Book 2 3.10 -- blood, blood only blood -- forget the flour!

[Sophiee]

Page 103 Objection 3.10 (this is Brown's take on the Jewish argument):

Even if I accept your premise that blood sacrifices are of great importance in the Torah, the fact is that our Hebrew Bible -- including the Torah itself -- offers other means of atonement, not just the shedding of blood."

Brown says:

"There can be no question that blood atonement is the central and most important form of atonement in the Bible."

There may be no question to Brown -- but Torah sure disagrees with him!

Qorbans (sacrifices -- not even just blood sacrifices) are ONE way to atone for very specific sins -- they were never the only way to atone. And as we've discussed before there are many things that are used for qorban (translated as sacrifice) and these can include money, jewelry, flour, etc.

If you start with Leviticus 4 and read on you’ll find the following:

Sin Offerings for the High Priest
Sin Offerings for the Community
Sin Offerings for the King
Sin Offerings for Commoners
The Adjustable Guilt Offering
The Meal Offering for Guilt
The Misappropriation Sacrifice
The Offering for Questionable Guilt
Offerings for Dishonesty
The High Priest's Offering
Purification of a Leper
The Poor Leper's Offering
Priestly Yom Kippur Offering
Communal Yom Kippur Offering
Fast on Yom Kippur


I stopped at Leviticus 16, because these should make it clear enough that there are many, many different types of offerings and they are not all inclusive. Some are for priests, some for kings, some for commoners, some for the entire community and some for individuals. Just start at Leviticus chapter 4 and read forward.

And just as there are many of different reasons for sacrifices, so too are there many different rules. So to synopsize:

1. there are different qorbans (sacrifices) for different people

2. there are different qorbans (sacrifices) for different purposes – some for peace, some for sin, some for guilt, some to give thanks, etc.

3. There are distinct qorbans (sacrifices) for individuals, the community, kings, and priests. Each has its own purpose.

4. The goat sent off into the wilderness is not halachally sentenced to death. Torah decrees that it be sent far away. It is a gezeirah (rabbinical fence) that decreed it be sent over a cliff. http://dafyomi.shemayisrael.co.il/yoma/ ... -ps-67.htm

Keep in mind that after the Exodus and prior to Sinai there were NO sacrifices yet G-d forgave the sins of the Israelites many, many times during that period.

Likewise there were no sacrifices in Egypt prior to the paschal lamb (although Moses asks to bring them).

So it helps to keep in mind that qoran (sacrifice) many of which don't involve blood at all is merely ONE way to atone and repent, not the only way. Prayer wasn't a "substitution" as many suggest -- it was always there.

Now when there is a Temple and we are allowed to bring sacrifices (and as you point out we live where we can bring them) we are REQUIRED to do so. If we live far away but can arrange to pay for a sacrifice we do that -- although it is not as much of a mitzvot as actually going there and bringing it yourself (part of the act of bringing qorban is to lay your hand on the item being given).

We are obligated by our covenant with G-d to follow His mitzvot.

Without a Temple we are forbidden from bringing sacrifices.

[Sophiee]

The Jewish concept of qorban (translated as “sacrifice”) can be very confusing to a non-Jew. Non-Jews tend to think of qorban as some magical way of paying for sins (as in “J-sus died for your sins”). This is very far from what Torah teaches us.

Brown's idea that G-d NEEDS blood sacrifices for true atonement dredges up the pagan idea of a bloodthirsty god crying out for the death of an animal or person to satiate him somehow. Why would a powerful god need the death of a human (or man-god) to wash away sins?

Isn't the god strong enough to do it himself?

So the idea of sacrifice in Judaism is very different. G-d doesn't need sacrifice. G-d doesn't NEED anything. G-d gave animal sacrifices to the Jews for our need, not His.

In Hebrew the word is qorban. It means to draw near to G-d. By bringing Him our very best we feel a sense of repentence, of giving. The action helps us to feel closer to G-d. (Similar to the way giving gifts feels better as an adult because we are giving others joy).

Even in the days of the Exodus, G-d freed us with a mighty hand and there were NO sacrifices after that of the paschal lamb (which was a celebratory sacrifice). We wandered in the desert without sacrifices, but we were very close to G-d.

