Vayikra: Evolution

Vayikra describes the sacrificial rite.  This English expression has a misleading nuance. Sacrificial has evolved to mean a (painful)  loss for a significant cause. Sacrifice is used to describe the soldiers who die  for the cause of their country. Money  or  labor or time dedicated to an unselfish endeavor is called a sacrifice. The etymology of the word is revealed by its clear relationship to sacred. The original, Latin, meaning was to make (facere) something sacred (sacer). I am not sure what the Romans understood as sacred.  The word took on the trappings of Christianity implying human sacrifice (Christ-like holiness) and then became secularized, losing all relationship to sanctity, as the  concept of holiness  became increasingly distant  and obscure. Now, the reader needs to work to restore that sacred part of sacrifice - not every reader will do it. 

The word rite has come to have a somewhat negative overtone. Rite implies a ceremony without clear purpose or meaning, usually done by some "other" cult or religion. The secularization of the English speaking culture does not leave  any alternative words that are significantly less negative (that I can think of or find in the thesaurus). There is a deep cultural barrier that spills over into language that makes it more than difficult to appreciate or understand what the activities described in Vayikra meant to the ancient participant. 

The rituals described in the parsha have not been done for thousands of years. They are preserved in the words of description. To the devout, the rituals described in the parsha should continue, they are (somehow) the basis for continued existence; in their absence the world would return to chaos. The recitation of the words serves to maintain enough of the power of this ceremony to keep the world going... until the actual performance can be re-established with the rebuilding of the Temple (on the land currently used for Moslem devotion). 

 Offerings to Gd have a checkered past. The sacrifices of Noah and the patriarchs are positive. Noah's post-flood sacrifice elicited a Divine promise of no more universal, genocidal floods. 

The first sacrificial story involves the (apparent) motive for the first murder. Cain brought an offering from the "fruit of the soil" and his younger brother, Abel, brought "the firstlings of his flock." Cain's rejection in the face of Abel's acceptance seems to have led to the murder. 

As a narrative, the book of Vayikra that we start this week, builds to the climax of Nadav and Abihu, the elder sons of Aaron, dying because of an error in their sacrificial activities. Aaron and his remaining two sons'  continued adherence to the rite seems to be part of their qualification for the priestly status. 

The current war between Israel/US and Iran could be viewed as a continuation of the battle among rituals (Moslem, Jewish, Christian, etc.). It is hard for me to know the motivations of a theocratic state, but I certainly hope that the preserved ritual is not the basis for additional homicide.  Looking for other, more "rational" motivations of economics, power and pride leaves me in no better position to justify the killing and destruction.  

The spectrum of Jewish sentiment about the war is more familiar to me. The overriding consideration in Israel is the  threat of (nuclear) annihilation. Such threats have been expressed verbally by the Iranian religious leadership  and threatening acts ( through proxies) have caused death and destruction in Israel.  The theocratic  nature of the Iranian state leads to the suspicion of implacability: nothing can be done to change the beliefs and behaviors of such an avowed enemy. 

On the Jewish side, there is a contingent with religious motivations who are willing to kill or be killed for the re-establishment of the Temple and its sacrificial rite, but it so tiny, it may not exist outside the realm of fantasy. The overwhelming majority  of those who say they want the Temple will wait for Divine intervention and do not want war for that.  Maybe it is the same in Iran, maybe not.  Gd tells us Cain's motives , in every other case: motive is a guess.