|
Updated: 2019.07.03
Animal sacrifices in Mesopotamia predated Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ by millennia. It’s clear that animal sacrifice in Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ was adopted from inherited beliefs common to ancient Mesopotamia, Egypt, the entire Middle East—and even the ancient world globally.
Hypotheses explaining the philosophy underlying dependence of ancient belief systems on sacrifices proliferate disguised as fact, but there is no known ancient evidence authoritatively explaining the original philosophy that underlaid ancient animal sacrifice. The underlying philosophy of sacrifice, generally, seems clear: to supplicate and obtain favor with incomprehensible forces beyond their control, which, they reasoned, must be gods. This seems to have evolved into competition: “I’m prospering more than you because I curry more favor with the gods than you. Therefore, I shall rule over you because my gods are more powerful than your gods”. Eventually, “If I can control the gods, or become a man-god, I can become all powerful, rich, famous and rule the world”. Gifts to curry favor with their perceived gods drove the sacrificial belief systems to ever greater lengths—ultimately, sacrifice of one’s firstborn son.
The ancients didn’t understand anything they couldn’t see. So they reasoned that the leaves and branches of trees were rustled by rūkh•ōtꞋ; i.e. ël•ōh•imꞋ. Cold and hot were rūkh•ōtꞋ or ël•ōh•imꞋ. Light and dark were rūkh•ōtꞋ or ël•ōh•imꞋ. In short, the first primitive science-religion was animism; the scientist-intellectuals or each era were simultaneously the clerics and (witch-) doctors of that era.
Animism is the belief that "everything is conscious" or that "everything has [a ðÆôÆùÑ and a ðÀùÑÈîÈä]… ðÆôÆùÑ was much later Latinized to animus, and ðÀùÑÈîÈä to anima. Animism refers to belief in the presence of a [a ðÆôÆùÑ or a ðÀùÑÈîÈä] in everything, and refers to a belief in numerous personalized, supernatural beings endowed with reason, intelligence and/or volition—which inhabit both objects and living beings and govern their existences…
Animism asserts that the universe is alive with [rūkh•ōtꞋ] and that humans are interrelated with them… In animistic thought, the human [rūꞋakh] or [ðÆôÆùÑ] is often identified with the shadow or the [ðÀùÑÈîÈä]… Other common conceptions identify the [ðÆôÆùÑ-ðÀùÑÈîÈä] with the [kâ•veidꞋ], the [leiv], the [dâm] or even with the reflected figure outwardly visible in the pupil of the eye… As the [ðÆôÆùÑ] is often understood as a metaphysical, indwelling presence, it is not surprising that, for many animist cultures, unconsciousness is explained as being due to the absence of the [ðÆôÆùÑ]." Hence, the Christian child’s prayer, Now I lay me down to sleep, I pray the Lord my soul to keep—keeping the soul somewhere during sleep implies the belief that it’s gone from the body during sleep.
Ancient philosopher-scientists reasoned that killing an animal for meat was terminating a ðÆôÆùÑ, which, as documented in Tōr•âhꞋ, the ancients believed to be a life-force vector contained within the dâm:
It was then deemed axiomatic to these select-few reasoning peoples that the ðÆôÆùÑ, having come from their perceived gods, belonged to their perceived gods and must, therefore, be returned at death to their perceived gods—not eaten!
It was, further, axiomatic to them that since the ðÆôÆùÑ of the dead was naturally and routinely returned to their perceived gods via decomposition of the corpse in burial or fire cremation, then returning the ðÆôÆùÑ into the earth or fire-smoke must, therefore, be the acceptable return-mechanisms. Since they regarded the ðÆôÆùÑ as being in the dâm, they concluded that pouring the dâm into the earth or burning it in fire, transforming it into “ascendance” smoke, returned the ðÆôÆùÑ to their perceived gods.
This belief traces to pre-Sinai, idolatrous myths that theorized how one might restore oneself to the good graces of the community and its gods. Vicariously associating whatever one did that displeased or angered a god (the original definition of “sin”) with a sacrifice animal sent up in smoke focused on appeasing the god, thus moving past the offending sin and guilt—which had gone up in smoke!
