Questions about Judaism

[Maya]

I found myself thinking about a couple of things regarding Jewish belief, and was hoping that someone more learned on the subject could give me some insight.

It is my understanding that the reason given why Jews no longer consider themselves obligated to perform the animal sacrifices outlined in the Old Testament is that the Temple no longer exists, so there is no proper place to perform these rites. Am I correct in this? Is there any particular part of the Torah that explicitly states that these particular rites can only be performed in this one place? Furthermore, why are animal sacrifices exceptional? Lastly, does this mean that morality plays no part in the decision to refrain from the animal sacrifices that are demanded in the Torah? If the Temple were rebuilt tomorrow and the Levite priesthood reformed, would that mean that Jews then would be again expected by God to perform ritual animal sacrifices in his name?

[cnorman18]

I found myself thinking about a couple of things regarding Jewish belief, and was hoping that someone more learned on the subject could give me some insight.

I don't know how "learned" I am, but I'll take a run at it. You might ask Jrosemary too.

It is my understanding that the reason given why Jews no longer consider themselves obligated to perform the animal sacrifices outlined in the Old Testament is that the Temple no longer exists, so there is no proper place to perform these rites. Am I correct in this?

That was the reason for abolishing the sacrifices at the time, in 70 CE, yes. Since that time, Judaism has developed and evolved, in the opinion of very many Jews, beyond the need for sacrifices at all. The Torah has become our "portable Temple," and study of the Torah and deeds of lovingkindness have replaced sacrifice for the People of the Book. As my own rabbi puts it, "Who wants a holy slaughterhouse in the middle of downtown Jerusalem?"

Is there any particular part of the Torah that explicitly states that these particular rites can only be performed in this one place?

Yes, many; "in the place which I shall show you" is the usual phrase in Exodus and Leviticus, and it is often explicitly forbidden to sacrifice anywhere else. I read the Bible (OT and NT) to my visually-impaired client every day, and we just read a passage where some of the tribes were actually preparing to make war against others which had set up an altar east of the Jordan, in addition to the one at the Tabernacle (which was at that time at Shiloh; the Temple had not yet been built). When they were told that the altar was a memorial only and not intended for sacrifice, the other tribes were satisfied and stood down. That prohibition also lay at the heart of the enmity between the Samaritans, who had their own Temple, and the rest of the Jews in Israel and Judea.

Furthermore, why are animal sacrifices exceptional?

In what way? I'm not sure what you mean.

Lastly, does this mean that morality plays no part in the decision to refrain from the animal sacrifices that are demanded in the Torah?

Not at all. The very idea of treating animals in a humane manner began with the Hebrews. In the Torah, it is forbidden to slaughter a kid in the presence of its dam (mother). There is no possible explanation for that law other than concern for the sensibilities, or "feelings," of the animals. Further, the kosher laws -- found in the Talmud and in Jewish tradtion, though not in the Torah -- places a very high priority on the slaughter of the animal being painless. The FIRST principle of Jewish law regarding bloodshed is to prohibit it entirely, unless it is necessary; since we have done OK without sacrifices for the last two millenia, it's been pretty well established that it is no longer necessary for the practice of our religion.

If the Temple were rebuilt tomorrow and the Levite priesthood reformed, would that mean that Jews then would be again expected by God to perform ritual animal sacrifices in his name?

There are Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox Jews who think so; indeed, I am told that there are Jews in Israel who have prepared the gold and bronze implements for the sacrifices and have raised male Kohanim (the descendants of Aaron, a subgroup of the Levites) in a ritually pure manner so that they have the credentials, so to speak, to resume service at a third Temple. The oils for anointing, the robes, the properly formulated incense, and so on are all ready to rock and roll. I shudder at the thought, as do many Jews, not least because a third Temple would require demolition of one of the holiest shrines of Islam and precipitate a horrific war. We don't have a third Temple already, not so much because we don't think we need one -- as I say, many "fundamentalist" Jews do -- but because we believe in respecting the religions and the religious sites of others.

