The Midrash on our Parasha deals with the meaning of the sacrifices, but it also has some things to tell us about our eating habits.
The Midrash in Pesikta D’Rav Kahana (Piska 6) uses the details of the sacrifices in our Parasha to examine the eating habits of God. The basic assumption leading to this discussion is the existing gap between God and the abundance of meats and wines described while none of the darshanim are prepared to put them together in a simple way. In order to illustrate the various positions that arise in the Midrash, we will contrast them with the person who posed this question in the most extreme manner, namely the Rambam (Maimonides).
As is known, in the Guide to the Perplexed (3:32) the Rambam explains that God commanded the sacrifices as an educational means to bring Bnei Yisrael closer to His worship in ways that they knew from their idolatrous neighbours. The absolute gap that the Rambam, the great opposer of anthropomorphism, assumes between God and any material pleasure, leads him to change the direction of the sacrificial worship - it is no longer directed from man to God, but rather from man to himself.
It seems that we can apply a similar interpretation to Rambam’s own approach: it is not only a statement about God, one that moves Him away from the world of human nutrition, but also a statement directed at man - although the sacrifices are meant to speak your language, you should know that God residing in you is distinct from all flesh, yours or others. The theological premise becomes an educational guideline for the man, who, even if he cannot deny the obligations of his flesh, is certainly not supposed to see them as his higher purpose.
Against this background, it is interesting to examine the pathways appearing in the Midrash since they seem to emerge from more moderate assumptions and thus, reach different conclusions. Here, too, one can read these words not only as a theological statement about God but also as a guide to the proper form of eating for the complete person. It seems that the alternative nutrition plan that the darshanim prepare for God is ultimately the program they wish for themselves. The Midrashim present different and even contradictory perceptions, and we will try to review a few of them.
At the center of the Piska we find long and detailed accounts of several super-eaters:
[If I were hungry, would I ask sustenance of thee? (Ps. 50:12). Why], I gave you just one head of a certain kind of cattle whose measure of food you could not possibly provide! What one was that? The Behemoth upon a thousand mountains (Ps. 50:10).[…] According to R. Johanan, the Behemoth, the only one of its kind of cattle, is couched upon a thousand mountains, and the thousand mountains bring forth for him the food which he eats. […]And where does Behemoth drink from? R. Joshua ben Levi said: [From the Jordan]—in a single draught he drinks up all [the water] that it brings down in six months. […]R. Huna said in the name of R. Jose: “There is not even enough to moisten his mouth.”
[…][Indeed, could you provide for Me]? I gave you a unique king, and you were barely able to provide his measure of food. Which king was that? Solomon, son of David. And Solomon’s provision for one day was thirty measures of fine flour, and threescore measures of meal (1 Kings 5:2). According to R. Samuel bar R. Isaac, these measures were only enough to provide him with honey cakes [to nibble on]. As for his regular meals, an ordinary mortal was barely able to provide them. […]R. Judah bar R. Zebida said: Solomon had a thousand wives, and each of them used to prepare a banquet, such as the one described just above, thinking that he might choose to dine with her. Hence, If I were hungry, I would not ask sustenance of thee (Ps. 50:12).
I gave you a unique person, the one who was once held captive. His measure of food you could barely provide. What person was that? Nehemiah the governor, who said: Now that which was prepared for one day was one ox and six choice sheep, also fowls were prepared for me; …(Neh. 5:18).
“When fragrant spices sprinkled on coals are brought in after the banquet is over” (Ber 6:6), do the guests enjoy anything more of the spices except the fragrance? So the Holy One said to Israel: My children, of all the offerings which you bring before Me, do I enjoy any part of them other than the fragrance? It is the fragrance which is My own delight that ye are to . . . offer unto Me (Num. 28:2)—[that is, the fragrance of your obedience and good deeds].
The Midrashim present the superhuman power of overeating. The mythical animal, King Solomon and Nehemiah, excel in consuming huge amounts of food, and this ability/need is an expression of their superiority and uniqueness. Maybe it is possible to accept this ability as a criterion for the strength of humans or wild animals, but it seems that the Midrash aspires to place God in this context. The Midrash even sets up the verse that denies the sacrifices and hurdles throughout the passage, in the section that speaks of King Solomon - “Hence, If I were hungry, I would not ask sustenance of thee” (Ps. 50:12). The message is clear: King Solomon’s complete control is expressed in his ability to eat everything, and since everything belongs to him, he does not need to ask for anyone’s help. The ability to eat and to acquire the needed amounts both come to describe total strength and control.
The question arising from these sources regarding sacrifices is vastly different than that of the Rambam: God is not separate from eating like the separation of the spiritual from the material; He is just so vast that no one can provide for His hunger. If Solomon, Nehemiah and the mystical animal ate so much, who will be able to feed God? The solution goes on another pathway - the eating is not only related to man himself, thereby sacrificial worship is not an educational act; the gap is not an absolute difference between material flesh and the spiritual, but rather between two ox and a little wine and infinite hunger. Here we find a surprising solution - the smell. It seems that man will never be able to satisfy the infinite, divine hunger; all that he will bring will only make Him hungrier. Yet God comes towards him and does not demand for the hunger to be satisfied. Even though He only demanded two oxen and a little wine, He alludes Himself to the guests who have already filled their bellies, and now all that is left for them is to lie down on the couch and enjoy the pleasant aromas.
