Vayeira: Don’t Deviate from the Minhag: XTREME Edition

This week's Torah content has been sponsored anonymously. May Hashem grant a refuah shleimah to Rachel bas Rivka Chana.

Click here for a printer-friendly 1-page version of this article, and click here for an audio version.

Artwork: Divine Visitation, by Victor Adame Minguez; flavor text on the card reads: 
"The angels appreciated the offer, but declined to eat any birdseed."

Vayeira: Don’t Deviate from the Minhag: XTREME Edition

Parashas Vayeira opens with Avraham Avinu’s visitation by “three men” (Bereishis 18:2). While some take this description at face value (Ralbag and Bechor Shor) and others maintain that this entire episode took place in a prophetic vision (Rambam and Radak), the majority of commentators – including the Sages of the Talmud – understand these “men” to be angels (see the AlHaTorah Parashah Topics for all the views and sources).

Avraham receives his guests graciously and hastens to perform the mitzvah of hachnasas orchim. After preparing a lavish feast, the Torah tells us that “[Avraham] stood over them beneath the tree and they ate” (18:8). This poses a problem for the mainstream view: if, indeed, these were non-physical angels, how could they eat?

R’ Tanchum bar Chanilai (Bava Metzia 86b) addresses this question by deriving a lesson from their conduct: “a person should never deviate from the minhag, for when Moshe ascended on high [to receive the Torah], he didn’t eat food, [and] when the ministering angels descended below, they ate food.” Sensing that R’ Tanchum sidestepped the real issue, the Gemara asks: “But is it really possible to think that they ate bread?!” The Gemara answers: “Rather, say that they appeared as though they ate and drank.”

What are we to make of this midrashic statement? One approach is to attempt to explain the mechanics of how, exactly, these angels “appeared to eat.” For example, Midrash Rabbah (48:14) states that they “removed portions of food one at a time.” The Daas Zekeinim maintain that they incinerated the food, and that the term “vayocheilu” ought to be translated as “they consumed [with fire]” rather than “they ate.” Tanna d’Vei Eliyahu Rabbah (12) simply refuses to accept our Gemara’s conclusion, declaring:

Anyone who says that the ministering angels didn't eat with Avraham has said nothing! Rather, due to the righteousness of that tzadik and as a reward for his toil on their behalf, Ha'Kadosh Baruch Hu opened their mouths and they ate. Thus, it was stated: "he stood over them under the tree and they ate."

But there is an alternative approach one can take here. Instead of assuming that the midrash is describing these events as they actually happened, one can read R’ Tanchum’s midrash homiletically – that he is teaching us a lesson which has nothing to do with the pshat. Indeed, this is the approach taken by Midrash Seichel Tov (18:8):

They appeared as though they ate, removing the food bit by bit. Why go this far? So [we can] learn derech eretz (proper interpersonal conduct), to conduct oneself in the city in accordance with the customs of its citizens. Behold! Moshe ascended on high and didn’t eat or drink, and went for 40 days and 40 nights without eating and drinking, and these [angels] who came to the human realm made themselves appear to eat and drink in order to beautify the character of Avraham, and so as not to withhold reward from its rightful recipients.

Reading the midrash in this manner obviates the need to engage in abstruse angelological acrobatics to work out how the angels appeared to eat. Moreover, this reading sidesteps the problematic claim that the reason why Moshe Rabbeinu abstained from eating and drinking for 40 days was because he didn’t want to deviate from the minhag of the angels (as opposed to a more metaphysically intrinsic reason, related to Mosaic prophecy).

Why would R’Tanchum express this derech eretz lesson in such dramatic terms? Perhaps he did so the sake of the rhetorical impact. Many of us experience tremendous resistance when asked to change our own conduct to conform to the norms of others. R’ Tanchum framed his teaching this way to speak directly to this resistance: “Even if conforming to the minhag goes against your grain – even if it goes against your very nature – you still must not deviate. Moshe was a physical being – and yet, he abstained from eating and drinking to uphold the custom. The angels were non-physical beings – and yet, they ate so as not to upset their host. And even if you literally can’t bring yourself to adapt the minhag, then at least do a convincing job of pretending to conform.”