The core essence of this animist belief, therefore, rested in how to transfer one’s sins to the substitutionary animal to be sacrificed. The obvious, and only, answer in the mind of ancients was physical contact of the sacrificer with the life-force: i.e. the ðÆôÆùÑ of the animal to be sacrificed—which was believed to be in the dâm (blood)!
) at Har Sin•aiꞋThese inherited ancient animist (including Dark Ages/modern rabbinic and Christian) beliefs aside, however, the essence of animal sacrifice ordained by Mōsh•ëhꞋ at Har Sin•aiꞋ was not the idolatrous animist magical, mystical or supernatural “blood atonement” of the surrounding goy•imꞋ, but, rather, reverted to the philosophy of Avᵊrâ•hâmꞋ, Yi•tzᵊkhâqꞋ and Ya•a•qōvꞋ before the Mi•tzᵊraꞋyim sojourn: tᵊshuv•âhꞋ. And tᵊshuv•âhꞋ required proof demonstrated by action: restitution (sacrifice)! Satisfaction of the Beit Din-decreed tᵊshuv•âhꞋ was then sealed by the sacrifice-associated transgressions being symbolically (not magically/supernaturally) burned up entirely, destroyed in the fire (on the Mi•zᵊbeiꞋakh), having "gone up" in smoke, leaving a clean slate.
However, the animist belief system that prevailed among the goy•imꞋ predating Har Sin•aiꞋ persisted as the core philosophy of animal sacrifice among the goy•imꞋ: gifts of grilled meat from which they believed the ðÆôÆùÑ had been properly returned to their perceived gods; part of which was shared, when deemed appropriate, with a priest representing the perceived god; for propitiation, thanks or in payment of fines for transgressions—the ancient criminal justice system.
A second factor is that in ancient times there was no system of banks, monetary transfer, nor even large denominations of paper currency. Rather than lugging a cumbersome, highwaymen-magnet bundle of heavy precious metals and gems like a hobo or run-away child, domestic animals valuated the wealth of ancient peoples. Both offerings to the gods and punitive fines for criminal behavior were, accordingly, imposed (according to financial standing) in the currency of the various values of domestic animals: bulls being the most valuable and for the most serious fines or gifts of supplication or propitiation, then kids or lambs; lastly doves, baked goods and beverage gifts or tiny coins.
Wa-Yi•qᵊr•âꞋ 17.11 and Shᵊm•ōtꞋ 29, inter alia, make it clear that ancient Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ, too, believed there was a connection between the dâm of an animal sacrifice and its ðÆôÆùÑ. But we see from other Scripture, above, that it couldn’t be an animist/idolatrous connection. So we must ask, “What was the non-animist connection, which A•ha•rōnꞋ and his sons daubed onto their right ear, right thumb and their big right toe; then on the mi•zᵊbeiꞋakh, and then mixed with olive-oil and spattered on the vestments of A•ha•rōnꞋ and his four sons to make them ÷ÈãÇùÑ?”
“Meat is the ultimate expression of power and control,” says [Prof. Nir] Avieli, explaining mankind’s obsession with its favorite protein. “You take a knife and slaughter a living thing. You take its life and put it into your own body. Also, there is an assumption among human beings that if you eat meat, you are taking its power into yourself. These are beliefs that have a nutritional basis as well, but it’s mostly a social issue…
”Throughout history, eating fire-roasted meat was a rare thing, limited to the wealthy and powerful. Roasting meat is something that rich people do. If you take a kilogram of meat and cook it in 10 liters (roughly 2.6 gallons) of water, you get dozens of portions of soup. If you roast the cut over the fire, it shrinks, loses about half of its weight, and is enough for maybe two or three people. Roasting is a process of strengthening and concentrating all the characteristics that we are talking about… why roasted meat is at the heart of their national identity… men used cattle and sheep to take over an area. It’s the conventional method: Grab grazing land away from the natives, and whatever you fence in is yours.
”Frederick Jackson Turner, the important American historian, claims that the American barbecue is a negotiation with history. American men conquered the area with the help of cattle. The American icon — the Marlboro Man on a horse — what does he do at night beneath the star-filled sky? He lights a campfire and roasts a piece of meat over the flame. In other words, he uses cattle to conquer the area, and eats the meat of the cattle in order to gather strength that will help him go on with the work of conquering and controlling. Therefore, says Turner, roasting over a flame, the barbecue, is a manifestation of power, masculinity, and control over the space.”