It wasn't until Sinai that G-d commanded qorban -- and again it was for us, not for Him. Even then qorban was never the only way to be close to G-d or to seek forgiveness from sins.

Qorban (what you call sacrifice) was never the ONLY way to be close to HaShem, it was only A way. There has always been turning to G-d, prayer, being a good person. . . just read the Torah and this is apparent. Start with Adam and Eve and move right along to Cain and Abel.

Cain could have risen above sin -- without a blood sacrifice and without any flour, either. Genesis chapter 4.

Qorban translates in concept to a "drawing near to HaShem.” Most qorbans had nothing to do with sin at all – they were used to thank HaShem and also to try and draw nearer to Him spiritually.

The offer could be grain and sometimes was money (shekels) – disproving the fallacy that qorban required blood or that atonement was only through the blood.

MONEY: Exodus 30:12 When you take a census of the Israelites to determine their numbers, each one shall be counted by giving an atonement offering for his life. . .13 Everyone included in the census must give a half shekel.

FLOUR: Leviticus 5: 11 the sacrifice that he must bring for his sin shall consist of 1/10 ephah of wheat meal as a sin offering.

This mistake that atonement of sin requires a blood sacrifice comes from Hebrews in the GT where they distort Leviticus 17:11 where Jews are forbidden from EATING blood and told its only purpose is on the altar or to be thrown away into the dirt (Leviticus 17:13).

Hebrews turns this around as if only blood atones, when all Torah says is "don't eat blood -- the only use for it is in sacrifices. If you can't sacrifice, throw it in the dirt."

I mentioned in my other post that we obey G-d's rules. One of those rules is WHERE we may bring qorban. There is only one place in all the world -- and that is at the site of His Temple in Jerusalem.

Right now there is no Temple. There is a mosque -- and thus we Jews have no place in which to bring qorban. We sacrifice (as Hosea says):

Hosea 14:.3 Take words with you and return to the L-rd; say to Him: “You shall forgive all iniquity, and accept the good and we will render (for) bullocks (the offering of our) lips.” (in other words prayers instead of sacrifice).

There have been many times in history where no Temple stood and no sacrifices could be made. King Solomon, the builder of the first Temple, remarked as he dedicated the first Temple that when one cannot bring qorban to the Temple G-d will listen to prayers and sincere repentence.

1Kings 8-33 "When your people Israel have been defeated by an enemy because they have sinned against you, and when they turn back to you and confess your name, praying and making supplication to you in this temple, 34 then hear from heaven and forgive the sin of your people Israel and bring them back to the land you gave to their fathers.”

Without a Temple we are forbidden from bringing qorban. They are "suspended" during times when there is no Temple standing in Jerusalem [Hosea 3:4-5, 14:2-3]. However, these will be "reinstated" for all the occasions noted in the Torah when the promised Jewish messiah builds the Third Temple in Jerusalem [Ezekiel describes all this in the last nine chapters of his book].

There is atonement through:

repentance (II Samuel 12:13-14, Jonah 3:10, Lev. 26:40-42, Ezek. 18:21-32, 33:11-16)
kindness (Prov. 16:6, Daniel 4:24)
prayer (Hos. 14:2-3,I Kings 8:46-50, Daniel 9:19)
removal of idolatry (Is. 27:9)
punishment (Is. 40:1, Lam. 4:22),
death (Is. 22:14)
flour offerings (Lev. 5:11-13)
money (Ex. 30:15)
jewelry (Num. 31:50)
and incense (Num. 17:11-12).

[Sophiee]

As part of his "proof" that you have to have blood to atone for sin Brown brings up the paschal lamb (page 104, book 2)

"On the eve of Israel's departure from Egypt, it was the blood of the Passover (pesach) lamb. . .that was a sign for the destroying angel. . .

True enough, but what does that have to do with atoning for sin via blood?

The paschal lamb was both an act of defiance against the Egyptians and a show of faith in HaShem. It has absolutely nothing to do with atonement.

The Ram was worshipped in Egypt and the killing of the lamb was both a sign of bravery on the part of the Jews that G-d would save them from the Egyptians anger over killing their god AND it was a celebration that G-d could kill the Egyptian god.