________________________________________________________________

If you've gained from what you've learned here, please consider contributing to my Patreon at patreon.com/rabbischneeweiss. Alternatively, if you would like to make a direct contribution to the "Rabbi Schneeweiss Torah Content Fund," my Venmo is @Matt-Schneeweiss, and my Zelle and PayPal are mattschneeweiss at gmail.com. Even a small contribution goes a long way to covering the costs of my podcasts, and will provide me with the financial freedom to produce even more Torah content for you.

If you would like to sponsor a day's or a week's worth of content, or if you are interested in enlisting my services as a teacher or tutor, you can reach me at rabbischneeweiss at gmail.com. Thank you to my listeners for listening, thank you to my readers for reading, and thank you to my supporters for supporting my efforts to make Torah ideas available and accessible to everyone.

Be sure to check out my YouTube channel and my podcasts: "The Mishlei Podcast", "The Stoic Jew" Podcast, "Rambam Bekius" Podcast, "Machshavah Lab" Podcast, "The Tefilah Podcast"  Email me if you'd like to be added to my WhatsApp group where I share all of my content and public shiur info. 

Naso: Twelve Identical Offerings

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this blog post.

Naso: Twelve Identical Offerings

The Question 

Without a doubt, the strangest section of Parashas Naso is its conclusion. Bamidbar Chapter 7 begins by establishing the narrative context: 

And it happened on the day Moshe finished setting up the Mishkan (Tabernacle) that he anointed it and consecrated it and all its furnishings, and he anointed them and consecrated them. And the leaders of Israel – the heads of their fathers’ houses, they are the leaders of the tribes, they are the ones who stand over the reckoning – brought forward and set their offering before Hashem … And the leaders brought forward the dedication offering of the altar on the day it was anointed, and the leaders brought forward their offering for the dedication of the altar. And Hashem said to Moshe: “One leader each day, one leader each day, shall offer his offerings for the dedication for the altar.” (Bamidbar 7:1-2,10-11) 

The first of these offerings is then described in detail: 

And the one who brought forward his offering on the first day was Nachshon ben Aminadav of the tribe of Yehudah. And his offering was one silver bowl, a hundred thirty shekels its weight, one silver basin, seventy shekels by the sanctuary shekel, both of them filled with fine flour mixed with oil for a grain offering. One golden ladle of ten shekels filled with incense. One bull from the herd, one ram, one yearling lamb for the burnt offering. One goat for an offense offering. And for the communion sacrifice two oxen, five rams, five he-goats, five yearling lambs. This is the offering of Nachshon ben Aminadav. (ibid. 7:12-17) 

And that’s when things start to get repetitive. The Torah goes on to describe the offering brought on the second day by the second tribal leader, Nesanel ben Tzuar. It is exactly the same offering, and its contents are spelled out in exactly the same words. The Torah continues in this manner with the third, fourth, and fifth identical offerings – all the way up to the twelfth. Each tribal leader brings exactly the same offering, which the pesukim describe in exactly the same way. It is as if Moshe Rabbeinu took these same six pesukim, with the same 66 words, and copied and pasted them eleven more times, then went back and changed the name of the tribal leader and in the ordinal designation of the day for each. 

This seemingly gratuitous repetition has astounded medieval and modern commentators alike. The Abravanel [1] raises this question explicitly: 

Why did the text here mention the offering of each leader in elaborate detail, considering that their offerings were exactly equal without any variation? It would have been enough for it to say about the first of them “this was the offering of Nachshon ben Aminadav” as an example, and afterwards for each and every day, “and likewise, so-and-so offered on the such-and-such day” – as opposed to writing the same thing twelve times, which is excessively repetitive and is a very strange thing. 

The modern translator and commentator, Robert Alter [2], notes how anomalous this section is: 

This is the one single instance in the entire Bible of extensive verbatim repetition without the slightest variation … Biblical narrative, as we have had many occasions to see, characteristically deploys significant swerves from verbatim repetition as it approximately repeats strings of phrases and whole clauses and sentences. This passage, however, is manifestly not narrative, but a kind of epic inventory. 

In simple terms the question is: Why did the Torah repeat the list of these twelve identical offerings verbatim when it only needed to list them once? 

The Simple Answer 

The most straightforward answer is given by several commentators, namely, that the Torah wanted to stress the absolute equality of the leaders and their offerings, for them and for us. The Bechor Shor [3] states that this was the reason why each leader was given his own day and why his offering was spelled out in detail, despite it being identical with the others: 

“one leader each day” – in order to give honor to the leaders, that each one would have his day; so too, a section [describing the offering] was written for each one of them, so that they would not become jealous of one another – for it could have written the first section and then said, “Thus did so-and-so, and thus so-and-so.” 

