Blood Sacrifices

[Dondi]

Can I get a definitive Jewish answer for the purpose of blood sacrifices as described in the Torah? Specifically, why does G-d need blood sacrifices? Or what is it's intent in bringing man closer to G-d? I mean, was it ABSOLUTELY necessary to kill an animal in order to gain atonement from unintentional sins? Is there some mystic mechanism that causes the condition in man to change? Is their anything intrinsic in the sacrifice to make the sins go away or is it merely G-d's perogative? Had He willed, could He have just allowed our sins to be whisked away at the wave of His Hand (spiritually speaking)?

[dauer]

Originally Posted by Dondi

Can I get a definitive Jewish answer for the purpose of blood sacrifices as described in the Torah?

I don't think you could get one definitive answer, but I could offer you a few Jewish answers. Closer to God, yes. Giving up something that was a part of your livelihood as well, right? According to Rambam it is man's nature to do what he's used to, and so while God got rid of the idolatry, in order that man be better able to accept the Torah, He allowed him to keep his current form of worship with the incense and the animals and such. Even though now it's prayer like we have it, and someday, who knows?

You might also consider that this wasn't all being burned up, but was also being used to feed the kohanim, and sometimes even the people who brought it, depending on what type of qorban it was.

Specifically, why does G-d need blood sacrifices? Or what is it's intent in bringing man closer to G-d?

I think it's more about bringing man closer to God. Does God need prayer at all? Some might say yes. Some might say no. I don't really think God needs prayer. It's for our own benefit.

I mean, was it ABSOLUTELY necessary to kill an animal in order to gain atonement from unintentional sins?

Are you a vegeterian? I've considered it. My sense is that in that time period, for those people, it was necessary. If, and this is channeling Rambam again, a prophet went to that time period and said, "Look, we're not gonna burn incense. We're not gonna slaughter animals on this big giant barbecue thing. Just do the other stuff. Admit what you did was wrong. Ask forgiveness from whomever you wronged, and maybe as a little icing give extra tzedakah. But that's up to you.

You know not so long ago people would fast for their sins. So maybe old ideas that we need something serious to go down die hard.

Is there some mystic mechanism that causes the condition in man to change?

According to the mystics, if I'm not mistaken, each aspect of the qorban corresponds and/or causes reverberations in the upper worlds so depending on who you ask I think it's even bigger than that. But I don't know anything about that.

Is their anything intrinsic in the sacrifice to make the sins go away or is it merely G-d's perogative?

They were giving up something that was valued to them as part of their coming-close. I would imagine that originally there was a reason for each type of qorban. Someone was actually telling me once that all of the animals used for qorbanot were the types of animals there would have been a surplus of. We didn't get into it though. But for us today, we're outside that culture, so it's harder to know what that qorban might mean to us. My vote is that it's God's perogative, but the nature of the animal and the person's relationship to the animal and the nature of the procedure could cause a deep stirring in the heart. I still have a deep desire to travel back in time and bring my own qorban so I can understand better, not as an outsider but as one of them. Mmmmmmm.


Dauer

[bananabrain]

G!D (via isaiah, i believe) tells the israelites many times that it's not that G!D *needs* the sacrifices or even likes them particularly. if i may paraphrase: "you think I'm just sitting up here sniffing the smoke? think again, you feckin' feathered eejits. I don't need anything from you fools except for you to do what you're feckin' told and play nicely."

the best way of explaining it i've heard is this. sacrifices are (or certainly were) like giving G!D (the Divine Girlfriend, as it were) the equivalent of flowers and chocolates. not necessary, of course, but the gesture would certainly be appreciated - were it not for the fact that they were basically cheating on G!D with ba'al and other idols all the time. as you would expect, turning up with flowers and chocolate might not be exactly what would be needed to rebuild the relationship.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

G!D (via isaiah, i believe) tells the israelites many times that it's not that G!D *needs* the sacrifices or even likes them particularly. if i may paraphrase: "you think I'm just sitting up here sniffing the smoke? think again, you feckin' feathered eejits. I don't need anything from you fools except for you to do what you're feckin' told and play nicely."

the best way of explaining it i've heard is this. sacrifices are (or certainly were) like giving G!D (the Divine Girlfriend, as it were) the equivalent of flowers and chocolates. not necessary, of course, but the gesture would certainly be appreciated - were it not for the fact that they were basically cheating on G!D with ba'al and other idols all the time. as you would expect, turning up with flowers and chocolate might not be exactly what would be needed to rebuild the relationship.

b'shalom

bananabrain

I appreciate your response. Well, it seems to me that seeking atonement (for unintentional sins I understand) is vastly more important than giving flowers and chocolate to our girlfriend. Aren't we talking about circumventing God's wrath by offering an acceptable sacrifice? Just seems like more than just a kind gesture.

[bananabrain]

nonono. the point is that the sacrifices cannot and do not influence G!D - only our atonement and proper behaviour can do that. the sacrifices are simply the thing that gets you from 99% to 100%.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

nonono. the point is that the sacrifices cannot and do not influence G!D - only our atonement and proper behaviour can do that. the sacrifices are simply the thing that gets you from 99% to 100%.

b'shalom

bananabrain

So in order to be acceptable to G-d, we need to be 100%? How do we know when we got there? If I'm at 99%, am I somewhat acceptable to G-d, or is there a deep chasm between me and G-d? In some Christian circles, even one sin is enough to ban you from God, pointing out that is took only one sin to banish Adam and Eve from the Garden.

