these offerings to teach that are we subordinate (נכבשים) to Hashem. 

The Abravanel, citing Chazal, explains that the four species involved in all the mussafim (except for Shabbos) represent the three Avos (forefathers) plus the Shvatim (Twelve Tribes). Avraham is represented by the bull, as it is stated: “And Avraham ran to the cattle” (Bereishis 18:7). Yitzchak is represented by the ram, as it is stated: “Behold! – there was a ram behind him” (ibid. 22:13). Yaakov is represented by the lamb: “and Yaakov separated the lambs” (ibid. 30:40). The Shvatim are represented by the he-goat, as it is stated: “and they slaughtered a he-goat” (ibid. 37:31). 

The Abravanel offers his own explanation for the mussaf of Rosh Chodesh which differs from Chazal. He holds that the mussaf of Rosh Chodesh was designed to remind us of how Bnei Yisrael were commanded in the mitzvah of Rosh Chodesh – our very first mitzvah – in Mitzrayim. The two bulls (פרים) represent Moshe and Aharon, through whom the mitzvah of Rosh Chodesh was given, and who caused Torah to be fruitful (פרים) in Israel. The one ram (איל) represents (lehavdil) Hashem, the all-powerful (בעל האילות), Who commanded Bnei Yisrael in the mitzvah of Rosh Chodesh. The seven lambs represent the seven tzadikim (righteous people) from whom Moshe and Aharon descended: (1) Noach, (2) Avraham, (3) Yitzchak, (4) Yaakov, (5) Levi, (6) Kehas, (7) Amram. The merit of these seven tzadikim stand by us, and protect us from the harmful occurrences that were set in motion with the beginning of the month. Alternatively, the two bulls (פרים) represent the sun and the moon, whose cyclical motion is responsible not only for our calendar, but for all of the fruits (פירות) of the world. The one ram alludes to the fact that we were given the mitzvah of Rosh Chodesh in the month of Nisan – the same month in which we offer the Korban Pesach (Pesach offering), which is brought from the same species as a ram. (Perhaps the Abravanel is also referring to the fact that the constellation of Nisan is the ram.) We bring seven lambs corresponding to the seven days of the Chag ha’Matzos (Festival of Matzah). 

As for the mussaf of Sukkos, the Abravanel quotes Chazal for the first part of his explanation and offers his original interpretations for the rest. The 70 bulls (13+12+11+10+9+8+7) represent the 70 nations of the world, or the 70 “angelic officers” appointed over them; their gradual diminution symbolizes the fact that they will ultimately be gradually diminished in the time leading up to Yemos ha’Moshiach (the Messianic Era). The two rams (אילים) represent the two most powerful nations alluded to in: “” (Devarim 32:14). The fourteen lambs represent the fourteen children of Yaakov: the twelve tribes – with Yosef being split into Ephraim and Menashe – plus Dinah. 

As you can see, there are major advantages and disadvantages within this approach. The advantage is that the use of a highly flexible symbolic language allows these korbanos to reflect a wide variety of concepts. Each mussaf becomes a dazzling allegorical ritual rich with meaning. The disadvantage is that an approach like this is highly speculative – as I wrote about in my post about the perils of metaphor – and lends itself to forced interpretations. Personally, I would accept this approach in the spirit of drash, but not as pshat. 

Approach #3 – Scientifically Symbolic: This, by far, is the most ambitious approach, and is spearheaded by the Ralbag. [3] The Ralbag maintains that the Beis ha’Mikdash and the avodas ha’korbanos (Divine service of the sacrificial order) was designed to teach us fundamental principles of science and metaphysics. Each and every detail of the avodah symbolizes a fact or a concept which helps us to understand the universe, and which ultimately brings us to knowledge and love of Hashem. Here are a few examples:

The Ralbag maintains that the seven lambs offered on the Shalosh Regalim (Three Pilgrimage Festivals) represent the seven levels of existences – or “forms” – in the universe: (1) elements, (2) minerals, (3) plant life, (4) animal life, (5) human life, (6) angels, and (7) Hashem.  

