The Messiah asks you a question,...?

[metis]

Sacrifices were offered to God before we ever had a Torah, or a set of laws. These commentators are suggesting that God didn't ask for these sacrifices, but accepted them because they were the only way these people knew how to worship someone.

So, God didn't ask for them but accepted them, and then He also set up how they were to be done? I'm not disagreeing with you, but the above just doesn't seem to fit too well together.

 

[dantech]

From the Jewish Virtual Library

During the time of Moses, it was the general practice among all nations to worship by means of sacrifice. There were many associated idolatrous practices. The great Jewish philosopher Maimonides stated that God did not command the Israelites to give up and discontinue all these manners of service because "to obey such a commandment would have been contrary to the nature of man, who generally cleaves to that to which he is used," For this reason, God allowed Jews to make sacrifices, but "He transferred to His service that which had served as a worship of created beings and of things imaginary and unreal." All elements of idolatry were removed. Maimonides concluded:

By this divine plan it was effected that the traces of idolatry were blotted out, and the truly great principle of our Faith, the Existence and Unity of God, was firmly established; this result was thus obtained without deterring or confusing the minds of the people by the abolition of the service to which they were accustomed and which alone was familiar to them.

The Jewish philosopher Abarbanel reinforced Maimonides'argument. He cited a Midrash that indicated that the Jews had become accustomed to sacrifices in Egypt. To wean them from these idolatrous practices, God tolerated the sacrifices but commanded that they be offered in one central sanctuary:

Thereupon the Holy One, blessed be He, said "Let them at all times offer their sacrifices before Me in the Tabernacle, and they will be weaned from idolatry, and thus be saved." (Rabbi J. H. Hertz, The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, p. 562)

Rabbi J. H. Hertz, the late chief rabbi of England, stated that if Moses had not instituted sacrifices, which were admitted by all to have been the universal expression of religious homage, his mission would have failed and Judaism would have disappeared. With the destruction of the Temple, the rabbis state that prayer and good deeds took the place of sacrifice.

Rashi indicated that God did not want the Israelites to bring sacrifices; it was their choice. He bases this on the haphtorah (portion from the Prophets) read on the Sabbath when the book of Leviticus which discusses sacrifices is read:

I have not burdened thee with a meal-offering, Nor wearied thee with frankincense. (Isaiah 43:23)

Biblical commentator David Kimhi (1160-1235) also stated that the sacrifices were voluntary. He ascertained this from the words of Jeremiah:

For I spoke not unto your fathers, nor commanded them on the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings or sacrifices; but this thing I commanded them, saying, "Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people; and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you. (Jeremiah 7:22-23)

David Kimchi, notes that nowhere in the Ten Commandments is there any reference to sacrifice, and even when sacrifices are first mentioned (Lev. 1:2) the expression used is "when any man of you bringeth an offering," the first Hebrew we ki being literally "if", implying that it was a voluntary act.

Many Jewish scholars such as Rabbi Kook believe that animal sacrifices will not be reinstated in messianic times, even with the reestablishment of the Temple. They believe that at that time human conduct will have advanced to such high standards that there will no longer be need for animal sacrifices to atone for sins. Only nonanimal sacrifices (grains, for example) to express gratitude to God would remain. There is a Midrash (rabbinic teaching based on Jewish values and tradition) that states: "In the Messianic era, all offerings will cease except the thanksgiving offering, which will continue forever. This seems consistent with the belief of Rabbi Kook and others, based on the prophecy of Isaiah (11:6-9), that people and animals will be vegetarian in that time, and "none shall hurt nor destroy in all My Holy mountain."