While Egyptians, and later Hellenists (rooted in Greek—Hellenized—versions), exhibit animism, Ta•na"khꞋ (i.e. Hebrew, not Hellenized Greek LXX) decries animism as ùÌÑÅãÄéí (Dᵊvâr•imꞋ 32.17; Tᵊhil•imꞋ 106.37) and ùÌÒÀòÄéøÄí (wa-Yi•qᵊr•âꞋ 17.7; Di•vᵊr•eiꞋ-ha-Yâm•imꞋ Beit 11.15; Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu 13.21; 34.14).
Ta•na"khꞋ recalls the ancient controversy in terms of “farmer QaꞋyin” v “badlands nomad-shepherd Hâ•vëlꞋ ”—favoring the first-fruit animal-sacrifice of the badlands nomad-shepherd over the ordinary (or eschewed) crop-sacrifice of the urbane farmer. Superficial commentators routinely fail to notice that the distinction was between first-fruit v ordinary; not between (blood-sacrifice) animal v crop, nor between badlands nomad-shepherd v the urbanizing and urbane farmer—though the account has routinely been politically weaponized for millennia, both by domestic livestock ranchers and defenders of a perceived theological imperative of animal sacrifice. Such commentators miss the point entirely: the account contrasted the heartfelt sincere sacrifice of a choicest first-fruit (not just any, perhaps lame, animal) by Hâ•vëlꞋ v QaꞋyin’s sanctimonious, ritual ceremony of “charity” in offering second-rate (or throw-away?) farm produce! The Ta•na"khꞋ account contrasts favoring the offering of the sincere person v refusing sanctimonious ceremonial ritual—the lesson confirmed repeatedly by the Nᵊviy•imꞋ!
In the ancient world, globally, sacrificing to perceived gods developed as a formula for supplication or propitiation; the best—i.e. first-fruit gifts as perceived by mortals were animisticly (anthropomorphically = idolatrously) sacrificed to obtain favor with incomprehensible forces beyond their control. A number of ancient accounts indicate that, when all other sacrifices and pleas failed and the situation was dire, the sacrifice of one’s firstborn son was deemed the last resort and most likely to favorably persuade the gods.
This was the religious environment into which Avᵊrâ•hâmꞋ was born. Later in life, after migrating to the Levantine NëgꞋëv, six times, in six different locations of the NëgꞋëv, Avᵊrâ•hâmꞋ’s ranch-hands dug a bᵊeir to anchor a new homestead.
Despite a peace agreement between the Pᵊli•shᵊt•inꞋ king, AvꞋi-mëlꞋëkh, and Avᵊrâ•hâmꞋ, six times, the Pᵊli•shᵊt•inꞋ violently seized his bᵊeir and budding homestead. Avᵊrâ•hâmꞋ’s furious desperation (!) upon digging bᵊeir number shëvꞋa, apparently came to the attention of king AvꞋi-mëlꞋëkh, requesting Avᵊrâ•hâmꞋ to swear to remain peaceful.
”I will so swear if…” was Avᵊrâ•hâmꞋ’s reply to the Pᵊli•shᵊt•inꞋ king. And Avᵊrâ•hâmꞋ reported the invasion of his six homesteads, and the violent seizure, by the Pᵊli•shᵊt•inꞋ, of all six bᵊeir•ōtꞋ that he had dug. Then Avᵊrâ•hâmꞋ personally paid the king for the bᵊeir shëvꞋa from his personal livestock—plus shëvꞋa ewes for a bᵊrit with the king resolving that Avᵊrâ•hâmꞋ had dug the bᵊeir shëvꞋa! That’s why Avᵊrâ•hâmꞋ’s homestead ranch is still called Bᵊeir ShëvꞋa today!