Exodus 8:22
“'What we will sacrifice to HaShem our L-rd is sacred to the Egyptians. Could we sacrifice the sacred animal of the Egyptians before their very eyes and not have them stone us?”

Moses clearly tells Pharaoh (and us) that the animal to be sacrificed by the Jews is sacred (e.g. a G-d) to the Egyptians. The paschal lamb (or sheep) has nothing whatsoever to do with atoning for sins.

We know that the Egyptian Kevatim would worship the Zodiac sign of the sheep (Aries). To this end, they banned the slaughter of sheep and despised sheep traders and shepherds (Ex.8:22,Bereshit 46:34 ) .... It was for this very reason that we were commanded to slaughter the Paschal lamb, daubing its blood - in Egypt - on the doorways, in full view. This was to cleanse ourselves of those (idolatrous) views and to publicise the very opposite; in order to internalize the notion that the very act that they (Egypt) expect to bring our destruction ( ie. the slaughter of the gods) will save us from destruction; 'And HaShem will pass over the door and not let the destroyer enter and smite your home.'(12:23)" [Moreh Nevuchim 3:46]

Rambam (circa 12th century in the “Guide to the Perplexed) said:

Scripture tells us, according to the Version of Onkelos, that the Egyptians worshipped Aries, and therefore abstained from killing sheep, and held shepherds in contempt. Comp." Behold we shall sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians," etc. (Exod. viii. 26)

For every shepherd is an abomination to the Egyptians" (Gen. Avi. 34). Some sects among the Sabeans worshipped demons, and imagined that these assumed the form of goats, and called them therefore" goats" This worship was widespread. Comp." And they shall no more offer their sacrifices unto demons, after whom they have gone a whoring" (Lev. xvii. 7).

For this reason those sects abstained from eating goats' flesh. Most idolaters objected to killing cattle, holding this species of animals in great estimation. Therefore the people of Hodu [Indians] up to this day do not slaughter cattle even in those countries where other animals are slaughtered. In order to eradicate these false principles, the Law commands us to offer sacrifices only of these three kinds :" Ye shall bring your offering of the cattle [viz.], of the herd and of the flock" (Lev. i. 2). Thus the very act which is considered by the heathen as the greatest crime, is the means of approaching G-d, and obtaining His pardon for our sins. In this manner, evil principles, the diseases of the human soul, are cured by other principles which are diametrically opposite.

This is also the reason why we were commanded to kill a lamb on Passover, and to sprinkle the blood thereof outside on the gates. We Ghad to free ourselves of evil doctrines and to proclaim the opposite, viz., that the very act which was then considered as being the cause of death would be the cause of deliverance from death. Comp." And HaShem will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come unto your houses to suite you" (Exod. idi. 23). Thus they were rewarded for performing openly a service every part of which was objected to by the idolaters.

The Egyptians worshipped sheep / lambs and ergo the sacrifice of the lamb was an “in your face” to them (while showing a believe in HaShem that the Egyptians wouldn’t kill them for slaughtering the Egyptian “G-d.). . An interesting bit of trivia about Passover: the astrological symbol of the month of Nisan (the month of Passover) is Aries, the ram (male sheep).

Additional thoughts are found in Midrash Rabba, too.

"You will find that when Israel were in Egypt, they served idols, which they were reluctant to abandon, for it says: "They did not cast away the detestable things of their eyes" (Ezekiel 20:8). G-d then said to Moses: 'As long as Israel worship Egyptian G-ds, they will not be redeemed; go and tell them to abandon their evil ways and to reject idolatry.' This is what is meant by: "Draw out and take your lambs"(12:21), that is to say: Draw away your hands from idolatry and take for yourselves lambs, thereby slaying the gof Egypt and preparing the Passover. Only through this will the L-rd pass over you."

Gee what a coincidence. And the very day for Passover, 15th of Nissan, is the apex of a lunar month. The ram-G-d of the Egyptians was to be slaughtered on the evening of the full-moon of its very own month. How is that for HaShem having a great sense of humor?

