RABBINIC GEMS ON THE BOOK OF LEVITICUS

Rabbi Rifat Sonsino, Ph.D.

The biblical book of Leviticus deals mostly with legal instructions about priestly matters and animal sacrifices. It probably reflects the practices of the second temple of Jerusalem built after the Israelites returned from exile in Babylon in the 6^th cent. BCE. It is not a book that reads easily or one that we can relate to with our contemporary mindsets.  However, the ancient Rabbis, by means of interpretation, were able to derive from these laws many  moral teachings that we can all emulate today. Here below are two examples:

In Lev. 25:35, the law states that “ if your kinsman becomes poor and comes under your authority,,,,let him live by your side” (Lev. 25:35). As Rabbi J.H.Hertz points out in his modern commentary, “This is in strongest contrast to the treatment of the impoverished debtor in ancient Rome“ (p. 536). Ancient Rabbis went even further and taught us a lesson of empathy when they stated that “anyone who visits the ill, they subtract one -sixtieth of his illness.” Namely, in their opinion ,the mitzvah of visiting the sick (bikur holim in Hebrew) is very important , for it considerably helps the infirm because of the care shown by the visitor. Thus the Rabbis encouraged everyone  to spend quality time with the ill as a religious obligation.(Lev. Rabba 34:1). Modern psychology approves. 

Similarly, commenting on the same law, they remind us of the practice by Hillel, the elder, the great sage of the first century CE, who would tell his students that he was going to carry out a mitzvah (religious obligation)  by taking a bath. Puzzled, the students asked him, is this a real mitzvah? So, Hillel, responded: “ If the statues of the kings that are placed in theatres and circuses, are washed…, should not I not, who has been created in the image of God, as it is said in the Bible, “In the image of God, He made man” (Gen. 9:6) , take care of myself by washing my body? (Lev. Rabba 34: 3). Thus the Rabbis converted  the  simple act of cleanliness into a high religious obligation. We need to take care of ourselves , they said, because we have been created in the divine image. What a great teaching!!

 

JEWISH HOUSES OF WORSHIP-A BRIEF HISTORY

Rabbi Rifat Sonsino, Ph.D

Throughout history Jews used various structures for worship purposes. 

1.        THE TABERNACLE

In pre-monarchical times, the biblical Israelites used a tabernacle called Mishkan in Hebrew. (P calls it miqdash, “sacred place”, see Ex. 25:8). This was a portable tent sanctuary also known as ohel moed, (“the tent of meeting”) or mishkan ha-edut (“the tent of testimony”). It was located in various places, such as Gilgal, Nob, Gibeon and Shilo. Though the details are not clear, the structure  was about 10 cubits high (about 15 feet), 20 cubits long and 8 cubits wide. It contained a few objects such as the “ark of the covenant” (namely, the box containing the ten commandments), an incense altar , a table, a seven branch candelabra and an eternal light. ( see Ex.26). In the past, some scholars doubted that such a tent ever existed but today most biblical critics, based on comparative religious texts, accept the validity of such a structure, even if the specifics  remain controversial. 

According to 1 K 8: 4, the tabernacle was brought to the temple  of Jerusalem at the time of its dedication. 

 

2.        THE TEMPLE OF JERUSALEM

According to the biblical text, a temple was built  by king Solomon in the 10^h century BCE. called bet hamikdash  (“house of sanctum”). It was 60 cubits long (about 90 feet), 20 cubits wide and 40 cubits high (I K 6:2). It contained three interior rooms: the porch, the Holy Place (main room) and the Holy of Holies, housing the Ark of the Covenant, a jar of Manna and Aaron’s staff.  The main room had the golden Menorah, the table of Showbread and the altar of incense. In addition to prayers and songs, various animals were sacrificed on its main altar in the courtyard by designated priests.  

For a while this temple existed alongside of other local sanctuaries. But king Josiah of Judah (648 BCE-609 BCE) centralized the cult in Jerusalem by destroying all the other houses of worship in the rest of the country. This Jerusalem temple was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon in 586 king of Babylon , in 586 BCE. After the exiles returned to Judea  from Babylonia , under the leadership of Zerubbabel in 516 BCE, the Israelites built a second temple In Jerusalem which was later enhanced by king Herod  around 18 BCE. It was destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE. 