The Ramban [4] offers a similar explanation: 

The best reason for Scripture [stating each leader’s offering separately] is that Ha’Kadosh Baruch Hu apportions honor to those who fear Him, as it was said: “for I honor those who honor Me” (I Shmuel 2:30). Now, all the leaders brought on the same day this offering upon which they agreed together, but it was impossible that one should not precede his fellow [in the actual offering. Therefore, Hashem] honored those that had precedence in the arrangement [of the camp] with precedence in the days [of offering,] but He wanted to mention them by name and their offerings in detail and to mention each one’s day, rather than [simply] mentioning and honoring the first one, [saying:] “This is the offering of Nachshon ben Aminadav” and [then] saying: “And so the leaders offered, each man on his day,” since that would have been an affront to the others’ honor. And afterwards He went and combined them [by stating the total quantities of the offerings] to teach that all of them were equal before Him, blessed is He. And thus [the Sages] said there in Sifrei: “Scripture teaches that just as [the leaders] were all equal with regard to the idea [of these offerings,] so were they equal with regard to the merit.” 

Alter [5] also favors this approach, depicting the Torah’s intended rhetorical effect as follows: 

Each of the tribes, here accorded absolutely equal status before the sanctuary without political hierarchy, brings exactly the same offering. One can readily imagine that the members of each tribe in the ancient audience of this text would be expected to relish the sumptuousness of its own tribal offering exactly equal to all the others, as it hears the passage read. 

Yet, as reasonable as this objective may be, was it really necessary to “waste” 726 needless words simply in order to demonstrate the equality of the tribal leaders? Surely the Torah could have found a more verbally efficient way to convey the same sentiment. For example, Chazal [6] interpret the Torah’s extremely concise statement: “and the sons of Yaakov were twelve” (Bereishis 35:22) “to teach that all of them are equal.” Likewise, on the pasuk: “they are Aharon and Moshe” (Shemos 6:26), Rashi [7] observes that “in some places Moshe precedes Aharon and in other places Aharon precedes Moshe in order to convey their equality.” So too here: the Torah could have stated the contents of the identical offerings and framed them in a manner which would have conveyed the equality of the tribal leaders. 

Two Midrashic Approaches 

The Abravanel notes that there are two categories of answers given in the midrashic literature: 

In [the midrashic collection] Bamidbar Sinai Rabbah (13:14) they expound “and his offering” in a different manner, saying: “Why did the leaders see fit to bring their offerings in this manner? The Rabbis say: even though their offerings were the same, each one brought them [in order to allude] to great principles, each and every one in accordance with his own intent.” Likewise, Rebbi Shimon (ibid.) expounded: “Why does the pasuk say, ‘from the leaders of Israel’? This teaches that they donated of their own accord.” Consequently, each one’s offering was equal in its value, its quantity, and its weight. In other words, each and every one was motivated by himself to offer these items mentioned in the pasuk in accordance with his own intention, in order to allude to the concepts in his own mind … 

The midrash then proceeds to expound on the symbolism of each leader’s offering in accordance with a specific theme. For example, the tribe of Yehuda is the tribe of malchus (Kingship), and its tribal leader intended each detail of his offering to allude to different ideas about malchus. The tribe of Yissachar was known for its prowess in Torah, and its tribal leader intended each detail of his offering to allude to concepts about Torah. And so on for each of the other ten tribes. After paraphrasing [8] the themes of each of these offerings based on this midrash, the Abravanel concludes: 

The general thrust of this view is that each of the leaders made his offering in accordance with his own intentions which differed from the intentions of the other leaders. Thus, their offerings were the same, but their intentions were different. 

Next, the Abravanel cites an opposing view stated in the same midrash: 

However, Rebbi Pinchas ben Yair held that all of the leaders had a single intention and a single allusion in mind, namely, [that their offerings] correspond to the generations from Adam ha’Rishon until the Mishkan. 