Sacrifices, especially animal sacrifices, were not the primary concern of God. As a matter of fact, they could be an abomination to Him if not carried out together with deeds of loving kindness and justice. Consider these words of the prophets, the spokesmen of God:

What I want is mercy, not sacrifice. (Hos. 6:6)

To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto Me?" sayeth the Lord. "I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs or of he-goats...bring no more vain oblations.... Your new moon and your appointed feasts my soul hateth;...and when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you; yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear; your hands are full of blood. (Isa. 1:11-16)

I hate, I despise your feasts, and I will take no delight in your solemn assemblies. Yea, though you offer me burnt-offerings and your meal offerings, I will not accept them neither will I regard the peace-offerings of your fat beasts. Take thou away from me the noise of thy song; and let Me not hear the melody of thy psalteries. But let justice well up as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream. (Amos 5:21-4)

Deeds of compassion and kindness toward all creation are of greater significance to God than sacrifices: "To do charity and justice is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice" (Prov. 21: 3).

Perhaps a different type of sacrifice is required of us today. When Rabbi Shesheth kept a fast for Yom Kippur, he used to conclude with these words:

Sovereign of the Universe, Thou knowest full well that in the time of the Temple when a man sinned he used to bring a sacrifice, and though all that was offered of it was fat and blood, atonement was made for him. Now I have kept a fast and my fat and blood have diminished. May it be Thy will to account my fat and blood which have been diminished as if I have offered they before thee on the altar, and do Thou favor me. (Berachot 17a)

 

[metis]

From the Jewish Virtual Library...

Thanks for posting this.

 

[dantech]

So, God didn't ask for them but accepted them, and then He also set up how they were to be done? I'm not disagreeing with you, but the above just doesn't seem to fit too well together.

God didn't ask for them, but when we got the Torah, they were already an established practice, so he set up rules on how they were to be done in order for them to not be like the idolatrous ones. Is it the best theory? I don't think so either.

 

[metis]

God didn't ask for them, but when we got the Torah, they were already an established practice, so he set up rules on how they were to be done in order for them to not be like the idolatrous ones. Is it the best theory? I don't think so either.

Again, thanks. Hey, you have just proven that an old dog like me can still learn a few tricks, but will I remember it tomorrow is the next question?

 

[Akivah]

I have no objections to bringing offerings of first-fruits, of grain and wine and oil offerings, of the lechem hapanim or display bread offering, of the water offering on Sukkot, or of the daily incense offering. Nor do I have a problem with liturgical recitation of what our ancestors used to sacrifice. But I think we have outgrown the need for animal sacrifices, and to re-institute them would be a spiritual retrograde movement for us.

I know that, personally, when I pray for the restoration of the Temple, and the restoration of sacrifices, my kavanah (intention) is a very different kind of Temple than the Second Temple was, and a restoration of sacrifices in a poetic, representational way, not in a literal, animal-slaughtering way.

Yes, I agree that sacrificing of animals seems a bit backward. I think the Final Temple will accept monetary sacrifices, just like the past.

 

[CMike]

But seriously, should we assume that the Messiah would have to be male?

:yes:

 

[CMike]

Also a good point.

He is referred to as King, as Ben Yosef, as Ben David. Some verses will have words like עָלָ֔יו or קֹולֹֽו. If these aren't taken as intentional by the prophet and are actually a way of keeping it generic, then I don't think you could make a case that the messiah would have to be a man.

He will be a king that unifies all the jews- Ezekiel 37

 

[dantech]

He will be a king that unifies all the jews- Ezekiel 37

Yes, I'm aware. That's why I said what I said...

 

[technomage]

:yes:

There is no chance that the Messiah could be a female descendant of the house of David?

 

[Avi1001]

There is no chance that the Messiah could be a female descendant of the house of David?

You have to know who you are speaking to. Some posters in the DIR are literalists, others are not.

I hope for a Messianic era and do not expect a personal Messiah.

 

[Akivah]

He will be a king that unifies all the jews- Ezekiel 37

He will be our political leader, could be a president or prime minister.

 

[Akivah]

There is no chance that the Messiah could be a female descendant of the house of David?

The bible refers to the future messiah as a He. But the messiah will be identified by the deeds performed. If a female completed all the prophecies, I personally wouldn't quibble about her sex.

 

[Levite]

The bible refers to the future messiah as a He. But the messiah will be identified by the deeds performed. If a female completed all the prophecies, I personally wouldn't quibble about her sex.

