Sacrificing Bulls in the Divine Presence

The voluntary sacrificial offerings listed in Leviticus 1–3 come in several options, perhaps reflecting various sentiments in how to come close to God:

• עולה olah, “burnt offering” (ch. 1), which is entirely consumed on the altar;
• מנחה minchah, “meal offering” (ch. 2), the only non-animal sacrifice;
• זבח שלמים zevach shelamim, “wellbeing offering” or “peace offering” (ch. 3), which is mostly consumed by the person bringing the offering.^[1]

Within both the burnt and wellbeing offerings, a person can bring either from בקר (baqar) “domestic cattle,” meaning bulls and cows, or צאן (tzon) “flocks,” a term that refers to both sheep and goats.^[2] It is not surprising that more than more than one animal could be used for sacrifices; this was true for other cultures in the ancient Near East as well.^[3] For example, in one Hittite ritual:

One (fattened) bull... seven lambs for the deity ... one goat for the protective god of Karahna... they shall offer for the weather god and put upon it bread and groats... and libate win.^[4]

This combination of animals highly reminiscent of what we find elsewhere in the Torah, especially around the festivals, for example, the offering that came along with the bikkurim “first produce”:

^{ויקרא כג:יח} וְהִקְרַבְתֶּם עַל הַלֶּחֶם שִׁבְעַת כְּבָשִׂים תְּמִימִם בְּנֵי שָׁנָה וּפַר בֶּן בָּקָר אֶחָד וְאֵילִם שְׁנָיִם יִהְיוּ עֹלָה לַי־הוָה וּמִנְחָתָם וְנִסְכֵּיהֶם אִשֵּׁה רֵיחַ נִיחֹחַ לַי־הוָה. ^כג:יט וַעֲשִׂיתֶם שְׂעִיר עִזִּים אֶחָד לְחַטָּאת וּשְׁנֵי כְבָשִׂים בְּנֵי שָׁנָה לְזֶבַח שְׁלָמִים.

^{Lev 23:18} With the bread you shall present, as burnt offerings to YHWH, seven yearling lambs without blemish, one bull of the herd, and two rams, with their meal offerings and libations, an offering by fire of pleasing odor to YHWH. ^23:19 You shall also offer one billy-goat as a sin offering and two yearling lambs as a sacrifice of wellbeing. ^[5]

Cattle or Sheep: Is There a Significance?

It is unclear whether the choice of animal has any symbolic meaning. Moses Maimonides (Rambam, 1138–1204) argues that even though commandments are certainly purposeful, it is pointless to seek explanations for why a specific animal rather than another is mandated:

^{Maimonides, Guide 3:26} It is the broad thrust of a mitzvah that must have grounds: The mitzvot were given to serve a purpose. It is the specific modalities that are purely positive prescriptions... The sacrifices best illustrate my point about the specifics of the mitzvot. Offering sacrifices is clearly of immense import, as I’ll explain (3:32, 46). But that this offering is a lamb and that a ram, as well as the specific numbers, will never be explained.

Anyone fixated on finding grounds for such details is on a fool’s errand that will not relieve but only aggravate the madness of his quest. To imagine finding a warrant for such details is as far from the truth as to imagine that the commandment itself serves no real purpose.^[6]

It is likely that some details of sacrifices are indeed arbitrary, but that does not mean that all of their details are insignificant.^[7]

In many offerings, the type of animal is legislated. For example, the חַטָּאת “sin offering” or “purification offering” of the anointed priest must be a bull (Lev 4:3), while the sin offering of the chieftain must be a billy goat (Lev 4:23), and the guilt offering is always a ram (Lev 5:15, 18, 25). These differences appear to be significant.

But what about the voluntary burnt and wellbeing offerings, in which the choice of animal is optional? Some commentators, such as Don Isaac Abarbanel, assume that this choice is determined by economic reasons, to allow wealthy people to be extravagant and poorer people to offer what they can afford. Indeed, for the type of purification offering that the Sages call the קרבן עולה ויורד, “the variable offering”, the Bible states explicitly:

^{ויקרא ה:ו} וְהֵבִיא אֶת אֲשָׁמוֹ לַי־הוָה עַל חַטָּאתוֹ אֲשֶׁר חָטָא נְקֵבָה מִן הַצֹּאן כִּשְׂבָּה אוֹ שְׂעִירַת עִזִּים לְחַטָּאת וְכִפֶּר עָלָיו הַכֹּהֵן מֵחַטָּאתוֹ. ^ה:ז וְאִם לֹא תַגִּיע יָדוֹ דֵּי שֶׂה וְהֵבִיא אֶת אֲשָׁמוֹ אֲשֶׁר חָטָא שְׁתֵּי תֹרִים אוֹ שְׁנֵי בְנֵי יוֹנָה לַי־הוָה אֶחָד לְחַטָּאת וְאֶחָד לְעֹלָה.