He explains that the mussaf of Rosh Chodesh was designed to teach us about the motion of the moon, which is the basis of our calendar: the seven lambs symbolize the seven causes of motion which move the seven planets; the one ram represents the mover of the Celestial Sphere which encompasses the seven planets; the two bulls represent the two movers of the Celestial Sphere – namely, the Active Intellect and Hashem (lehavdil). 

Similarly, he explains the mussafim of Rosh ha’Shanah and Yom ha’Kippurim as symbolically reflecting other ideas about the motions of the heavenly bodies: the one bull corresponds to the Active Intellect; the one ram corresponds to the Celestial Sphere which causes the motion of the planets; the seven lambs represent the seven planets; these animals add up to nine olah-offerings – not ten – because Hashem is the Prime Mover, and it would be inappropriate to include Him in the count (though the Ralbag also explains that this idea is alluded to in the fact that the time period between Rosh ha’Shanah and Yom ha’Kippurim is ten days). 

To me, this approach – if it were correct – would be the most impressive and significant. It gives me the chills to think about what it would be like if all of the laws of nature were modeled by the halachos which govern the avodah (service) in the Beis ha’Mikdash. The Mikdash would then truly be “a miniature universe.” 

Unfortunately, all of the Ralbag’s explanations were based on Aristotelian physics, which means that it is entirely invalid. I’m sure it was great while it lasted, though. 

To my knowledge, nobody in the modern age has attempted to follow the Ralbag’s approach according to our modern understanding of science. Furthermore, I have a feeling that if the Ralbag were alive today, and if he were aware of the rapid progress that science has made over the past few centuries, perhaps he would agree that it would be folly to suggest that the the fixed laws of the korbanos reflect our ever-changing scientific understanding of the universe. 

Approach #4 – No Explanation: Last but not least, there is the approach of the Rambam. In his discourse on the reasons for mitzvos in the Moreh ha’Nevuchim, [4] the Rambam writes about korbanos “we cannot say why one korban should be a lamb whilst another is a ram, and why a fixed number of them should be brought.” He adds that:

Those who trouble themselves to find reasons for any of these details are chasing after a huge delusion - one which not only fails to remove any difficulties, but increases them. Anyone who believes that these [details of the laws] have a purpose is as far from the truth as one who assumes that the entire mitzvah is without any real purpose. 

I have written about this at length in a previous blog post this summer, in which I attempted to demonstrate that the Rambam’s view is far more nuanced than it would appear at first glance. Nevertheless, it would seem that the Rambam would hold that at least some – if not all – of the questions we asked are a waste of time, because there are simply no answers. The details are arbitrary. 

The advantage of this approach is that it is entirely immune to speculation. It is impossible to be wrong about what the details of the korbanos teach us if one holds that they don’t teach us anything. The disadvantage of this approach is that it is extremely difficult to accept. Would the Rambam really look at the glaring patterns and anomalies in the mussafim and the questions we asked and conclude that these details are arbitrary? I find that hard to believe, especially since the Rambam does offer reasons for some of these details in the Moreh ha’Nevuchim. 

Still, I am including this in my list of approaches because the Rambam would definitely say that some details here are arbitrary. For example, he explicitly stated that if a person asks, “Why seven lambs and not eight?” then there is no answer; this detail is arbitrary. From this example alone we see a marked difference between the Rambam and many other meforshim. 

Roll safe, Rambam.

In conclusion, I hope this post can serve as something like a “starter kit” for exploring the topic of mussafim. I have provided a chart which summarizes the relevant facts, a list of questions for investigation, and a summary of the four approaches I’ve seen in the meforshim. “The rest,” as they say, “is commentary; go forth and learn.”

[1] Don Yitzchak Abravanel, Commentary on Sefer Bamidbar Chapter 28

[2] Rabbeinu Yosef Bechor Shor, Commentary on Sefer Bamidbar 29:35

[3] Rabbeinu Levi ben Gershom (Ralbag / Gersonides), Commentary on Sefer Bamidbar: Parashas Pinchas (Toalos)

[4] Rabbeinu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides), Moreh ha'Nevuchim 3:26