Rambam goes on to say that by slaughtering an Egyptian G-d (the lamb / sheep) the Israelites accomplished 3 things:

1. They showed faith in HaShem – that HaShem was more powerful than the Egyptian G-ds and the Egyptians themselves (who would normally kill anyone who hurt their “G-ds.”).

2. The Israelites proved themselves not to be idolaters.

3. They (and HaShem) showed the Egyptians that their G-ds were false and powerless in the face of HaShem. The Talmud tells us that Torah decrees we select our sheep or ram (cf. Shemot 12:5 which treats them identically) four days in before the sacrifice to re-enforce to the Egyptians just how powerless they were in the presence of HaShem. It was most definitely “in your face.” As was smearing the blood of the sacrificed animals on the doorposts. This was an outright affront no Egyptian could miss.

Why would G-d command that we smear it on the OUTSIDE of the houses if the purpose were just for G-d to "see" it? (Shemot 12:13; ve-ra’iti et ha-dam). Nope -- it HAD to be outside so the Egyptians would see it!

It gets even better. Ibn Ezra tells us G-d commanded we roast the animal rather than cooking it in a pot or eating it raw, so the Egyptians would SMELL their G-d being cooked. You see, in a pot you can cover it with a lid – but by roasting the smell would be unmistakable.

IN YOUR FACE, not meek and mild. Most definitely. Not meek. Not an atonement – a DARE. A defiant act. And an act of infinite trust in G-d’s saving power. Also see Genesis 46:34

34. You shall say, 'Your servants have been owners of livestock from our youth until now, both we and our ancestors,' so that you may dwell in the land of Goshen, because all shepherds are abhorrent to the Egyptians."

(Rashi: shepherds are abhorrent to the Egyptians Because they (the sheep) are their gods).

So how does Brown make the leap from a celebratory sacrifice -- one that was roasted and eaten -- and was an afront and dramatic gesture against the Egyptians and their gods and how does he somehow twist it to be a proof that "blood atones"?

[Sophiee]

By dragging in first the paschal lamb which had nothing to do with atonement and then Moses sprinkling blood on the people (Exodeus 24:5-8) which had to do with binding the covenant to the Jews and again not with atonement Brown tries to force a connection that simply isn't found in the Torah.

It is like saying "I use flour to make bread, and I use flour to thicken a gravy -- therefore bread is gravy."

Blood being used to seal a covenant and blood being used as an act of defiance have nothing to do with bloods use in atoning for very specific types of sins or guilts.

One page 113 he tries to say that even though the Torah says that flour is an atonement (Leviticus 5:11-12) per Brown this isn't really true:

According to verse 12, the priest will “take a handful of it [i.e., the flour] as a memorial portion, and burn it on the altar on top of the offerings made to the Lord by fire.” Then (verse 13) “the priest will make atonement for him.” In other words, the priest, in his capacity as mediator for the people, and having mingled the flour with the blood sacrifices that were already upon the altar, would make atonement for his fellow Israelite.

Nowhere is it written that “the flour will make atonement” (!) or that “the life of a creature is in the flour.” Rather, the whole basis for atonement was in the sacrificial blood on the altar, and through a flour offering, even poor Israelites could participate in the atoning power of the altar. But there is not a single verse in the Bible that would even hint that flour, in and of itself, had any atoning power, and the rabbis never suggested that, in the absence of the Temple, flour could be substituted for sacrifices. Absolutely not. Without the atoning altar and its sacrifices, the flour had no power at all.

The whole basis for atonement was the blood on the altar, says Brown.

Where, oh where in Torah does it say THAT? Nowhere. Brown is making it up (well, actually he is just saying what other Xians have made up before him). There is not a single verse in the bible that would even hint that the flour WOULDN'T have atoning power with or without the blood. Brown makes lots of authoritative statement with no support whatsoever.

R' Michael Skobac on Jews for Judaism had written a response regarding the flour:

I've checked a number of Chrstian translations of the Hebrew scriptures, and they all make a similar error in translating verse 12. The phrase in question is "ee'shay Hashem", which most render as 'the offerings of fire to the L-rd'.

This, in fact, is an editorial expansion of the actual phrase. The word "ee'shay" is the construct form of the word "aish" (which means fire), therefore, the correct translation is "fire(s) of Hashem (the L-rd)".