^{Lev 5:6} And he shall bring as his penalty to YHWH, for the sin of which he is guilty, a female from the flock, sheep or goat, as a sin offering; and the priest shall make expiation on his behalf for his sin. ^5:7 But if his means do not suffice for a sheep, he shall bring to YHWH, as his penalty for that of which he is guilty, two turtledoves or two pigeons, one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering.^[8]

However, the Torah says nothing about cost as the factor in the voluntary burnt and wellbeing offerings, leaving open the possibility that the choice may have meaning beyond simple economics. Indeed, a comparison of how the Torah describes the offering of cattle versus those of the flock suggests some symbolic significance to the different animals.

Slaughtering the Burnt Offering on the Altar’s

North Side?

When describing the slaughter of a bull as the burnt offering, the text merely says it should be done “before YHWH”:

^{ויקרא א:ה} וְשָׁחַט אֶת בֶּן הַבָּקָר לִפְנֵי יְ־הוָה...

^{Lev 1:5} The bull shall be slaughtered before YHWH…

When describing the slaughter of the flock animal as a burnt offering, however, it adds “on the north side of the altar”:

^{ויקרא א:יא} וְשָׁחַט אֹתוֹ עַל יֶרֶךְ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ צָפֹנָה לִפְנֵי יְ־הוָה...

^{Lev 1:11} It shall be slaughtered on the north side of the altar before YHWH...

Some have argued that both animals need to be slaughtered on the north side of the altar.^[9] It is more likely, however, that they are slaughtered in different places, and this difference is meaningful.

Different Areas

The bull can be slaughtered in the courtyard of the Tabernacle (or Temple) anywhere “before the LORD.” In contrast, the sheep or goats must be slaughtered specifically at the northern part of the altar. That cattle are distinct here is also implied in the phrasing וְשָׁחַט אֶת בֶּן הַבָּקָר “and he shall slaughter the bull,” superfluously mentioning the name of the animal again.^[10] Moreover, the description of bringing the bull’s blood to the altar, implies that it is not necessarily slaughtered next to the altar:

^{ויקרא א:ה} וְשָׁחַט אֶת בֶּן הַבָּקָר לִפְנֵי יְ־הוָה וְהִקְרִיבוּ בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֲנִים אֶת הַדָּם וְזָרְקוּ אֶת הַדָּם עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ סָבִיב אֲשֶׁר פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד.

^{Lev 1:5} The bull shall be slaughtered before YHWH, and Aaron’s sons, the priests, shall bring near^[11] the blood, dashing the blood against all sides of the altar which is at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.

In contrast, the offering from the flocks moves directly to the procedure of dashing it against the sides, without any description of it being brought to the altar:

^{ויקרא א:יא} וְשָׁחַט אֹתוֹ עַל יֶרֶךְ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ צָפֹנָה לִפְנֵי יְ־הוָה וְזָרְקוּ בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֲנִים אֶת דָּמוֹ עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ סָבִיב.

^{Lev 1:11} It shall be slaughtered before YHWH on the north side of the altar, and Aaron’s sons, the priests, shall dash its blood against all sides of the altar.

Thus, the bull may be slaughtered anywhere in the courtyard, and its blood must be gathered in some receptacle and carried to the altar. The sheep and goats, however, must be slaughtered at the northern point of the altar, and thus the priests can directly dash its blood.^[12]

The Purification Offering Has the Same Distinction

The distinction between where cattle and flock animals are slaughtered appears also in the description of the purification offering. The directions for the bull offer a general requirement:

^{ויקרא ד:ד} ... וְשָׁחַט אֶת הַפָּר לִפְנֵי יְ־הוָה.

^{Lev 4:4} …The bull shall be slaughtered before YHWH.

In contrast, for the flock animal—such as in the purification offering of the chieftain—it is to be slaughtered “in the place where the burnt offering is slaughtered” (Lev 4:24, 29, 33), i.e., at the northern point of the altar:

^{ויקרא ד:כד} ... וְשָׁחַט אֹתוֹ בִּמְקוֹם אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁחַט אֶת הָעֹלָה לִפְנֵי יְ־הוָה חַטָּאת הוּא.