For example, the first item in the offering was “one silver bowl (kaaras kesef), a hundred and thirty shekels its weight.” The phrase “kaaras kesef” has a numerical value of which is 930, which represents Adam ha’Rishon who lived for 930 years. The fact that there was only one such bowl represents Chava, since she was created from him. Its weight of 130 shekels represents the 130 years that Adam separated from Chava before they reunited and had their third son. The second item in the offering was “one silver basin (mizrak echad), seventy shekels by the sanctuary shekel.” The phrase “mizrak” (from Z.R.Q., meaning “to throw”) represents Noach, who was “thrown out” of the Generation of the Flood. Its weight of 70 shekels corresponds to the 70 nations that emerged from him. And so on. 

Even though I tend to favor pshat, I find that both of these approaches provide a more satisfactory answer to our question than the pshat explanations cited above. If these offerings were intended to convey ideas through the symbolism of their particulars, then the Torah going out of its way to emphasize these particulars is a great way to draw the mind. According to the first midrashic approach, each offering is restated in full because each detail has its own ideational content. According to the second midrashic approach, each offering is restated in full in order to underscore the unanimity of the tribal leaders in their common intent. 

The Methodological Underpinnings of These Midrashic Approaches 

No matter how appealing these symbolic interpretations may be, one cannot help but wonder: “How did the authors of these midrashim know what the tribal leaders intended to symbolize in their offerings?” 

For those who believe that midrashim were given at Sinai, along with the rest of Torah she’baal Peh (the Oral Torah), the answer is simple: mesorah (an oral tradition). But for those who follow the mainstream approach, [9] maintaining that midrashim reflect the views of their authors, the answer is even simpler: the authors of these midrashim didn’t know the intentions of the tribal leaders. Rather, these midrashim reflect their own speculative theories which may or may not correspond to what the tribal leaders actually intended. 

This attempt to find meaning in the details of the leaders’ offerings is reminiscent of an approach mentioned by the Rambam. The Rambam states that it is incumbent upon every person to seek out the reasons for the mitzvos of the Torah. This injunction applies to both categories of mitzvos: to mishpatim, those mitzvos whose reasons are evident, and to chukim, the mitzvos whose reasons are hidden. At the end of Hilchos Me’ilah the Rambam [10] writes: 

It is proper for a person to contemplate the laws of the Holy Torah and to know their ultimate concepts according to his ability. If he doesn't find a reason and doesn't know a cause of something, it should not be less in his eyes, nor should he break forth to ascend to Hashem lest He burst forth against him, nor should he think of it as a mundane matter … a person should not kick against them just because he doesn’t know their reasons, nor should he ascribe matters which are not true onto Hashem, nor should he think about them as he thinks about mundane matters. It was stated in the Torah: “And you shall guard all of my chukim (statutes) and all of my mishpatim (judgments) and you shall do them” (Vayikra 19:37; 20:22). The Sages said that we should apply shmirah (guarding) and asiyah (doing) to chukim in the same manner as mishpatim. The [meaning of] “asiyah” is evident: namely, that we should do the chukim. The [meaning] of “shmirah” is that we must be careful with them and not imagine that they are less than mishpatim. The mishpatim are the mitzvos whose benefits in this world are evident, such as the prohibitions of stealing and murder, and honoring one's father and mother. And the chukim are the mitzvos whose reasons are not evident. The Sages said: “[These are] the statutes that I have inscribed for you, and you do not have permission to be suspicious about them, and man’s yetzer (inclination) confronts him regarding them, and the nations of the world dispute them.” Examples include the prohibition of [eating] pork, meat and milk, the decapitated calf, the red heifer, and the goat which is sent away. 

In this excerpt the Rambam speaks of "finding" the “cause” of the chukim – the actual reasons why they were commanded. In contrast, at the end of Hilchos Temurah [11] he writes: 

Even though all of the chukim of the Torah are [Divine] decrees, as we explained at the end of Hilchos Meilah, it is proper to contemplate them; anything for which you can give a reason, you should give a reason. The Early Sages said that Shlomo ha’Melech understood the majority of reasons for all of the chukim of the Torah. 

All of these matters [in Hilchos Temurah] are to subdue man’s inclination and to correct his character traits. And the majority of the laws of the Torah are but counsels from afar, from the Great Counselor, to correct [our] character traits and to make all [of our] actions upright. Likewise, it is written: “Surely, I have written for you extremely noble things, with counsel and knowledge, to teach you the veracity of true words, so that you may answer words of truth to those who send word to you” (Mishlei 22:20-21). 