But it was Avᵊrâ•hâmꞋ’s desperation to defend his last-stand Bᵊeir ShëvꞋa that drove him to consider the conventional last-ditch supplication—sacrifice of his first-born son, Yi•tzᵊkhâqꞋ. But, unlike the gods of the goy•imꞋ around him, was the sacrifice of his firstborn son what Avᵊrâ•hâmꞋ’s Singularity-Creator would want? There was only one way to find out. He would make a Khag to Har Mor•i•yâhꞋ, make a reasonable attempt to sacrifice his firstborn son, trust the Singularity-Creator to make the question of human sacrifice clear to him and see what would transpire. As he hoped, an extraordinary vicarious sacrifice presented itself at the A•qeid•âhꞋ and the rest is history.
While still mysterious and incomprehensible to many of today’s Dark-Ages-mindset rabbis (and all other theologians as well), the reason for specifying different animals for different sacrifices, once the ancient misconceptions are filtered out, becomes ridiculously simple. If the key issue was a nëphꞋësh in the dâm, then why not sacrifice a wolf? A rhinoceros? Or a zebra? A lion? A cat? An elephant? Or a crocodile?
Livestock animals were “money” in ancient times; different livestock animals equivalent to different, large, denominations of currency today. Since different severities of violations mandated correspondingly different valuations of fines, payment of these different fines required different “denominations of livestock property” The violator's financial and social standing was also taken into account. Violation of a minor prohibition might mandate a fine judged to be a dove, a vessel of wine, a loaf of bread or even a cracker. Violation of something more serious might be judged to require payment of a goat, etc. Offerings were also made in this currency of livestock, supplemented by lesser kâ•sheirꞋ food items or coins.
There’s nothing inherently vicarious (hence, neither animist, nor anthropomorphic nor idolatrous) about payment of a court fine, even when the fine is valuated in the ancient currency of domestic livestock. Ta•na"khꞋ-compatible sacrifice per se, therefore, despite being so similar in appearance to Egyptian and other ancient idolatrous (animist and anthropomorphic) sacrifices, was a required act demonstrating, proving, one’s tᵊshuv•âhꞋ; not anything idolatrous or prohibited. Only anthropomorphic beliefs about sacrifices were, and remain, prohibited.
The court fine, (an imposed debt), was the khat•âtꞋ—what anthropomorphic Christian idolaters pervert into “blood atonement”—that satisfied the Ta•na"khꞋ debt requirement of tᵊshuv•âhꞋ in exchange for ki•pūrꞋ, which, Ta•na"khꞋ stipulates, was a “gift” of the khein of é‑‑ä in return for tᵊshuv•âhꞋ. There was no magic in blood nor “blood atonement”; only animism, anthropomorphism and idolatry.
The hiph•ilꞋ (äÄ÷ÀøÄéá), caused to converge, is used in a way that was obvious in the Biblical era but mystifying millennia after the cessation of sacrifices. The sacrifices were slaughtered and butchered according to kâ•shᵊr•ūtꞋ before being taken to the mi•zᵊbeiꞋakh. So this isn’t referring to herding or goading an animal up the ramp to the altar. Rather, the causation was the violation of some precept of Tōr•âhꞋ that resulted in a court-ordered fine as prescribed by Tōr•âhꞋ, which took into account both the gravity of the violation and the violator’s financial ability—before banks. While coins were used for small things, larger amounts of worth were enumerated in terms of kâ•sheirꞋ livestock. Thus, a violation of Tōr•âhꞋ ultimately caused the consequent convergence of the sacrifice livestock (or dove).
So the sacrifice system, while not innately evil per se (as long as it was limited to demonstrating tᵊshuv•âhꞋ), lingered beyond its usefulness as currency, evolving into a non-essential source of persistent descent into anthropomorphism/idolatry; a misunderstood inheritance from earlier goy•imꞋ from which—the Nᵊviy•imꞋ prophesied—Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ must eventually be weaned, not to be resurrected after the destruction of the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ and yō•khas•inꞋ! Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu ha-Nâ•viꞋ prophesied (56.7) a Beit Tᵊphil•âhꞋ, not yet another Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ!
Consequently, while payment of a court fine in contemporary currency remains Ta•na"khꞋ-compatible unchanged, äÈòåÉìÈí äÄùÑÀúÌÇðÌÈä (mundus mutatus)—some of the procedures Mōsh•ëhꞋ necessarily allowed subsequently reverted back into part of the anthropomorphic idolatrous perspectives of the Egyptians, Mesopotamians, et al.