^{Lev 4:24} … and it shall be slaughtered at the spot where the burnt offering is slaughtered before YHWH; it is a sin offering.

Similar phrasing appears again in the individual purification-offering, first for a goat:

^{ויקרא ד:כט} ...וְשָׁחַט אֶת הַחַטָּאת בִּמְקוֹם הָעֹלָה.

^{Lev 4:29} … and the sin offering shall be slaughtered at the place of the burnt offering.^[13]

The same rule is repeated for the sheep:

^{ויקרא ד:לג} ...וְשָׁחַט אֹתָהּ לְחַטָּאת בִּמְקוֹם אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁחַט אֶת הָעֹלָה.

^{Lev 4:33} …and it shall be slaughtered as a sin offering in the place where the burnt offering is slaughtered.

How are we to understand this consistent differentiation between where cattle and flock animals are slaughtered?

The North Is Empty, But Bulls Are Unwieldy

Jacob Milgrom (1923–2010), in his detailed commentary on Leviticus,^[14] suggests that practical considerations determined the northern location: the north was the one spot around the altar that was relatively open; on its eastern side sat the pile of ash, on its west the washbasin, and on its south was the ramp. Thus, it was ideal for slaughtering.^[15] This reasoning, as Milgrom notes, already appears in the Sifra:

^{ספרא דיבורא דנדבה ז:א} "צָפֹנָה לִפְנֵי יי"—"שֶׁהַצָּפוֹן כֻּלּוֹ פָּנוּי." דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב.

^{Sifra Nedava 7:1} “North before the LORD”—“For the north is entirely empty.” The words of Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob.

Bulls however, are big and unwieldy, and therefore it is too much to insist on a specific spot for the slaughter. Wherever the owners were able to get sufficient control over the animal to slaughter it was good enough. As a support for this argument, Milgrom notes the Second Temple had metal rings attached to the ground that were used to hold the animal in place (Mishnah Midot, 3:5), implying that without these—i.e., before they were installed—it would have been difficult to control the animal’s movement. In contrast to cattle, flock animals are much easier to control, so the Torah could demand its preferred location, at the northern part of the altar.

But this explanation is not persuasive: slaughter of bulls was commonplace in this period, especially near altars. Moreover, if bulls were large and unwieldy, all the more reason to insist they be slaughtered in the relatively open northern side of the altar. ^[16]

The Bull’s Connection to the Entrance of the Tent of Meeting

The differentiation as to where to slaughter the cattle versus flock animals relies in the symbolic connection between bulls and the Tent of Meeting on one hand, and flock animals and the altar on the other. This distinction appears in many different biblical passages.

Leviticus begins by stating that the cattle for the burnt offering should be brought to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting:

^{ויקרא א:ג} אִם עֹלָה קָרְבָּנוֹ מִן הַבָּקָר זָכָר תָּמִים יַקְרִיבֶנּוּ אֶל פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד יַקְרִיב אֹתוֹ לִרְצֹנוֹ לִפְנֵי יְ־הוָה.

^{Lev 1:3} If his offering is a burnt offering from the herd, he shall make his offering a male without blemish. He shall bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting for acceptance in his behalf before YHWH.

In contrast, this phrase is absent from the introduction to the offering from the flocks:

^{ויקרא א:י} וְאִם מִן הַצֹּאן קָרְבָּנוֹ מִן הַכְּשָׂבִים אוֹ מִן הָעִזִּים לְעֹלָה זָכָר תָּמִים יַקְרִיבֶנּוּ.

^{Lev 1:10} If his offering for a burnt offering is from the flock, of sheep or of goats, he shall make his offering a male without blemish.

While this verse can be understood perhaps as shorthand—it skips other phrases as well and could just be relying on the opening verse for context—this same selective use of the phrase happens again.

Whether the offering is from cattle or flocks, the blood of the burnt offering is always dashed on the main altar in the courtyard. Nevertheless, the legislation for cattle emphasizes the entrance of the Tent of Meeting:

^{ויקרא א:ה} ...וְזָרְקוּ אֶת הַדָּם עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ סָבִיב אֲשֶׁר פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד.

^{Lev 1:5} …and they dash the blood against all sides of the altar which is at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.

