Daniel A. Klein provides readers with a splendid contribution through his series, in which he translates, edits, and explains the rational ideas Shadal wrote in Italian and Hebrew on the Torah, also known as the Five Books of Moses. Readers will enjoy his third book, “Shadal on Leviticus.” The following is a brief synopsis of some things he wrote.

 

Samuel David Luzzatto (1800-1865), known as Shadal based on the initials of his name, was brilliant. Many people enjoy his common-sense interpretations of the Torah. However, human nature is what it is; some people dislike and criticize his writing.  Even said he was not religious. I disagree.

He lived in Padua, which was part of the Austrian Empire until it became a part of Italy a year after Shadal’s death.

Although he was offered semicha, ordination to become a rabbi, he declined because he did not want to be considered a rabbi and a decider of Jewish law. He did not attend a university but was self-taught and ultimately became a professor at one.

He was an Orthodox Jew with very conservative, traditional ideas about Judaism. He believed in the divine origin of the Torah, divine providence, the immortality of the soul, the coming of the Messiah, that the miracles mentioned in the Bible occurred as described, and the resurrection of the dead. His views on these subjects were rejected by some other Orthodox rational Jews, such as myself, who also accepted these principles but did not take them literally as Shadal did. Yet, he recognized that the Oral Law was at least, in part, rabbinic legislation.

He focused on the plain meaning of the biblical texts when commenting upon them, generally ignoring rabbinic midrashim, which were sermonic and written to teach lessons not explicitly stated in the biblical words.

The following are a few examples of his views on the first of the ten Torah portions read weekly from the book of Leviticus (chapters 1:1-5:26). I like all of them.

He wrote that sacrifices, although a significant part of the Torah, were not instituted because God needed or even wanted them, but because people needed them. “This was because it was unlikely for human beings (living when the Torah was introduced) to conduct themselves toward their God in any other way than that in which they would conduct themselves to a flesh-and-blood king.”

They burned their gift to God because they thought they were removing it from the human domain. They saw the smoke rising heavenward and thought it went to God.

If they were presented with a Torah that stated God did not want sacrifices but wanted people to act appropriately, they would have mocked the idea. Indeed, they thought, God does not need or even want us to act in an appropriate manner. They would have insisted that our duty is to submit to God’s will, as we do to our king. And, like our king, God watches over us, protects us, and directs us, and we are expected to do all God desires us to do.

Thus, sacrifices supported the ancient mindset of the people. It inspired them to understand that God was always available to help them. But the system did much more.

By requiring sacrifices to be brought in a single place, the Torah helped ensure that the twelve tribes would remain a unified society and that all Israelites would feel responsible for one another. (This, of course, did not work as hoped. Jews, unfortunately, were never able to work together. Rabbis stated that this inability, which they called “baseless hatred,” made it impossible for the Judeans to unite in 70 CE to combat Rome and resulted in the destruction of the Second Temple, the exile of many Judeans, and their loss of their homeland for close to two thousand years. But, at least, the Torah showed what “should be,” with the hope that Jews would learn, see the wisdom in the idea, and change.)

Furthermore, if each tribe had its site for sacrifices, different customs would develop, and the tribes would cease to be united.

This ancient mindset made it necessary for the sacrifices to be brought to a building like a king’s palace, complete with a collection of items typically found in a palace, including a staff of servants to minister to God as they would to a king. This is the function of the priests.

Again, the Torah’s handling of the situation made more sense than the pagan practices.  Rather than giving the priests a fixed stipend, where wicked and lazy priests would receive the same pay as efficient and honest priests, the Torah left it to each Israelite to decide how to give gifts to the priests. This ensured that the priests would work in ways that the people liked.

Additionally, among other sensible differences from pagan practices, the Torah required that the people bringing sacrifices share the meal with God but had to consume it within a prescribed short period. This resulted in the people who brought sacrifices needing to invite others to share the food, further strengthening friendships.

 

Daniel A. Klein comments upon these Shadal views by writing, “He thus seems to subscribe to the concept of ‘necessary beliefs’ (teachings that are not true but needed to be taught because they are) conducive to improving social order, regardless of whether they are true.”

While Klein used the words “necessary beliefs,” the Greek Plato called them “noble lies” in his Republic, book 3 (414b–415d), the Jew Maimonides “essential truths” in his Guide for the Perplexed 3:28, and the Muslim Ibn Tofayl in his brilliant must-read, easy-to-read book about it called Hay ibn Yakdan.