I guess it's worth noting here that the Jews, who have been denied religious freedom everywhere we have ever lived, extends that freedom to ALL religions in Israel. When the Muslims were in control of Jerusalem, the Kotel -- the Western Wall, or "Wailing Wall," the holiest spot in the world to Jews, was quite deliberately and with conscious malice and contempt made into a public latrine.

[Maya]

Thank you, that was very informative. However, I'm not really sure how the Jewish faith reconciles commands to be humane to animals with commands to slaughter them, nor do I understand why God would be so pleased with the killing of his own creations.

[sleepyhead]

Hello Maya,

I'm not jewish but I thought I'd put in my 2 cents anyway.

DEUT 25:4 Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn.

In the debate going on now with regards to animal rights, the above verse indicates that animals have a right to gain something for their labor.

[cnorman18]

Thank you, that was very informative. However, I'm not really sure how the Jewish faith reconciles commands to be humane to animals with commands to slaughter them, nor do I understand why God would be so pleased with the killing of his own creations.

In that way, as in many others, Judaism developed from the religions that predated and surrounded it. Animal sacrifice reaches back into prehistory, as does male domination/patriarchy and slavery; all three of those customs and practices found their way into the prehistoric proto-religions that developed into Judaism, and the seeds and foreshadowing of the abolition of all three can be found in the Torah itself. Details on request.

It may be useful to consider the other strain of thought about the origins of the Jewish religion; that it developed from human custom and thoughts, and grew and evolved through human debate and cultural change. It makes many aspects of our religion, which is above all OLD, much more comprehensible than the idea that the religion was delivered whole and complete into the hands of Moses by God Himself. Many, if not most, Jews are cognizant of both strains, and in our rather practical approach, there is no conflict.

Just as we read the Torah as if it were given by God b'yad Moshe, "by the hand of Moses," and discuss the narratives in Genesis, Exodus, etc., as if they were real, literal historical accounts, and yet are perfectly aware of the nature of the Torah as a collection of ancient documents that were assembled and redacted from orally transmitted traditions, myths, and legends that are much older than Sinai, we honor our traditions and laws as we have them, that is, as they reputedly began, but also as our understanding and practice of them has changed through the millenia. You see, in the Jewish tradition, our beliefs and practices, and the meaning of the Torah itself, were supposed to change in every generation, and are supposed to keep changing. Judaism is not a static and unchanging thing, a monolithic set of "doctrines." It is a LIVING thing, a way of life made up of and determined by the real people who comprise it and the way they live and believe.

For me, the paradigm case was in a discussion of the Akeidah, the Binding of Isaac, in a Torah study class in my synagogue. We were talking about the feelings and motivations of Abraham, Isaac and God, as if the story were literal history, and about the moral, ethical and philosophical significance of these events; then someone asked, "But did this really happen?"

The universal response was, "What difference does THAT make?"

People talk about "cognitive dissonance." Enh. That assumes that the Jewish religion is a matter of believing or affirming a set of specific assertions or claims about metaphysical and ethical concepts, and that those assertions and claims and their up/down, correct/incorrect, true/false literal and final CORRECTNESS is all that matters. It isn't, and it isn't. It's a living community of real people living real lives, and relating what we do today to our (sometimes literal) ancestors who struggled with the same ideas and impulses three or four thousand years ago. We didn't get everything settled then, and we're still working on it, and the debate and the work and the life goes on. The Torah isn't, or isn't only, the Word of God and the Rule of Life to us; it's also a journal kept by our grandparents, a family record that's sometimes difficult to read, sometimes obscure, and sometimes embarrassing. "David did what?"

[Logomachist]

However, I'm not really sure how the Jewish faith reconciles commands to be humane to animals with commands to slaughter them, nor do I understand why God would be so pleased with the killing of his own creations.

If I understand correctly, the sacrificed were eaten. Meat was expensive back then and the animal sacrifices were a kind of food tax.

[Felix]

It is my understanding that the reason given why Jews no longer consider themselves obligated to perform the animal sacrifices outlined in the Old Testament is that the Temple no longer exists, so there is no proper place to perform these rites. Am I correct in this?