Here the Rambam does not speak about finding the “cause” of the chukim. Instead, he states, “anything for which you can give a reason, you should give a reason.” In other words, in contrast to the approach of Hilchos Me'ilah, the approach of Hilchos Temurah is not to attempt to find the actual reason why Hashem commanded us to keep this mitzvah in all of its particulars. Rather, the objective is to ascribe meaning to the structure of this mitzvah in order to transform it from an incomprehensible ritual into “counsels from afar, from the Great Counselor, to correct our character traits and make all of our actions upright.” Whether or not our explanations correspond to the Divine intent is irrelevant. What matters is that our explanation renders the mitzvah into a vehicle for perfection. 

If we were to interpret Chazal’s explanations of the offerings of the tribal leaders as the type of analysis advocated by Hilchos Me’ilah, we would have ample grounds for suspicion. How could the authors of the midrashim know with such precision what the tribal leaders had in mind? But if we understand these midrashim in the sense of Hilchos Temurah, then the ingenuity of these symbolic interpretations becomes a feature, rather than a bug. The more ideas of human perfection we can associate with the details of these chukim and the stronger the association, the better.

These two methods for understanding taamei ha’mitzvos (the reasons for the commandments) ought to be kept in mind whenever one encounters a theory about why the structure of a mitzvah is the way it is. It is easy to dismiss an “explanation” of a mitzvah on the grounds of being speculative if one assumes that the explanation is being offered as a theory about the cause of the mitzvah, in the vein of Hilchos Me’ilah. But if one allows for Hilchos Temurah type explanations, then homiletic creativity is a boon.

[1] Don Yitzchak Abravanel, Commentary on Sefer Bamidbar, Introduction to Chapter 7, Question #8 

[2] Robert Alter, The Five Books of Moses: A Translation with Commentary (2004), pp. 716-717 

[3] Rabbeinu , Commentary on Sefer Bamidbar 7:11 

[4] Rabbeinu Moshe ben Nachman (Ramban / Nachmanides), Commentary on Sefer Bamidbar 7:13 

[5] ibid. Alter adds another explanation: “It is also well to remember that lists and the repetitions they entail constitute an established literary form with its own aesthetic pleasures – as, for example, in the catalogue of the ships in the Iliad or in the cumulative repetitive structures of songs like Had Gadya (‘An Only Kid’) and, more apposite to this catalogue of gifts, ‘On the Twelve Days of Christmas.’” 

[6] Rabbeinu Shlomo ben Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary on Sefer Bereishis 35:22, paraphrasing Shabbos 55b. 

[7] ibid. Commentary on Sefer Shemos 6:26 

[8] In case you’re wondering about the themes of each tribe, here is the Abravanel’s summary: Zevulun’s is about his partnership with Yissachar, Reuven’s is about saving Yosef, Shimon’s is about the order of the Mishkan, Gad’s is about Amram and his descendents, Ephraim’s is about Yaakov’s blessings of Yosef’s sons, Menashe’s is about Yaakov’s transfer of the bechorah status from Reuven to Yosef, Binyamin’s is about the offspring of Rachel, Dan’s is about Shimshon, Asher’s is about Israel as Hashem’s Chosen People, Naftali’s is about the Avos and Imahos; as you can see, some of these themes are directly connected to the identity of the tribe, whereas others are only loosely connected, or are not apparently connected at all. 

[9] See https://kolhaseridim.blogspot.com/2014/07/parashas-balak-on-citing-midrash-as.html

[10] Rabbeinu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides), Mishneh Torah: Sefer Avodah, Hilchos Me’ilah 8:8

[11] ibid. Sefer ha'Korbanos, Hilchos Temurah 4:14

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

Parashas Naso: Birkas Kohanim Kavanah Primer (2017 Update)

This post is designed to be read/reviewed prior to hearing Birkas Kohanim as a means of maximizing the benefit of hearing these blessings. This is an update of last year's Parashas Naso post; the first half is exactly the same, but the second half is expanded and clarified. There is a summary chart at the very end, if you need a quick review. 

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this blog post.

Parashas Naso: Birkas Kohanim Kavanah Primer

Introduction

The parashah of Birkas Kohanim is quite short:

Hashem spoke to Moshe, saying, "Speak to Aharon and his sons, saying: So shall you bless Bnei Yisrael, saying to them: 'May Hashem bless you and safeguard you. May Hashem shine His face towards you, and be gracious to you. May Hashem lift His face towards you, and establish peace for you.' Let them place My Name upon Bnei Yisrael, and I shall bless them." (Bamidbar 6:22-27)

I would like to take up two very basic questions: 

(1) How does Birkas Kohanim work? Am I supposed to believe that these mere mortals somehow "magically" cause these blessings to rain upon me by reciting these pesukim? And if not, then what is the mechanism? 