[I, Brian]

I don't know how applicable it is in this instance, but my general perception of how blood sacrifices were used in the ancient world is that in offering up food sacrifices of any kind, people were offering some of their most prized assets - thus making an point of submission to their god(s).

In other words, the primary focus was about taking things of value from yourself, and providing them to a higher authority, as an act of supplication.

The issue being that, regardless of the god's response, you were making the effort to try and do the right thing, by keeping the interests of a higher being above your own material welfare.

In which case, reading the incidence of Abraham almost sacrificing his son, and also Jesus as a sacrificial body, take on extended meanings that would perhaps have made a lot more sense to those involved blood sacrifice practices.

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

I don't know how applicable it is in this instance, but my general perception of how blood sacrifices were used in the ancient world is that in offering up food sacrifices of any kind, people were offering some of their most prized assets - thus making an point of submission to their god(s).

In other words, the primary focus was about taking things of value from yourself, and providing them to a higher authority, as an act of supplication.

The issue being that, regardless of the god's response, you were making the effort to try and do the right thing, by keeping the interests of a higher being above your own material welfare.

In which case, reading the incidence of Abraham almost sacrificing his son, and also Jesus as a sacrificial body, take on extended meanings that would perhaps have made a lot more sense to those involved blood sacrifice practices.

That's an interesting point. if the purpose of offering sacrifices is to give something of your best to God, then how does Christ fit in. It seems to me that Christ is the best God has as an offering. But it's still God's offering. Whereas, in the OT sacrifices, they gave up something of themselves, in there desire to please God. But we never did have Jesus to offer, we didn't own him or possess, so how is He a sacrifice for us? Jesus is not something that we produced with our own hands or had in our possession, like a bull or a sheep. So the idea of Jesus as a sacrifice from ourselves to God doesn't make sense in that regard.

[bananabrain]

Originally Posted by Dondi

So in order to be acceptable to G!D, we need to be 100%?

that's not actually what i'm saying. it's not about being "acceptable" - we are all inherently "acceptable" (no salvation or original sin) except that we also have additional obligations imposed upon us, those governing proper relationships that are between humans and those that are between humans and the Divine, both rational and transcendental and both noahide and the 606 extra jewish commandments, between the positive (248 "thou shalts") and the negative (365 "thou shalt nots"). we have no intermediary between ourselves and G!D (although prophets and patriarchs have in the past acted as intercessors, pleading or criticising. the point is not that we will inherently fall short of perfection; we know that, it's already built into the sacrificial system through guilt-offerings and sin-offerings. it's more that the intention with which the sacrifice is offered, the spirit of it and wider social context is far more important. you can't redeem an unrighteous society through an act of sacrifice no matter how holy - you have to actually do the groundwork in the society first, the atonement and repentance, for the sacrifice to have the desired effect of being pleasing to G!D - otherwise it's pure hypocrisy.

How do we know when we got there? If I'm at 99%, am I somewhat acceptable to G!D, or is there a deep chasm between me and G!D?

the point is you will never know - you find out after you die, presumably, depending on whether you "inherit your portion in the World to Come". the tradition is full, however, of stories of those you might think were "unacceptable", well below 10%, as it were and were considered as gaining their "portion", both jews and non-jews. consequently the idea that everyone requires some measure of atonement and teshuvah is undisputed.

In some Christian circles, even one sin is enough to ban you from G!D, pointing out that is took only one sin to banish Adam and Eve from the Garden.

OK, well, we don't see the garden episode as banning them "from G!D", nor do we consider that anyone is totally incapable of turning their life around. even pharaoh had free-will - so the "one sin", while hypothetically possible, is in practice nonsense. nobody commits one sin without associated others. it's far less unforgiving at the same time as shifting the burden of responsibility onto the individual.

Originally Posted by I, Brian

in offering up food sacrifices of any kind, people were offering some of their most prized assets - thus making an point of submission to their god(s).

there is an element of that, but there is also the point that the priests and levites had to eat somehow, having no land or means of support other than by the various portions allotted to them from sacrifices and offerings - out of which they also had to feed the poor and at the same time be responsible for the "reporting structure", as it were; if sacrifices were properly carried out and nothing bad happened, this was indicative that the system was producing the desired outcomes.

The issue being that, regardless of the god's response, you were making the effort to try and do the right thing, by keeping the interests of a higher being above your own material welfare.

well, it's not only the interests of the Divine, it's in everyone's interest that everyone be happy with the system, plus it's not like the Divine actually *needs* it.

In which case, reading the incidence of Abraham almost sacrificing his son, and also Jesus as a sacrificial body, take on extended meanings that would perhaps have made a lot more sense to those involved blood sacrifice practices.

correct - except that the near-sacrifice of isaac is the paradigm for our concept of sacrifice and jesus is, from our perspective, reverse-engineered for post-hoc justification.

But we never did have Jesus to offer, we didn't own him or possess, so how is He a sacrifice for us? Jesus is not something that we produced with our own hands or had in our possession, like a bull or a sheep. So the idea of Jesus as a sacrifice from ourselves to God doesn't make sense in that regard.

quod erat demonstrandum i hope, particularly in that we now, as prophesied, "compensate for the bull-offerings with our lips" i.e. prayers.

b'shalom

bananabrain