The Mosaic law of animal sacrifice has nothing to do with the Temple. The Temple was used for sacrifices, but not for any reason of the law itself.

"Orthodox Jews" sacrifice chickens, to mock the Mosaic law. (Chickens are cheaper and easier to handle than pigs.)

Animal sacrifice is not part of the religion of the Jews, which is based on the Talmud, not the Old Testament.

Lastly, does this mean that morality plays no part in the decision to refrain from the animal sacrifices that are demanded in the Torah?

Orthodox Jews are very abusive to the chickens they kill, including leaving them in cages for days without food or water, and then ritually swinging them around before killing them. Jews demand relatively cruel methods of animal killing for meat to be considered "kosher" (e.g. stunning or quick death isn't allowed). Jews are not motivated by any compassion for animals.

If the Temple were rebuilt tomorrow and the Levite priesthood reformed, would that mean that Jews then would be again expected by God to perform ritual animal sacrifices in his name?

Jews are not going to rebuild the Temple nor restore the Levite priesthood. They can't restore the Levite priest, no matter how much some ignorant Christians want them to. A priest has to be a Levite by geneology, through the male line, no Jew can meet this qualification. Also, Levites can only be made a priest by being ordained by a priest. There are no Levite priests to perform this function.

[cnorman18]

Felix, you've made some rather remarkable statements here about Judaism.

It is my understanding that the reason given why Jews no longer consider themselves obligated to perform the animal sacrifices outlined in the Old Testament is that the Temple no longer exists, so there is no proper place to perform these rites. Am I correct in this?

The Mosaic law of animal sacrifice has nothing to do with the Temple. The Temple was used for sacrifices, but not for any reason of the law itself.

See below. Animal sacrifice is prescribed and described in detail in the book of Leviticus, and the Hebrew Bible repeatedly says that sacrifices are to be done "in the place that I will show you," universally regarded as referring to the Temple.

There is a good précis of the history of sacrifice in the Jewish religion here, as comprehensive and complete as any short article I have ever read. I recommend it highly.

"Orthodox Jews" sacrifice chickens, to mock the Mosaic law. (Chickens are cheaper and easier to handle than pigs.)

That is absolute nonsense; I don't agree with many practices and beliefs of Orthodox Jews (I also wonder why you'd put that phrase in quotes), but they certainly do not "mock the Mosaic law."

I'd very much like to see a source for this assertion, as well as many of your other claims.

Animal sacrifice is not part of the religion of the Jews, which is based on the Talmud, not the Old Testament.

That is also total nonsense. The book of Leviticus consists largely of detailed instructions on when to perform animal sacrifices, for what reasons, and how to carry them out. And didn't you just refer to "the Mosaic law of animal sacrifice" above?

Again, I'd like to see a source for this "information."

Lastly, does this mean that morality plays no part in the decision to refrain from the animal sacrifices that are demanded in the Torah?

Orthodox Jews are very abusive to the chickens they kill, including leaving them in cages for days without food or water, and then ritually swinging them around before killing them.

You are referring to the custom of kapparot, practiced by some Orthodox Jews. Here is an article on the practice from the Jewish Virtual Library. Very many Jews, including Orthodox rabbis, speak out against the practice, and this has been true since the 9th (ninth) century CE; there are movements today, even within the Orthodox community, to abolish it entirely. This movement has accelerated in recent years, specifically because of the especially abusive treatment of some chickens in Brooklyn in 2005, to which incident you are apparently referring here.

Jews demand relatively cruel methods of animal killing for meat to be considered "kosher" (e.g. stunning or quick death isn't allowed).

Nonsense again. Kosher slaughter has repeatedly been proven painless, which is the point of the method; here is some actual information, from experiments by veterinarians and experts on animal welfare, that indicates this pretty conclusively.

Yet again, I'd like to see your sources for this cr -- er, "information." Bad enough to claim that kosher slaughter is cruel; to claim that "Jews demand relatively cruel methods of animal killing" is WAY beyond opinion, and constitutes a claim of objective fact. Let's see what you have to back up that outrageous claim.