The meaning is that the flour is placed on the top of the altar and will be consumed by the fire that is lit on the top of the altar.

The phrase does not indicate that the flour is placed on animal sacrifices that were already burning on the altar.

First of all, there weren't always animals burning on top of the altar. Even if there were, the altar top was large enough to place the flour elsewhere - not necessarily on top of the animals.

Furthermore, most Chrstian missionaries also make an unwarranted assumption here. Even if they are correct in assuming that the flour is put on top of animals that have already been offered on the altar, there is no reason to assume, as they do, that it is the remnant blood from those sacrifices that gives efficacy to the flour. This is not indicated by the text, which simply says that the flour is the sin offering.

In turn Michael Brown wrote an article disputing the Rabbi's comments. Someone wrote R' Moshe Shulman asking who was right: Rabbi Skobac or Michael Brown. I quote from R' Shulman's article:

I must say that he is on shaky ground here with his interpretation. I will just point out that Rabbi Skobac's view, that the flour is in the place of the blood, is exactly the one taken by Professor Milgrom in his work on Leviticus page 306. (Neither he nor I would accept him as an 'authority', but I think that it is quite clear that our view is not 'outside' of an objective reading of the text accepted by top scholars.)

I think we need to examine this issue. We all agree that the flour offering was burnt on the alter; however we have a disagreement as to whether the flour alone caused the atonement and forgiveness (that this sacrifice clearly does what is stated in verse 13) or whether it was caused by the mixture of the flour with sacrificial atonement blood. There are two possibilities:
1. There is no mixture of flour with blood (as Rabbi Skobac argues) which would make Dr. Brown’s contention false
2. There was a mixture with sacrificial atonement blood.

This second case does not prove that this mixture causes the atonement (unless a verse stating that this mixture does can be found.) The view taken by Milgrom and Skobac could still be correct even if this was the case. However with regards to the argument it would at least be a draw on this issue.

For the answer, we need only look at what the Torah says with regards to the use of blood in sacrifices.

The clearest verse about the use of sacrificial atonement blood is in Leviticus 17. There we see that the atonement of the blood comes from it being placed on the alter. The question is was this atonement blood at any time, placed in the same place as the flour was burnt. (For the moment I will ignore the issue of if the inner alter or the outer alter were used for the blood and discuss it as if there was only one alter in use.)

We know from Leviticus 5 that the flour was placed on the top of the alter and burnt on a fire there.

In the Torah there are 4 types of animal sacrifices, two are for sins, Chatas and Ashem, and two are voluntary, Shlamim and Olah. (The Rabbis indicate that the Olah did have some uses in atonement of sin, but there is no clarity in that.) In each sacrifice, we are told in detail what to do, including what to do with the blood. Let us examine the sacrifices and see if any of the sacrificial atonement blood makes it to the top of the alter where the flour was placed.


1. The blood from the Olah is sprinkled around the alter on the walls (1:5, 11, 15).
2. The blood for the Shlamim is placed in the same manner as the Olah. (3:2, 8, 13)
3. The Chatas for the Kohen and the Congregation is first sprinkled on the curtain and then placed on the corners of the alter, with the rest of it poured out at the base of the alter. (4:6-7, 17-18 )
4. The Chatas of the ruler and for an individual is only placed on the corners of the alter, and then spilled out at the base of the altar. (4:25, 30, 34)
5. For the Chatas on a sliding scale (of which the flour offering was a part.) For an animal or bird the blood is sprinkled on the walls of the alter, and then the rest spilled out (5:9)
6. The blood from the Asham is dealt with like that of the Olah (7:2)
7. For the Yom Kippur sacrifices the blood is either sprinkled on the curtain and/or on the corners of the altar. (16)


In no case do we see that the blood is placed where any sin sacrifices are burnt. The pieces from the Olah that are placed on the alter are long after the life blood has left it and in any case we see that they are washed first. (1:9)

From this we MUST conclude that at no time is the meal offering ever in contact with the sacrificial atoning blood. This, of course, should make sense since were there to be any amount of this blood spilled on the fire, it would extinguish the fire itself. We must, therefore, conclude that, as Skobac and Milgrom state, it is the flour alone, being burnt on the alter that is bringing the atonement.