(2) What, exactly, are the Kohanim blessing us with? Most of the phrases in the berachos seem to be either too general or too cryptic. What do the words mean? 

The Mechanism of Birkas Kohanim

Our first question is addressed by the Sefer ha'Chinuch. [1] He writes:

At the root of this precept lies the reason that in His great goodness, Hashem desires to bless His people through the ministering servants who stay constantly in the Temple of Hashem, whose every thought is attracted to His service, and whose spirit is bound to reverent fear for Him the entire day. In their merit, the blessing would take effect for them; all their deeds would be blessed, and the pleasant goodness of Hashem would be with them.

Now, do not wonder and ask: If Hashem desires that they be blessed, let Him command His blessing [to abide] with them, and there [would be] no need for the blessing of the Kohanim? For I have already told you beforehand, many times, that by force of the worthiness of our acts, blessing will be bestowed upon us. For His hand (blessed is He) is open to every person who asks, as he is worthy and readied for the reception of the good.

Therefore, because He chose us out of all the nations and wished that we should merit to attain His good reward, He adjured us and commanded us to arrange our activities and make ourselves worthy through His mitzvos, to be deserving of the good. Moreover, in His great goodness, He commanded us that we should entreat Him for blessing, and we should beseech it through the pure ministering servants. For this will bring merit to our souls, and as a result we will be worthy to attain His goodness.

Did you catch that? His question is clear, but his answer is so subtle that it's easy to miss. The key is his statement about how God's blessings are allocated in general: "by virtue of the worthiness of our acts, blessing will be bestowed upon us, for His hand is open to every person who asks, as he is worthy and readied for the reception of good." In other words, the Sefer ha'Chinuch - like all mainstream Rishonim - maintains that the closer we are to Hashem, the more beneficence we receive via His hashgachah (providence). To the extent that we align ourselves with His will, the blessings will flow. 

According to the Sefer ha'Chinuch, Birkas Kohanim is a vehicle designed to help us "arrange our activities and make ourselves worthy through His mitzvos, to be deserving of the good." In other words, by understanding and contemplating what the Kohanim are saying, and choosing to live in accordance with the ideas and values reflected in their words and their way of life, we render ourselves more worthy of Hashem's blessing. 

This concept is alluded to in the pasuk immediately after Birkas Kohanim, as the Rambam [2] explains:

Do not be astounded and say, "What benefit is there in a blessing from this commoner?" For the receiving of this blessing is not dependent on the Kohanim, but on Ha'Kadosh Baruch Hu, as it is stated, "Let them place My Name upon Bnei Yisrael, and I will bless them" (Bamidbar 6:27) - the Kohanim do the mitzvah that they were commanded, and Ha'Kadosh Baruch Hu, with His mercy, blesses them in accordance with His desire.

The mechanism is reminiscent of the mishnah in Rosh ha'Shanah 3:8:

“It happened that when Moshe raised his hand Israel was stronger, [and when he lowered his hand Amalek was stronger]” (Shemos 17:11). Do the hands of Moshe wage war or crush the enemy? No! Rather, this teaches us that so long as Israel turned their thoughts upwards and subjugated their hearts to their Father in heaven, they were victorious; but otherwise, they fell. You can say a similar principle about the following: “[Hashem said to Moshe:] Make for yourself a fiery serpent and place it on a pole, and it will be that anyone who was bitten will look at it and live” (Bamidbar 21:8). Does a snake cause death or give life? No! Rather, so long as Israel turned their thoughts upwards and subjugated their hearts to their Father in heaven, they would be healed; otherwise, they would perish.

So too, the Sefer ha'Chinuch and the Rambam are effectively saying: "Do the words of the Kohanim bestow or withhold blessing? No! Rather, so long as Israel turn their thoughts upward to the blessings of the Kohanim and subjugate their hearts to their Father in heaven, they will be blessed." 

