Intentionality

 Vayikra

Lev. 1:1 - 5:26

 

Précis: The title of the Third Book of the Torah, Vayikra (“And He called”) is usually translated as “Leviticus” in English, from its Septuagint (Greek) name, which in turn is based on the fact that much of the Book largely concerns ritual sacrifices performed under the auspices of the Levites. Thus, Israelites sought holiness (or closeness to God) through the sacrificial system.

             Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, z’l, writing in Covenant and Conversation (3/30/17) suggests that although the details of sacrifices have been inoperative for 2,000 years, the moral principles they utilize remain salient.
            One set of sacrifices deserves particular attention: chattat, the ‘sin offering’. Offerings of this type are required: for the High Priest, the courts, the King, and for ordinary individuals.
            This offering was to be brought only for major sins and only if they were committed unintentionally or inadvertently.
            These unintentional sins for which chattat was required stand midway between intentional sins (you knew what you were doing was wrong) and involuntary action (e.g., you were not acting freely at all). Intentional sins could not be atoned for by sacrifice. Involuntary actions (e.g., under duress) did not need atonement.

           Why should unintentional sins require atonement? Some commentators suggest that ignorance is a form of negligence. We should know what we are doing, and thus violations require atonement. Others opine that the chattat was less a punishment for what had been done than a warning against sin in the future. In other words, be careful, and don’t do it again!
            Yet another opinion suggests that even if unintentional, the transgression defiles and needs cleansing.

            Finally, some believe that there must have been something wrong for the sinner to mandate an offering of this kind. As Freud noted, acts that seem unintentional often betray unconscious desires or motives (e.g., the “Freudian slip”). 

            Sacks concludes, and rightly so, that a society which gives those a pass because “they didn’t know” confines its morality to the mind, and not to action.

            Here, then, is the ultimate lesson of chattat:  that the wrongs we do, or allow to happen, even if unintentional, still require atonement. How we atone for them in today’s world is a question for another day, but morality without action is never acceptable. I will let the reader draw the connection to these thoughts and current world problems.