Jews are not motivated by any compassion for animals.

That is also nonsense, and has been discussed elsewhere.

If the Temple were rebuilt tomorrow and the Levite priesthood reformed, would that mean that Jews then would be again expected by God to perform ritual animal sacrifices in his name?

Jews are not going to rebuild the Temple nor restore the Levite priesthood.

True, but more because they don't want to than because they can't. See the article on sacrifice linked above.

They can't restore the Levite priest, no matter how much some ignorant Christians want them to. A priest has to be a Levite by geneology, through the male line, no Jew can meet this qualification.

Um, not correct. A priest must be a Kohane, or Cohen, which is a subgroup of the Levite tribe; and since surnames are patronymics, i.e. carried by the male line, a man named Cohen -- or Katz, or any of a number of similar names -- is most likely a direct male-line descendant of the Temple priests. This has been confirmed by DNA testing.

Also, Levites can only be made a priest by being ordained by a priest. There are no Levite priests to perform this function.

That may be true (of Cohens, not Levites); but since very few Jews, other than some ultra-Orthodox sects, are much interested in doing that anyway, it's not much of an issue. I'm sure those who are making such plans have figured out a way to deal with that problem.

Me, I don't much care; and neither I nor any other Jew is responsible for the acts or beliefs of members of fringe groups, any more than the average Christian is responsible for the outrageous acts of the Westboro Baptist Church. We have long since moved beyond the need for a Temple, or for animal sacrifices.

You have made other claims elsewhere with which I do not agree, notably that "Christianity is the legitimate continuation of the religion of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Therefor all Christian priests are Jews, the real Jews." That is as pure an example of "replacement theology," the source and root of antisemitism, as I have ever read; but I don't suppose it's much worth debating it with you here. Many Christians believe this, and I have no wish to tell others what to believe. It will have to suffice to say that Jews do not agree with this assertion.

You do seem to have some remarkably negative beliefs and opinions about Jews and Judaism. Again, I'd very much like to see your "sources." If you have any.

[Felix]

Animal sacrifice is prescribed and described in detail in the book of Leviticus, and the Hebrew Bible repeatedly says that sacrifices are to be done "in the place that I will show you," universally regarded as referring to the Temple.

When Leviticus was written, there wasn't a Temple, so vague instructions on where to do the sacrifice couldn't have meant in the Temple. Also, I don't know what verse it is you have in mind.

That is absolute nonsense; I don't agree with many practices and beliefs of Orthodox Jews (I also wonder why you'd put that phrase in quotes), but they certainly do not "mock the Mosaic law."

What do you call swinging around chickens and then killing them, if not mockery of Levitical law? It's not adherence.

What do you want a link for? That they swing around chickens and then kill them? Or, that they admit it's mockery?

That is also total nonsense. The book of Leviticus consists largely of detailed instructions on when to perform animal sacrifices, for what reasons, and how to carry them out. And didn't you just refer to "the Mosaic law of animal sacrifice" above?

How does that follow what I just said (that animal sacrifice is not part of the religion of the Jews, which is based on the Talmud, not the Old Testament)? Your comments seem to confirm what I said. Jews don't follow those instructions in Leviticus. They follow those instructions in the Talmud.

You are referring to the custom of kapparot, practiced by some Orthodox Jews.

The answers my earlier question. You don't need a link showing that some Jews swing around chickens and then kill them.

Very many Jews, including Orthodox rabbis, speak out against the practice, and this has been true since the 9th (ninth) century CE; there are movements today, even within the Orthodox community, to abolish it entirely. This movement has accelerated in recent years, specifically because of the especially abusive treatment of some chickens in Brooklyn in 2005, to which incident you are apparently referring here.

I wasn't referring to a specific incidence. And, even if there are people speaking out, it still is a practice among orthodox Jews.

Nonsense again. Kosher slaughter has repeatedly been proven painless, which is the point of the method; here is some actual information, from experiments by veterinarians and experts on animal welfare, that indicates this pretty conclusively.