In light of this answer to our first question, the need to answer our second question becomes even more urgent. The berachos only function to the extent that we understand their meaning and act accordingly. If we want to be blessed, we'd better understand the meaning of these blessings! Thankfully, the meforshim (commentators) are here to help. I will now summarize the interpretations of three different meforshim - each of whom takes a very different approach.

The Meaning of Birkas Kohanim

I have selected three meforshim (commentators) whose interpretations I will now summarize. I chose them (a) because unlike many other meforshim, these three explain every part of Birkas Kohanim, and (b) these three reflect radically different approaches to the underlying subject or theme of Birkas Kohanim as a whole.

Approach #1: Sforno [3]

Here is a translation of Sforno's commentary on each component of Birkas Kohanim:

• May Hashem bless you. with wealth and possessions, for "if there is no flour (i.e. money), there is no Torah" (Avos 3:17). and safeguard you. from robbers.
• May Hashem illuminate His face towards you and be gracious to you. may He uncover your eyes with the light of His countenance [enabling you] to see wonders from His Torah and His creations - after you have attained your needs through His blessing.
• May Hashem lift His face towards you. for eternal life, in accordance with the idea: "for with You is the source of life; in Your light we will see light" (Tehilim 36:10), and as the Sages say: "the righteous sit with their crowns on their heads and derive enjoyment from the radiance of the shechinah (divine presence)" (Berachos 17a). and establish peace for you. a peaceful repose which is eternal - without any admixture of punishment - which is befitting for every perfected individual for eternal life.

Sforno learns that the first berachah is a request for material success in Olam ha'Zeh (this World): we ask Hashem for an increase in material wealth, and we ask Him to protect that wealth. The second berachah is about spiritual success (i.e. success as a truth-seeking tzelem Elokim) in Olam ha'Zeh: we ask Hashem to grant us insight into the chochmah (wisdom) of His Torah and His universe. The final berachah is about spiritual success in Olam ha'Ba (the World to Come), which is beyond the physical and is everlasting.

According to the Sforno, these three berachos are designed to be viewed as a progression: we ask Hashem for material success in Olam ha'Zeh so that we may attain spiritual success in Olam ha'Zeh so that we may attain eternal spiritual success in Olam ha'Ba. Thus, the Birkas Kohanim as a whole is a reminder of the Torah's take on man's hierarchy of needs. In order to make ourselves worthy of Hashem's berachah, we must have an accurate conception of what we are asking for and why we are asking for it. It would be a distortion to ask for material success without recognizing its proper place (i.e. that it is merely instrumental to spiritual success), or to ask for spiritual success without recognizing that this requires a foundation of material wealth. Reviewing this hierarchy of needs qualifies us to receive them.

Approach #2: Bechor Shor [4]

Here is a translation of the Bechor Shor's commentary on Birkas Kohanim, which has been slightly edited for the sake of brevity:

• May Hashem bless you. in your offspring, in your body, in wisdom, in length of days, in greatness, in your going out and in your coming in, in the city and in the field, in your fruit basket and in your kneading bowl - and with joy, that you should be happy with your lot ... all of these fall under the expression "berachah" ... and safeguard you. He should guard you from all harm, that it not approach you ... Thus, the first blessing is that He should bless you with all of the good, and protect you from all of the bad. 
• May Hashem illuminate His face towards you and be gracious to you. Some may give a gift to a friend without a pleasant countenance, as Ha'Kadosh Baruch Hu gave the quail and then punished them, as it is written, "the meat was still between their teeth, [not yet chewed, when the wrath of Hashem flared against the people]" (Bamidbar 11:33). Therefore Ha'Kadosh Baruch Hu said [in this blessing:] "May Hashem illuminate His face towards you" - that He should bestow this gift with a pleasant countenance. Some may give a gift which causes everyone else but the giver to be resentful. Therefore [He said:] "and be gracious to you" - that it should find favor in the eyes of those who see you, and that they should rejoice over your good. ["be gracious"] also implies that He should bestow this gift with a happy countenance ... and with mercy ...
• May Hashem lift His face towards you. In other words, He should grant it to you with an uplifted face ... b'derech kavod (i.e. in a dignified/honorable manner). and establish peace for you. [In a manner that] does not incite against you the yetzer ha'ra, the satan, the nations of the world, or any affliction, or any type of harm.

