Here is an excerpt from and article By Rav David Silverberg on the Rambam and Korbanos.
Read the whole thing here.
The Ramban, in his commentary to Parashat Vayikra (1:9), famously cites and rejects the Rambam’s approach to the underlying reason behind the institution of korbanot (sacrifices). In the passage from the “Moreh Nevukhim” (3:46) paraphrased by the Ramban, the Rambam claims that God ordered that we bring sheep, cattle and goats as sacrifices because various pagan cultures in the ancient world worshipped these animals. We demonstrate our firm rejection of these beliefs by sacrificing these alleged deities to the one, true God. Earlier in the Moreh (3:32), the Rambam writes that God found it necessary to demand a sacrificial order because animal sacrifice had become the universally accepted mode of religious worship in the pagan world. Benei Yisrael could not have been realistically expected to accept a religious system that did not feature sacrificial offerings. It was in response to this need that God established the order of sacrifices outlined by the Torah here in Parashat Vayikra.
The Ramban sharply criticizes the Rambam’s comments and raises several objections against his theory. We will focus on his initial remarks after he paraphrases the Rambam’s stance: “These are nonsensical words, which offer healing offhand for a great wound and considerable difficulty.” This phrase – “offer healing offhand for a great wound” – is borrowed from a verse in Sefer Yirmiyahu (6:14), in which Yirmiyahu cites the Almighty’s condemnation of the false prophets who opposed Yirmiyahu. We cite here the relevant verse in context: “For from the smallest to the greatest, they are all greedy for gain; priest and prophet alike, they all act falsely. They offer healing offhand for the wounds of My people, saying, ‘All is well, all is well,’ when nothing is well.”
The late Professor Nechama Leibowitz a”h observed that the context of this verse may very well shed light on the Ramban’s specific claim in this passage. In the vast majority of his prophecies, Yirmiyahu conveyed to the people a message they were not interested in hearing – predictions of catastrophe and doom, and the need for a fundamental change in conduct and values to avoid the impending disaster. The false prophets, by contrast, eager to win the people’s favor, presented a far more pleasant prognosis: “All is well, all is well.” They eased the masses’ conscience by assuring them that God is on their side, that they need merely to continue along their current path and remain confident in God’s imminent salvation. In this manner, they “offered healing offhand for the wounds of My people.” They cavalierly dismissed the looming threat, insisting that in truth there is nothing to fear and no reason for any substantive change of lifestyle.
With this in mind, Professor Leibowitz suggested, we can understand the Ramban’s castigation of the Rambam’s theory. He felt that this approach all too conveniently absolves us from delving into the depths of the sacrificial system to uncover its true meaning and spiritual significance. The Rambam here allowed us to write off this entire institution as a phenomenon necessitated by an unfortunate circumstance, thereby obviating the need to search for any further meaning. A proper understanding of this critical topic, the Ramban insisted, requires thorough study and inquiry; in his mind, the Rambam’s speculative theory hardly suffices.
Of course, we may reasonably presume that the Rambam did not postulate this theory out of intellectual laziness, but rather because he honestly believed this to be the factor that prompted the Almighty to include in the Torah a system of korbanot. We may also assume that the Ramban here does not actually accuse the Rambam of laziness, or to equate him with the false prophets of the First Temple era. Rather, the Ramban was troubled by the fact that the Rambam’s approach effectively rendered meaningless any serious analysis of the korbanot. Indeed, later in his commentary, the Ramban writes that the concept of korbanot involved a “sod gadol” –– profound Kabbalistic meaning. He therefore objected to the Rambam’s theory, according to which we have no reason to attribute any deeper meaning to the system of korbanot.