Moreover, the currency has changed. Virtually the entire world today pays court fines in some national currency other than domestic livestock.
Hence, the only remaining vestiges of animal sacrifice—the anthropomorphic/idolatrous aspects—were never Ta•na"khꞋ-compatible. Yet, a demonstration of tᵊshuv•âhꞋ remains valid and required for ki•pūrꞋ. Neither é‑‑ä nor HisTa•na"khꞋ have changed; äÈòåÉìÈí äÄùÑÀúÌÇðÌÈä (mundus mutatus)
When we reread Scripture with this awareness, we see that the meaning of passages like Shᵊm•ōtꞋ 30.10 should be understood not in the sense of magical, mystical or supernatural (idolatrous) “blood-atonement” ki•pūrꞋ, but rather ki•pūrꞋ resulting from the obedient demonstration of tᵊshuv•âhꞋ in the currency of the time (the blood being no more than collateral hard physical evidence that tᵊshuv•âhꞋ was carried out)—into which still-unknown (at the time—and even today in anti-knowledge “religious” circles), anthropomorphic remnants remained of the idolatry inherited from the surrounding goy•imꞋ.
This logic (ìåÉâÄé÷Èä, not fallacious Talmudic ñÀáÈøÈà or äÄâÌÈéåÉï, both rife with errors of limited ancient knowledge) holds throughout Ta•na"khꞋ, including the descriptions of hâ-Ō•lâmꞋ ha-Bâ (in Yᵊkhë•zᵊq•eilꞋ 46, et al.). All apparent-anthropomorphisms in Ta•na"khꞋ can only be knowledge-obsolesced allegories described in the writer’s contemporary archaic environment, not physical anthropomorphisms (idolatries).
Shᵊm•ōtꞋ 30.10 is a good example of a verse that, at first glimpse, seems to unequivocally require “blood atonement”—especially in non-Hebrew, preconceived Hellenist distortions infused in Greek and subsequent translations from the original Hebrew language. Translating literally:
“So A•ha•rōnꞋ shall have blotted-away-transgression on the qarᵊn•ōtꞋ of [the mi•zᵊbeiꞋakh] once that year. He shall continue-blotting-away-transgression from the dâm of the khat•âtꞋ [Yōm] ha-Ki•pūr•imꞋ
Note Shᵊm•ōtꞋ 30.10—Except for the Tei•mân•imꞋ, who were forcibly alienated and excluded from their surrounding Arabic culture, every Judaic community was assimilated by their respective surrounding cultures, evolving the phrase “Yom Kipper” (Hellenized to “Day of Atonement/Expiation” [sing.]). The original phrase derived from this verse, Yōm ha-Ki•pūr•imꞋ (“Day of Blottings-away”), by contrast, is plural. Thus, it isn’t logically justified to derive the plural Ki•pūr•imꞋ from the singular sacrifice (a fortiori, nor its blood)!What is plural on this day are the demonstrations of tᵊshuv•âhꞋ, throughout Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ, which enable Ki•pūr•imꞋ (pl.)—not anthropomorphic “blood atonement” [sing.], from a single (being a fast day) animal sacrifice, as inherited from and practiced by the surrounding anthropomorphic idolaters and from which Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ has already twice been weaned.
Bottom line: ki•pūrꞋ has always emanated, now emanates, and shall always emanate exclusively from demonstrated tᵊshuv•âhꞋ, not Hellenist idolaters’ “blood atonement” from an animist blood-sacrifice that implies anthropomorphism. Consequently, not only does ki•pūrꞋ not depend on blood-sacrifice (eliminating the raison d'être for a Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ and pointing toward the “Beit Tᵊphil•âhꞋ for all kindreds” of Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu 56.7), returning to an anthropomorphic temple and idolatrous animal sacrifices is prohibited by Tōr•âhꞋ!
The animal had to be inspected and designated as an acceptable sacrifice by a kō•heinꞋ.
Sᵊmikh•âhꞋ — sacrificer voluntarily resting hands on the head of the sacrifice animal and pronouncing vi•dūꞋi; which thereby enabled ki•pūrꞋ for the stipulated transgression through the subsequent, all important, demonstrated tᵊshuv•âhꞋ.