In contrast, the legislation concerning flock animals skips this last phrase:

^{ויקרא א:יא} ...וְזָרְקוּ בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֲנִים אֶת דָּמוֹ עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ סָבִיב.

^{Lev 1:11} …and Aaron’s sons, the priests, shall dash its blood against all sides of the altar.

Thus, for the flock animals, the focus is on the altar itself, without reference to the Tent of Meeting.

We see this a third time in the depiction of the slaughter of the זֶבַח שְׁלָמִים “wellbeing offering,” albeit in a subtler way. When describing the procedure for cattle, the Torah states:

^{ויקרא ג:ב} וְסָמַךְ יָדוֹ עַל רֹאשׁ קָרְבָּנוֹ וּשְׁחָטוֹ פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד...

^{Lev 3:2} He shall lay his hand upon the head of his offering and slaughter it at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting…

When describing the procedure for sheep and then goat, however, the phrase changes slightly:

^{ויקרא ג:ח} וְסָמַךְ אֶת יָדוֹ עַל רֹאשׁ קָרְבָּנוֹ וְשָׁחַט אֹתוֹ לִפְנֵי אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד...

^{Lev 3:8} He shall lay his hand upon the head of his offering. It shall be slaughtered before the Tent of Meeting…

^{ויקרא ג:יג} וְסָמַךְ אֶת יָדוֹ עַל רֹאשׁוֹ וְשָׁחַט אֹתוֹ לִפְנֵי אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד...

^{Lev 3:13} He shall lay his hand upon its head. It shall be slaughtered before the Tent of Meeting…

This difference in phraseology is not meant as references to different areas on in the courtyard. At the same time, it is striking that for cattle specifically, we again have the term “entrance,” which implies a connection between the offering and the inside of the Tent of Meeting. For the flock animals, however, it is enough just to note that the altar stands “before” the Tent of Meeting, a term that can refer to the entire area, i.e., anywhere in the courtyard.

The Purification-Offering Inside and Outside the Tent of Meeting

The different ways a חַטָּאת “purification-offering” is performed further highlights the distinction between cattle and flock animals. In what the rabbis call a חטאת פנימית “inside purification-offering,” which is always a bull, the priest must bring the blood into the Tent of Meeting itself and perform an elaborate ritual before YHWH. For example:

^{ויקרא ד:ה} וְלָקַח הַכֹּהֵן הַמָּשִׁיחַ מִדַּם הַפָּר וְהֵבִיא אֹתוֹ אֶל אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד. ^ד:ו וְטָבַל הַכֹּהֵן אֶת אֶצְבָּעוֹ בַּדָּם וְהִזָּה מִן הַדָּם שֶׁבַע פְּעָמִים לִפְנֵי יְ־הוָה אֶת פְּנֵי פָּרֹכֶת הַקֹּדֶשׁ. ^ד:ז וְנָתַן הַכֹּהֵן מִן הַדָּם עַל קַרְנוֹת מִזְבַּח קְטֹרֶת הַסַּמִּים לִפְנֵי יְ־הוָה אֲשֶׁר בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד...

^{Lev 4:5} And the anointed priest shall take some of the bull’s blood and bring it into the Tent of Meeting. ^4:6 The priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle of the blood seven times before YHWH, in front of the curtain of the Shrine. ^4:7 The priest shall put some of the blood on the horns of the altar of aromatic incense before YHWH, which is in the Tent of Meeting…

Even when describing the final act with the blood, which is done outside the Tent of Meeting on the main altar, the text uses the term we saw above, “at the entrance”:

^{ויקרא ד:ז} ...וְאֵת כָּל דַּם הַפָּר יִשְׁפֹּךְ אֶל יְסוֹד מִזְבַּח הָעֹלָה אֲשֶׁר פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד.

^{Lev 4:7} … and all the rest of the bull’s blood he shall pour out at the base of the altar of burnt offering, which is at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.^[17]

In contrast, the חטאת החיצונית, “outside purification-offering,” from either a sheep or a goat, is limited entirely to the large altar in the courtyard. For example, the purification-offering of a chieftain:

^{ויקרא ד:כה} וְלָקַח הַכֹּהֵן מִדַּם הַחַטָּאת בְּאֶצְבָּעוֹ וְנָתַן עַל קַרְנֹת מִזְבַּח הָעֹלָה וְאֶת דָּמוֹ יִשְׁפֹּךְ אֶל יְסוֹד מִזְבַּח הָעֹלָה.