"The bulls were held in a comfortable head restraint with all body restraints released. They stood still during the cut and did not resist the head restraint." Your source looks like pro-kosher propaganda. I've never known a healthy animal to not resist restraints, except maybe pets after they get use to collars and leashes.

The fact remains, kosher methods of killing prohibits the standards of animal welfare that are used in non-kosher industry. The prohibition of those standards doesn't come from anything in the Bible.

Jews are not going to rebuild the Temple nor restore the Levite priesthood.

True, but more because they don't want to than because they can't.

Yes, I know.

Um, not correct. A priest must be a Kohane, or Cohen, which is a subgroup of the Levite tribe; and since surnames are patronymics, i.e. carried by the male line, a man named Cohen -- or Katz, or any of a number of similar names -- is most likely a direct male-line descendant of the Temple priests. This has been confirmed by DNA testing.

I was referring to the Old Testament requirements, which does not include having a certain DNA presumed to have been common in the Levite tribe. But, does include genealogy through the male line to Aaron.

I'm sure those who are making such plans have figured out a way to deal with that problem.

Me, I don't much care; and neither I nor any other Jew is responsible for the acts or beliefs of members of fringe groups,

I envision a small group of jewish shills in Israel posing as planning to rebuild the temple and restart the priesthood, as a gimmick to get money from ignorant Zionist Christians. Imagine you're a Jew in Israel and John Hagee shows up with a few million dollars in donations looking for some Jews to give the money to... "Look John, we're training priests for the new temple [that is nowhere in sight]."

[cnorman18]

Animal sacrifice is prescribed and described in detail in the book of Leviticus, and the Hebrew Bible repeatedly says that sacrifices are to be done "in the place that I will show you," universally regarded as referring to the Temple.

When Leviticus was written, there wasn't a Temple, so vague instructions on where to do the sacrifice couldn't have meant in the Temple. Also, I don't know what verse it is you have in mind.

Well, the Temple was the successor to the Tabernacle, which DID exist even if one assumes a traditional date for Leviticus; but in reality Leviticus, like the rest of the Torah and the Hebrew Bible, was most likely assembled and redacted from earlier oral traditions and documents over a long period of time. This process was probably not completed until around the time of the Babylonian Exile, long after the time of the first Temple. As the article to which I posted a link makes clear, the centralization of worship at the Temple was a process which took place over time, and probably paralleled the redaction of the Hebrew Bible as we have it today.

In any case, saying that animal sacrifice had nothing to do with the Temple is obvious nonsense. There were two altars in the Temple dedicated to that purpose, the use of which was detailed in Leviticus, as I said.

That is absolute nonsense; I don't agree with many practices and beliefs of Orthodox Jews (I also wonder why you'd put that phrase in quotes), but they certainly do not "mock the Mosaic law."

What do you call swinging around chickens and then killing them, if not mockery of Levitical law? It's not adherence.

What do you want a link for? That they swing around chickens and then kill them? Or, that they admit it's mockery?

The latter, of course. Just as you claimed that Jews "demand" inhumane methods of killing (which I notice you have not defended or even acknowledged), you here claim to read their minds -- and in this case give a nefarious motive for this rather rare practice. Back up that objective claim of fact or retract it; that YOU consider it "mockery" doesn't mean that THEY do, and that was your claim.

That is also total nonsense. The book of Leviticus consists largely of detailed instructions on when to perform animal sacrifices, for what reasons, and how to carry them out. And didn't you just refer to "the Mosaic law of animal sacrifice" above?

How does that follow what I just said (that animal sacrifice is not part of the religion of the Jews, which is based on the Talmud, not the Old Testament)?

The Old Testament -- properly, the Tanakh, or even more properly, in this case the Torah -- prescribes animal sacrifice.

That the beliefs and practices of modern Judaism are not to be found in the Hebrew Bible is something I have said many times; but they are not to be found in the Talmud, either. The tradition and teaching of Judaism is not contained in any one book or place, but is an organic (and ever-changing) whole.

Your comments seem to confirm what I said. Jews don't follow those instructions in Leviticus. They follow those instructions in the Talmud.