© Moshe Shulman 20006

[Sophiee]

Leviticus 17:11

The flour offering and blood atonement

COMMENT:

On Dr. Michael Brown’s web site (http://www.realmessiah.com/antiPart1-Skobac.htm) we have the following:

“As I wrote in Answering Jewish Objections to Jsus, vol. 2, 113: According to verse 12, the priest will “take a handful of it [i.e., the flour] as a memorial portion, and burn it on the altar on top of the offerings made to the Lord by fire.” Then (verse 13) “the priest will make atonement for him.” In other words, the priest, in his capacity as mediator for the people, and having mingled the flour with the blood sacrifices that were already upon the altar, would make atonement for his fellow Israelite.”

RESPONSE (by R' Moshe Shulman):

I must say that he is on shaky ground here with his interpretation. I will just point out that Rabbi Skobac's view, that the flour is in the place of the blood, is exactly the one taken by Professor Milgrom in his work on Leviticus page 306. (Neither he nor I would accept him as an 'authority', but I think that it is quite clear that our view is not 'outside' of an objective reading of the text accepted by top scholars.)

I think we need to examine this issue. We all agree that the flour offering was burnt on the alter; however we have a disagreement as to whether the flour alone caused the atonement and forgiveness (that this sacrifice clearly does what is stated in verse 13) or whether it was caused by the mixture of the flour with sacrificial atonement blood. There are two possibilities:

1. There is no mixture of flour with blood (as Rabbi Skobac argues) which would make Dr. Brown’s contention false

2. There was a mixture with sacrificial atonement blood.

This second case does not prove that this mixture causes the atonement (unless a verse stating that this mixture does can be found.) The view taken by Milgrom and Skobac could still be correct even if this was the case. However with regards to the argument it would at least be a draw on this issue.

For the answer, we need only look at what the Torah says with regards to the use of blood in sacrifices.

The clearest verse about the use of sacrificial atonement blood is in Leviticus 17. There we see that the atonement of the blood comes from it being placed on the alter. The question is was this atonement blood at any time, placed in the same place as the flour was burnt. (For the moment I will ignore the issue of if the inner alter or the outer alter were used for the blood and discuss it as if there was only one alter in use.)

We know from Leviticus 5 that the flour was placed on the top of the alter and burnt on a fire there.

In the Torah there are 4 types of animal sacrifices, two are for sins, Chatas and Ashem, and two are voluntary, Shlamim and Olah. (The Rabbis indicate that the Olah did have some uses in atonement of sin, but there is no clarity in that.) In each sacrifice, we are told in detail what to do, including what to do with the blood. Let us examine the sacrifices and see if any of the sacrificial atonement blood makes it to the top of the alter where the flour was placed.

1. The blood from the Olah is sprinkled around the alter on the walls (1:5, 11, 15).

2. The blood for the Shlamim is placed in the same manner as the Olah. (3:2, 8, 13)

3. The Chatas for the Kohen and the Congregation is first sprinkled on the curtain and then placed on the corners of the alter, with the rest of it poured out at the base of the alter. (4:6-7, 17-18 )

4. The Chatas of the ruler and for an individual is only placed on the corners of the alter, and then spilled out at the base of the altar. (4:25, 30, 34)

5. For the Chatas on a sliding scale (of which the flour offering was a part.) For an animal or bird the blood is sprinkled on the walls of the alter, and then the rest spilled out (5:9)

6. The blood from the Asham is dealt with like that of the Olah (7:2)

7. For the Yom Kippur sacrifices the blood is either sprinkled on the curtain and/or on the corners of the altar. (16)

In no case do we see that the blood is placed where any sin sacrifices are burnt. The pieces from the Olah that are placed on the alter are long after the life blood has left it and in any case we see that they are washed first. (1:9)

From this we MUST conclude that at no time is the meal offering ever in contact with the sacrificial atoning blood. This, of course, should make sense since were there to be any amount of this blood spilled on the fire, it would extinguish the fire itself. We must, therefore, conclude that, as Skobac and Milgrom state, it is the flour alone, being burnt on the alter that is bringing the atonement.

© Moshe Shulman 2006 http://judaismsanswer.com/Skobac.htm