 

3.        THE SYNAGOGUE

This house of worship (from the koine Greek, meaning, “assembly” ) , found throughout Israel, eventually replaced the temple of Jerusalem. However, even during the existence of the second temple, there were Jewish houses of worship outside of Jerusalem  called synagogues. Many of these were excavated in places such as Gamla, Masada, Magdala, Herodium, Modiin, Qiryat sefer or Khan Diab. According to the New Testament, Jesus spoke in various synagogues (Mark 1: 30, John. 18:20) throughout the Galilee. The Jewish historian Josephus (died c. 100 CE) mentions them also (see, for example, the famous synagogue in Antioch, Wars, 7.3.3.), as places for reading and teaching the Torah  (Antiquities 16.43), as well as locations for communal meetings.

When the second temple was destroyed by the Roman general Titus in 70 CE, the synagogue became the main house of worship for all Jews. For a short period of time, there was an attempt to offer sacrifices on the temple mount in Jerusalem during the revolt against Rome by Bar Kohba but it came to an end when the revolt failed in 135 CE. The ancient Rabbis then set up a new system of worship in the synagogues primarily based on prayers and Torah study instead of sacrifices. 

 

WHERE IS GOD?

Rabbi Rifat Sonsino, Ph.D.

Recently, I logged in to a Friday night service in NYC where the Rabbi was discussing the issue of where is God? Where is God to be found? The ancient Rabbis imagined that God is dwelling in the heavens above (“avinu she-bashamayim, our God who is in heaven) , watching over us. Her answer  was that we experience God in the acts of goodness we perform. For her, doing good deeds means acting in accordance with God’s character, which is suffused with love.  

That answer made me feel good, but, after reflection, I started to question the veracity of the statement. The proposition sounded nourishing and cozy, but I felt it was without any substance regarding the essence of God. For, right after that sermon, I happened to watch a program about the Holocaust where the question became more acute. Where was God during this unspeakable tragedy?   To say that we do not know or that God was suffering along with the victims made God irrelevant to me, for I do not need a God who is incapable of action when it was desperately needed. Besides, how does she know that God is experienced in the actions we perform? Simply to state that this is so, does not convince me of its correctness. 

For me, God is the energy that sustains the universe. It is not good or bad. It simply is. And it stands for the way in which nature operates irrespective of the people who are involved in the process. When a person carries out deeds of lovingkindness, the reward is found in the act itself, not because God approves it.  On the other hand, when evil prevails in society, it is because people act without concern for the wellbeing of humanity and not because of God’s punishment. God does not interfere in human acts. As the ancient Rabbis say it, olam keminhago noheg, “the universe goes according to its own mandate.” (Avodah Zara 54b).

 

DO WE HAVE FREE WILL? MY ER EXPERIENCE

Rabbi RiFat Sonsino, Ph. D 

Recently, I published a blog on free will and argued that , even though most of our activities are predetermined by our physical constitution and social environment,  we still have a few choices of our own in a very limited way. Let me apply this idea to an episode I had last week. 

In early February 2026, I ended up in the ER suffering from shortness of breath because of pneumonia and blood clots in my legs and lungs. So, I experienced in a very personal way the reality of free will, or the lack of it.

I first went to Marlborough hospital (MA) and then to Worcester hospital (MA) where I received great service. The staff was caring and professional. But I quickly lost my ability to act on my own for a few days. At the ICU, I was immediately hooked up to various machines. I was poked repeatedly, my arms bearing various small iv’s . Medicine was pumped into me at odd times of the day or night. I became  totally depended on my nurses to do anything I needed. I had to call in for help for every movement I made. One technician/medical student drew blood from the wrong artery, so another one had to come in to rectify the situation. Getting information about my condition took a long time. There was no privacy whatsoever. Even going to the bathroom became a whole production. I had to call one of the nurses to unhook me from all the devices and then accompany me to the John. Nurses even tried to clean me up. I firmly rejected their well-intended actions. 

After 3 days in the ICU, in the middle of the night, while I was deeply at sleep, I was moved to a regular room in the hospital. There, too, they had to get all my vitals again  (I thought they were in the computer), take more blood, and connect me  to different machines which left me once again at the mercy and care of the medical help that changed daily , with the difference that at the ICU the nurses dealt with fewer patients whereas in the regular room, I became part of a large  group of sick people who waited much longer for any medical response. After a week in the hospital, I was told that I could leave to become part of the hospital at home program. 