And that, even if it were true, is objectionable how? The Roman Catholic Church does not follow the instructions in the New Testament, but those of the Magisterium.

How familiar are you, exactly, with the Talmud? I'd be most interested to know why you think these things, and what you think is wrong with the Talmud as a foundational document of Judaism.

(Sshh. Don't spoil it, anyone.)

You are referring to the custom of kapparot, practiced by some Orthodox Jews.

The answers my earlier question. You don't need a link showing that some Jews swing around chickens and then kill them.

Very many Jews, including Orthodox rabbis, speak out against the practice, and this has been true since the 9th (ninth) century CE; there are movements today, even within the Orthodox community, to abolish it entirely. This movement has accelerated in recent years, specifically because of the especially abusive treatment of some chickens in Brooklyn in 2005, to which incident you are apparently referring here.

I wasn't referring to a specific incidence. And, even if there are people speaking out, it still is a practice among orthodox Jews.

Very few. Snake-handling is a practice among Christians, but it can hardly be used to discredit or slander all of them.

Nonsense again. Kosher slaughter has repeatedly been proven painless, which is the point of the method; here is some actual information, from experiments by veterinarians and experts on animal welfare, that indicates this pretty conclusively.

"The bulls were held in a comfortable head restraint with all body restraints released. They stood still during the cut and did not resist the head restraint." Your source looks like pro-kosher propaganda. I've never known a healthy animal to not resist restraints, except maybe pets after they get use to collars and leashes.

You seem to be unfamiliar with cattle-ranching practices, as well. Cattle are regularly restrained for medical reasons, as well as for controlling pests, freeze-branding, and other reasons. The point is that the animals did not react to the cut.

The experts who did these experiments and assessments were not Jewish -- and the fact that the evidence I presented indicates that your claims are erroneous does not make it "propaganda." You might just be wrong.

The fact remains, kosher methods of killing prohibits the standards of animal welfare that are used in non-kosher industry. The prohibition of those standards doesn't come from anything in the Bible.

And it's not in the Talmud either, for the record. Like I said.

I note that you haven't answered my question; what do you have that backs up your claim that "Jews demand" cruelty in slaughter? That another method is prescribed than the usual one -- which may not, incidentally, be as painless as kosher slaughter anyway -- is not at all the same thing. You seem to be trying as hard as you can to put the most negative spin possible on everything you say about Jews. Why is that?

Jews are not going to rebuild the Temple nor restore the Levite priesthood.

True, but more because they don't want to than because they can't.

Yes, I know.

Um, not correct. A priest must be a Kohane, or Cohen, which is a subgroup of the Levite tribe; and since surnames are patronymics, i.e. carried by the male line, a man named Cohen -- or Katz, or any of a number of similar names -- is most likely a direct male-line descendant of the Temple priests. This has been confirmed by DNA testing.

I was referring to the Old Testament requirements, which does not include having a certain DNA presumed to have been common in the Levite tribe. But, does include genealogy through the male line to Aaron.

Now you're just being silly. You said, and I quote, "A priest has to be a Levite by geneology, through the male line, no Jew can meet this qualification." That is simply wrong.

I'm sure those who are making such plans have figured out a way to deal with that problem.

Me, I don't much care; and neither I nor any other Jew is responsible for the acts or beliefs of members of fringe groups,

I envision a small group of jewish shills in Israel posing as planning to rebuild the temple and restart the priesthood, as a gimmick to get money from ignorant Zionist Christians. Imagine you're a Jew in Israel and John Hagee shows up with a few million dollars in donations looking for some Jews to give the money to... "Look John, we're training priests for the new temple [that is nowhere in sight]."

You "envision" this? So all this is just your own fantasies of Jewish perfidy and fraud. Okay.

Since you apparently have no sources for anything you say and all this is more a matter of your own condemnatory suspicions and assumptions, I guess we're done here. I doubt you'll ever reveal where you get your -- I use the term loosely -- "information." I don't think you'd want anyone to know.

Have a nice day -- and don't pontificate on things about which you clearly know little or nothing.