I have always thought that the future messiah is referred to in classical texts using the male pronoun and similar vocabulary because during the times when those texts were composed, female leaders were rare in the extreme, and it would have stood to reason to them to presume the promised leader would be male; and secondarily to that, because Hebrew grammatically defaults to male constructions, and thus if the gender of a figure is unknown, it is arbitrarily discussed in male grammatical gender.

But among all the prophecies and predictions of the moshiach, I have seen none that would require the use of a penis. So I can only presume that were there to be a woman, scion of the House of David, who emerged to leadership and began fulfilling the prophecies, there should be no rational reason that she be anything but the moshiach.

 

[dantech]

I have always thought that the future messiah is referred to in classical texts using the male pronoun and similar vocabulary because during the times when those texts were composed, female leaders were rare in the extreme, and it would have stood to reason to them to presume the promised leader would be male; and secondarily to that, because Hebrew grammatically defaults to male constructions, and thus if the gender of a figure is unknown, it is arbitrarily discussed in male grammatical gender.

But among all the prophecies and predictions of the moshiach, I have seen none that would require the use of a penis. So I can only presume that were there to be a woman, scion of the House of David, who emerged to leadership and began fulfilling the prophecies, there should be no rational reason that she be anything but the moshiach.

Like I said earlier, there isn't much that says that it can't be a woman in our scripture. However, do you really want our leader to freedom to be a woman? Just imagine how long it'll take every morning preparing herself before she gets to work. We've been waiting long enough already. :biglaugh:

 

[Levite]

Like I said earlier, there isn't much that says that it can't be a woman in our scripture. However, do you really want our leader to freedom to be a woman? Just imagine how long it'll take every morning preparing herself before she gets to work. We've been waiting long enough already.

I dunno, I always sort of envision a female moshiach as sort of a no-nonsense, go-getter type. Somewhere between Golda Meir and Mary Poppins. But that could just be me....

 

[metis]

I have always thought that the future messiah is referred to in classical texts using the male pronoun and similar vocabulary because during the times when those texts were composed, female leaders were rare in the extreme, and it would have stood to reason to them to presume the promised leader would be male; and secondarily to that, because Hebrew grammatically defaults to male constructions, and thus if the gender of a figure is unknown, it is arbitrarily discussed in male grammatical gender.

But among all the prophecies and predictions of the moshiach, I have seen none that would require the use of a penis. So I can only presume that were there to be a woman, scion of the House of David, who emerged to leadership and began fulfilling the prophecies, there should be no rational reason that she be anything but the moshiach.

Well said, imo, so I tend to agree that this might be at least hypothetically possible, so I tend to agree with you, Akiva, and Avi on this. Also, Avi's statement about literalism plays well with me, especially since so much of Torah often involves the use of symbolism, allegories, and metaphors.

As has oft been said, when (and if) the Messiah arrives, we will know about it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Does anyone supporting the rebuilding of the temple and the reinstitution of its rites and its priesthood wish to address the question posed below?

It's simply that many of us find it difficult to accept the premise that God might be at all interested about when, how, or why we smear animal blood on that altar. Shall we also reinstitute the provisions found in parashat metzora?

 

[Tumah]

Does anyone supporting the rebuilding of the temple and the reinstitution of its rites and its priesthood wish to address the question posed below?

​

Your question is difficult to answer as it seems to be predicated on the belief that G-d didn't originally institute these things in the first and second Temples. Otherwise, if G-d wanted it then, why wouldn't He want it now?

 

[dantech]

Does anyone supporting the rebuilding of the temple and the reinstitution of its rites and its priesthood wish to address the question posed below?

​

Simple, really... If we don't reinstate the priesthood, we will never see CMike (I believe he is a Cohen) perform his temple duties. I wonder what job they'll give to a priest with a gun.

Seriously though, as you know, I am Orthodox and have grown up believing in all these things to be reinstated when the Messiah comes. However today, it's not as clear to me. I can accept that He maybe didn't request for the sacrifices, but accepted them. But why would he even accept them? Either the Messiah will clear things up for us and it will all suddenly make sense, or these rituals won't just all be reinstated.