It seems that the smell plays a double role: it is described as a more modest pleasure that man is able to provide; while also changing the perception of the sacrifice’s receiver. Even if the concepts with which the Midrash opened seemed to see eating as something powerful, it seems that giving up on it for the pleasant aromas is made to represent a different model - the infiniteness is not displayed by the shear abundance of material goods, but rather through the gentle and pleasant taste of fragrant pleasure. According to our approach, one can also see a statement about man: even if he is a person with world-wide needs and abilities, his true test will still be his ability to enjoy a thin cloud of smoke.
From here we can continue to another Midrash in the Piska:
The righteous eateth to the satisfying of his desire (Prov. 13:25). Such was Eliezer the servant of Abraham who said to our mother Rebekah: “Give me to drink, I pray thee, a little water of thy pitcher” (Gen. 24:17)—one drink satisfied him. But the belly of the wicked shall want (Prov. 13:25). Such was the wicked Esau who said to our father Jacob: “Stuff me, I pray thee, with this red, red pottage” (Gen. 25:30). R. Isaac bar R. Ze‘era explained: This wicked man opened his mouth wide as though he were a camel […]
Another comment: The righteous eateth to the satisfying of his desire (Prov. 13:25). Such was Ruth the woman of Moab, of whom it is written “And she did eat and was satisfied, and left thereof” (Ruth 2:14).
R. Meir said: A certain Dosetai of Kokaba asked me: What is meant by The belly of the wicked shall want? I replied: In our city there was a gentile who prepared a banquet for all the elders of the city, and he invited me along with them. He meant to set before us all [the kinds of food] that the Holy One created during the six days of creation, and indeed, his table lacked nothing at all except soft-shelled nuts. [When the gentile saw that they were wanting], what did he do? He removed from before us the table top we had eaten from—it was worth something like six talents of silver—and broke it. I asked him: Why did you do this? The gentile replied: “Rabbi, you say this world is ours and the world-to come is yours. So if we cannot eat now [as much as we want to], when shall we eat at all?” To him I applied the verse The belly of the wicked shall want (Prov. 13:25).
Another comment: The righteous eateth to the satisfying of his desire (Prov. 13:25). Such was Hezekiah, king of Judah. It is said that only two bunches of greens and one pound of meat were brought in and set before Hezekiah for his daily fare. And Israel spoke disrespectfully of him, saying: This one calls himself a king?
[…] Another comment: The righteous eateth to the satisfying of his desire (Prov. 13:25). Such were the kings of Israel and the kings of the house of David. But the belly of the wicked shall want (ibid.). These wicked were the kings of the east.
[…]In another comment the verse is read The Righteous One eateth His fill of that which is in a man’s soul43 (Prov. 13:25). Such a Righteous One is the Holy One. The Holy One said to Israel: My children, of all offerings which you present to Me, I delight to eat only of those with the fragrance [of obedience and good deeds], as is said It is the fragrance which is My own delight (Num. 28:2).
The relationship between the Midrashim is surprising: they start from exactly opposite points, and end with the same statement. The abundant eating is presented here as a feature of the Gentiles, who try unsuccessfully to fill their bellies with the pleasures of this world. The infinity here is not the intense radicalization of the abundance of eating, but the endless appetite and inability to be satisfied, which is presented as a demonic trap. Hezekiah’s modest meal is the ideal of the kings of Israel and the House of David (among whom, of course, King Solomon was also included, although he took a completely different position in the previous Midrash), precisely because the kings of the world do not do so, and even Israel itself expects a different model of a king - perhaps following the words of the midrash that we saw above. But here the righteousness goes in a completely different direction: to Eliezer’s small sip, and Ruth’s gentle, feminine eating, that three short words suffice to describe her meal in stark contrast to the endless list that filled the feast of King Solomon in the previous Midrash.
In the face of Eisav’s beast-like stuffing description, it is impossible not to fall under the spell of eating habits of those Tzadikim. And yet, God’s eating goes one step further: here again the subject of smell appears as a contrast to eating, but it seems that the context here must be understood differently. If in the previous Midrash, on the basis of the descriptions of the abundance and power of eating, the smell was understood as the refined pleasure after eating, as God’s ability to enjoy even the small things precisely against the backdrop of the infinite abundance of appetite, here the smell appears as the peak of gentle eating. If Ruth can eat some roasted grain, to be satisfied and even have left-overs, God is satisfied with the aroma of the roasted meat. The smell is again an expression of a more spiritual delicacy, but it takes on a different color when it is opposed to eating and does not come upon it. Above and beyond the kings of Israel and their gentle women, God is described as someone who is able to be satisfied even before something comes to his mouth, when only the scents of the sacrifice begin to spread in space.
According to our approach, there is also a different direction here regarding the eating of man. The greatness here is not the kingdom that embraces/eats all, but the ability to make do with little. But it seems that this self-sufficiency is not an expression of asceticism over the lust for eating; the Tzadik can be satisfied, he only Increases his delicacy so that he does not need quantities in order to be satisfied. From the flesh of the meat, through the little roasted grain, ending with the pleasing aromas, comes the call for the fullness and satisfaction of the Tzadikim, to whom the slightest touch of things is enough to fill them with all their needs.