^{Lev 4:25} The priest shall take with his finger some of the blood of the sin offering and put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering; and the rest of its blood he shall pour out at the base of the altar of burnt offering.

Even the pouring, which is done at the same spot, is not marked with the phrase that mentions the entrance to the Tent of Meeting.^[18] Here too, cattle are connected with the inside of the Tent of Meeting, while flock animals are connected to the altar in the courtyard.^[19]

It is reasonable to assume that this consistent emphasis on cattle being connected to the Tent of Meeting is symbolic: the bovine offering is connected to the divine presence in the Tent, while the offering of a flock animal is connected to the flames of the altar outside the tent, which represent divine acceptance of human service.

Revelation and Bull Offerings

Offerings of bulls are connected to the presence of the divine in the story of the revelation at Mount Sinai:

^{שמות כד:ה} וַיִּשְׁלַח אֶת נַעֲרֵי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיַּעֲלוּ עֹלֹת וַיִּזְבְּחוּ זְבָחִים שְׁלָמִים לַי־הוָה פָּרִים [נה"ש: בני בקר].

^{Exod 24:5} He designated some young men among the Israelites, and they offered burnt offerings and sacrificed offerings of well-being to YHWH, bulls [SP: of the cattle]. ^[20]

The blood is then sprinkled on the people and a covenant is made, after which the people’s representatives see God:

^{שמות כד:י} וַיִּרְאוּ אֵת אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְתַחַת רַגְלָיו כְּמַעֲשֵׂה לִבְנַת הַסַּפִּיר וּכְעֶצֶם הַשָּׁמַיִם לָטֹהַר. ^כד:יא וְאֶל אֲצִילֵי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא שָׁלַח יָדוֹ וַיֶּחֱזוּ אֶת הָאֱלֹהִים וַיֹּאכְלוּ וַיִּשְׁתּוּ.

^{Exod 24:10} And they saw the God of Israel: under His feet there was the likeness of a pavement of sapphire, like the very sky for purity. ^24:11 Yet He did not raise His hand against the leaders of the Israelites; they beheld God, and they ate and drank.

Afterwards the people as a whole experience the divine presence:

^{שמות כד:יז} וּמַרְאֵה כְּבוֹד יְ־הוָה כְּאֵשׁ אֹכֶלֶת בְּרֹאשׁ הָהָר לְעֵינֵי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.

^{Exod 24:17} Now the Glory of YHWH appeared in the sight of the Israelites as a consuming fire on the top of the mountain.

Significantly, this event was accompanied by sacrifices that came exclusively from cattle.

The Daily Offering from the Flocks

Given the association of flock animals primarily with the altar, it makes sense that the morning and evening daily offerings are, specifically sheep and not a bull:

^{שמות כט:לח} וְזֶה אֲשֶׁר תַּעֲשֶׂה עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ כְּבָשִׂים בְּנֵי שָׁנָה שְׁנַיִם לַיּוֹם תָּמִיד. ^כט:לט אֶת הַכֶּבֶשׂ הָאֶחָד תַּעֲשֶׂה בַבֹּקֶר וְאֵת הַכֶּבֶשׂ הַשֵּׁנִי תַּעֲשֶׂה בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם.

^{Exod 29:38} Now this is what you shall offer upon the altar: two yearling sheep each day, regularly. ^29:39 You shall offer the one sheep in the morning, and you shall offer the other sheep at twilight.^[21]

It is fitting that the first and last offering of the day be from the flock.^[22]

A Hierarchy of Animals

Is it possible to explain why the Torah chose cattle offerings to symbolize divine revelation and the inner sanctum, while flock animals symbolize service of God at the altar? On one level, it is tempting to turn to Maimonides’ principle at this point and say that choices of symbols can be haphazard. Nevertheless, when we consider the cultural context of society where this law emerged, there is an intuitive explanation here.

The bull is a large and fierce animal, not to mention an expensive and complicated one to own, and in the ancient world—and even still in the modern world—it symbolizes power and respect.^[23] This would explain why it was chosen to represent offerings the connect directly to the divine presence, whether on Mount Sinai or in the Tent of Meeting. In contrast, flock animals were more commonplace, more docile, and less expensive.

Thus, just as the inside of the Tabernacle was filled with objects made of more precious materials, gold as opposed to copper,^[24] the offerings directed to the divine presence inside the Tabernacle had to be from the more valuable and respected animal.