Shᵊkhit•âhꞋ (slaughter by a shō•kheitꞋ)
Qa•bâl•âhꞋ (accepting, receiving) — the dâm, physical evidence of demonstrated tᵊshuv•âhꞋ, must be caught in a bowl by a kō•heinꞋ.
Hōlᵊkh•âhꞋ (going, walking) — with the blood to the mi•zᵊbeiꞋakh
Zᵊriq•âhꞋ (throwing, spattering) — of the dâm, by a kō•heinꞋ, on the mi•zᵊbeiꞋakh.
Nothing happens without é‑‑ä allowing it. Ergo, é‑‑ä weaned Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ from an anthropomorphic temple—twice! It could only have been é‑‑ä Who allowed mortals to destroy both Bât•eiꞋ-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ!
Further, since Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ refused to be weaned from even the second anthropomorphic temple, it could, yet again, only have been é‑‑ä Who allowed mortals (the Hellenist Romans) to destroy, as well, the yō•khas•inꞋ—and, thereby, the legitimacy of all kō•han•imꞋ (since without their genealogies, Ta•lᵊmudꞋ declares that their legitimacy is forever thereafter null and void—until a magical messiah puts Humpty-Dumpty back together again).
When science distinguished that O2 wasn’t equivalent to a ðÆôÆùÑ, the whole fear of consuming an animal’s ðÆôÆùÑ, along with the procedure of pouring the perceived ðÆôÆùÑ out on the ground, or burning it into physical smoke (seeming to transform into nothing), to return to the Creator is exposed to be an error in physics. We know today that the ðÆôÆùÑ is a physically undetectable entity that cannot be poured out nor splattered on an altar in blood and certainly isn’t locked in the blood.
In order to be in the same non-dimensional domain to be transferable (i.e. returned) to the non-physical and non-dimensional Creator, the transferral mechanism would have to, likewise, be non-physical and non-dimensional (as the ancients thought air, O2 and vanishing smoke also were). In this light, the blood-expiation transference to a substitutionary animal sacrifice, designed to be physically savory with fragrant aroma is exposed as animist—and shows that it was aimed at appeasing a physical god—anthropomorphic (idolatrous).
It’s even simpler to recognize the anthropomorphism inherent in attempting to equate and trade physical O2 for spiritual atonement. Even more anthropomorphic (idolatrous), to supplicate the non-dimensional Creator-Singularity with the anthropomorphic smell of meat grilling on the altar; attempting to bribe the non-dimensional Creator-Singularity with a bit of anthropomorphic physical meat, some wine and baked goods.
In every case (except PësꞋakh, whose purpose is not sacrifice at all, but a feast in commemoration of the great “Tenth Plague” deception of Egyptian soldiers), these were khat•âtꞋ tᵊshuv•âhꞋ payments to the court (or simple charitable offerings) via the kō•han•imꞋ. Any taking of animal life, while sometimes necessary, is required to treated as sacred; a ðÆôÆùÑ provided by é‑‑ä. (It is no less incumbent upon modern people today to treat “meat” with this sanctity; in a kâ•sheirꞋ sacred, reverent and thankful manner—instead of like a slab of potato or turnip found on a supermarket shelf. Veggies, too, are life from é‑‑ä that don’t prompt proper thanksgiving among most people today.)
This, and similar, ceremonies—displacing idolatrous animistic beliefs with abstract symbolism—satisfy the criteria of the necessary transition, patiently administered (Kha•z”lꞋ note consistently), to wean a “stiff-necked” Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ, in stages and over time, from previous rites of purification inherited from the Egyptians and the other ancient goy•imꞋ of the Middle East.
According to the surrounding goy•imꞋ of that era, “In theory, the king, as the highest priest of the land, approached the sanctuary where the statue stood three times each day (in actuality, the high priest of the temple, accompanied by choirs of temple singers and ranks of other priests, substituted for the king). He opened the doors of the shrine that enclosed the statue and performed purification rituals. The cult statue was washed, anointed with perfumes, and dressed in clothes and necklaces. Food and drink were laid before the image of the god for divine sustenance. After a suitable interval for the god to consume the offerings, they were removed and reverted to the temple staff.”