Unlike the Sforno, the Bechor Shor learns that all the goods of Olam ha'Zeh - material and spiritual - are included in the first berachah, and the three berachos do not reflect a progression. Instead, he maintains that we only ask for actual tovos (goods) in the first berachah. The second and third berachos qualify the first: we ask Hashem that the tovos He bestows be received in the best possible manner, namely, that they be in line with His will, with the goodwill of our fellow man, in manner that allows us to maintain our dignity, and in a way that doesn't provoke antagonism - neither from internal nor external causes.

Approach #3: Ralbag [5]

The Ralbag's approach diverges entirely from that of the Sforno and the Bechor Shor. I will translate his commentary [6] on the first and third berachos word-for-word, but since his interpretation of the second berachah relies heavily on an Aristotelian model of epistemology, I will paraphrase it in a manner that is more palatable to the non-Aristotelian ear.

• May Hashem bless you. The word "berachah" means "an increase in good." Its meaning here, according to what I think, is that during this lifetime the berachah from Hashem should come to us in our perfection of our rational faculty, which was created without any perfection or wisdom ... and it is through Hashem's influence that we grasp concepts, thereby increasing our perfection throughout our physical lives. and safeguard you. and after we die, this perfection will continue to last (i.e. be "safeguarded") eternally. 
• May Hashem illuminate His face towards you. Although man's rational faculty has the ability to abstract concepts from the patterns we observe perceive via senses, this isn't enough to guarantee conceptual knowledge; rather, we require divine assistance, which is metaphorically described here as "Hashem illuminating His face" towards us; this divine influence is what allows us to grasp concepts. and be gracious to you. Hashem does not grant this assistance by way of necessity or compulsion, but rather, by way of graciousness and kindness. 
• May Hashem lift His face towards you and establish peace for you. In other words, when you are in a precarious situation in which you might err in your analysis, Hashem's kindness may bring you the divine influence [which is necessary for accurate conceptual knowledge] ... and establish peace for you in your ideas.

The subject matter of birkas kohanim according to the Ralbag is clear: the entire berachah is about intellectual perfection - man's true success - and has nothing to do with material success whatsoever. In the first berachah we Hashem to enable us to perfect our rational faculty by gaining as much conceptual knowledge as possible during our lifetime - a perfection which lasts after we die, and will be "safeguarded" in Olam ha'Ba. In the second berachah we ask Hashem for the divine assistance - which is necessary for us, but a chesed from Hashem - in abstracting the correct concepts from the multitude of sensory particulars. In the third berachah we ask Hashem to protect us from error in our analysis, thereby ensuring that we reach a state of peace - that is, harmony between our ideas and reality.

Summary

According to the Sefer ha'Chinuch, Birkas Kohanim effectuates actual blessing to the extent that we understand it and align ourselves with the ideas therein. The three different meforshim offer three possibilities as to what Birkas Kohanim is about: 

• According to the Sforno, Birkas Kohanim is a request for Hashem to provide us with our material needs so that we may pursue spiritual success in Olam ha'Zeh which results in the best possible existence in Olam ha'Ba.
• According to the Bechor Shor, Birkas Kohanim is a request for Hashem to provide us with all good, and to provide it in a manner that is ideal - in the eyes of Hashem, in our own eyes, and in the eyes of our fellow human beings.
• According to the Ralbag, Birkas Kohanim is a request for Hashem oversee our intellectual development and assist us in our pursuit of truth.

The great thing about Birkas Kohanim is that one can have all of these interpretations in mind when being blessed by the Kohanim. The main thing is that we use Birkas Kohanim as a tool "to arrange our activities and make ourselves worthy through His mitzvos, to be deserving of the good." All three interpretations help us towards that end.

In conclusion, here is a chart which summarizes the three interpretations.

[1] Sefer ha'Chinuch, Parashas Naso: Mitzvah #367
[2] Rabbeinu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides), Mishneh Torah: Sefer Ahava, Hilchos Tefilah u'Birkas Kohanim 15:7
[3] Rabbeinu Ovadiah Sforno, Commentary to Sefer Bamidbar 6:24-26
[4] Rabbeinu Yosef ben Yitzchak Bechor Shor, Commentary to Sefer Bamidbar 6:24-26
[5] Rabbeinu Levi ben Gershom (Ralbag / Gersonides), Commentary to Sefer Bamidbar 6:24-26

[6] Ralbag actually provides several possible explanations for each part of Birkas Kohanim. For the sake of brevity and simplicity, I have opted to only summarize one out of each of these possibilities and omit the others.