Do we have free will?  Hardly at the hospital. There must be another way.

I now realize that all of this was done for my well-being, but I was sorry to lose my independence, dignity  and  freedom of action. I’m glad I came to the ER but I hope I will never return. 

Your thoughts or experiences?

 

DO WE HAVE FREE WILL?

Rabbi Rifat Sonsino, Ph.D

The idea that we have free will is at the core of our ethical system. How can we be held responsible, if we are predetermined? On the other hand, If God is all-knowing and knows ahead of time how will we act, how can we be free to chose?

Throughout the years, Judaism had to struggle with this dilemma and came out with a variety and , at times, even conflicting answers.

The Hebrew Bible seems to promote the idea of free will when it urges us to “choose life” (Deut. 30:19, see Hertz, The Pentateuch, p. 882), and yet, it acknowledges that, at times, we don’t seem to have any choice in our actions. For example, In the Book of Exodus, we are told that God “will harden Pharaoh’s heart” (7:3), and thus deprive him of his freedom of action.

In the Mishnah, 2nd cent. CE, both assertions are made and, consequently, the problem is left unsolved: “Everything is foreseen, yet, freedom of choice  is granted” ( Pirke Avot 3: 15).

During the medieval times, some Jewish philosophers promoted the idea of free will, whereas others denied it. Thus, for example, Maimonides, the great Jewish Aristotelian who lived in the  12th  century Spain , defended the idea of free will by saying that “Man’s conduct is in his own hands” (Mishneh Torah, Knowledge, 3:2) based on the assumption  that  there is no resemblance between our knowledge and God’s knowledge. We do not know how God knows. Whereas Malbim, the 19th century Ukrainian Jewish bible commentator, denied that we can have freedom of choice based on the belief that “ God must have immutable foreknowledge of everything and so man has neither choice nor free will  and should not be responsible  for his actions” (On Job. 10:6:1).

Others , echoing the Talmudic statement that “everything is in the hands of heaven , except for the fear of heaven” (Ber. 33b), kept a middle position on this subject. For example, Gersonides, the 13th century French-Jewish philosopher, argued that God knows the choices which we will make but does not know the specific actions we actually carry out.

I follow the middle position and maintain that most of our deeds are predetermined by our physical constitution and our social condition, yet, we do have a few free choices among the alternatives presented before us.

What do you think?

Who is the suffering servant?

WHO WAS THE SUFFERING SERVANT?

Rabbi Rifat Sonsino, Ph.D

Recently, a friend asked me, who is the “suffering servant’ in the prophecies of Isaiah? 

Here is my answer: 

Second Isaiah, was an anonymous prophet who lived just before or after the fall of Jerusalem in 586 BCE. His writings (chapt.40-55) have been added to those of the First Isaiah who lived in ancient Israel in the 8^th cent. BCE. Chapters 56-66 are usually ascribed to a group of unknown authors called Third Isaiah. 

The chapters assigned by critics to  Second Isaiah include four  “Servant Songs” that seem to form a literary unity, even though they are spread within  chapters 40-55.  It is not clear who was the author of these songs. In  53: 3, he describes the servant as an individual who is “despised, shunned by men; a man of suffering, familiar with disease.” Hence, the reference to a “suffering servant.”

The question is : whom did the prophet have in mind when he wrote these lines? As the Jewish  Study Bible puts it, this is “one of the most difficult and contested passage in the Bible” (p. 890). As expected, throughout the centuries, various opinions have been advanced in order to solve this problem. We can break them down to three different types of suggestions: 

A.       A collective interpretation: according to some critics the reference is to the people of Israel.

B.       An individual interpretation: according to others, the reference is to an historic personality of the past. Some argued that it referred to Moses , or king Jehoiachin, or the prophet Jeremiah or even the prophet himself.  

C.      A theological/mythological  interpretation: The New Testament says that Isaiah’s prophecies were fulfilled in the life of  Jesus. (See, the Letter to the Hebrews, chp. 5)  Others, including some medieval Rabbis and the Aramaic Targum,  maintain that it refers to an idealized king or to a future Messiah. 

In reality, it must be admitted, as Boadt did, that “we may never know all that Second Isaiah actually intended by his servant” (Reading the OT, p. 429).