Ergo, Mōsh•ëhꞋ legislated prophylactic ablutions on the kō•han•imꞋ as representatives of é‑‑ä rather than as priests performing apotropaic ablutions on idol-gods—removing idol-gods from the equation. This transformed purification into a familiar ceremony rather than an animist process—thereby weaning Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ from gods and idols. (“Ceremonialism generally can be treated as an emphasis in the area of expressive behaviour, usually consistent with the animistic worldview and unlikely to displace it.”
)
Killing an animal thinking that it will serve as an atoning blood-soul exchange substitute for yourself, because you “sinned”, ascribes idolatrous anthropomorphic characteristics to é‑‑ä—and that’s blasphemy and idolatry. In addition to being idolatrous, victimization of a substitute is on the same basest level of kicking the dog or beating the wife after a bad day at work, as a substitute victim to vent upon. Vicarious blood atonement is a Stone Age belief, inherited from idolatrous goy•imꞋ and has no place in the advanced knowledge of the modern world.
Ta•na"khꞋ interpreted anthropomorphically is, de facto, self-contradicting. Ergo, any Scripture that has been interpreted anthropomorphically has been interpreted by mortals contrary to the Original Principles of é‑‑ä and must, therefore, be revisited, and re-derived in light of the most current knowledge from the Original Principles of Ta•na"khꞋ in the Way that excludes anthropomorphism.
“The refined sense of the [ðÆôÆùÑ]'s separation from God which is to be offset by another [ðÆôÆùÑ] ([in the dâm]) is certainly not inherent in the primitive [Avrahamic/Ta•na"khꞋ] conception. Moreover, the [khat•âtꞋ] is never presented for grave moral offenses… In this connection the ceremony of [sᵊmikh•âhꞋ] is discovered to be only one of the many symbolic rites, abundant in primitive jurisprudence, whereby acquisition or abandonment of property is expressed. In the case of the sacrifices it implies absolute relinquishment ("manumissio"). The animal reverts thereby to its original owner—God.”
Thus, persons or items were thought to be made holy by charging up their holy item, or recharging their ðÆôÆùÑ, by “donating” a supplemental ðÆôÆùÑ to the Creator via returning it to the earth. In early thinking, when all else had failed, the ultimate donor was another human.
The propriety of the sacrifice system, given the idolatrous extra-Avrahamic societies of the ancient Middle East and the later Egyptian experience, which Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ had assimilated (and to which Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ repeatedly reverted), was not straight-forward. The difference between when sacrifice is Ta•na"khꞋ-compatible, and when not, hinges both on the concept of vicariousness and soul-blood “sin” transfer.
What Mōsh•ëhꞋ and his contemporary leading scientists considered anthropomorphic as opposed to scientific reality, and what we know today to be merely anthropomorphic as opposed to scientific reality, has changed due to our more advanced knowledge of science and reality. The mortal author of wa-Yi•qᵊr•âꞋ 17.11, limited to the ancient scientific knowledge of his day, clearly could not have been accurately echoing the Immutable and Omniscient Creator-Singularity, é‑‑ä. Seeing that loss of blood, unchecked, always resulted in death, ancient scientists reasoned that the ðÆôÆùÑ must return to the Creator in the blood. The mortal author’s reasoning was understandable given their level of knowledge, but his scientific premise (that the ðÆôÆùÑ was in the dâm) was false; making subsequent reasoning based on that false premise the logical fallacy of ex falso quodlibet.
The notion that the ðÆôÆùÑ was an element of every animal’s dâm, we know today, was simply O2. äÈòåÉìÈí äÄùÑÀúÌÇðÌÈä (mundus mutatus).
 of Idu, Giza 314x402.jpg "False door, Mastaba (Tomb) of Idu, Giza") |
| A |
As far as mortals, even modern scientists, can tell, whatever the life-force is, all evidence suggests, and there is no evidence to the contrary, that it derives from, and returns to our shared Creator-Singularity; but it cannot be merely a component of blood nor its return dependent upon a process of pouring blood on the ground nor burning it in fire.
And what use has é‑‑ä for meat, other food or coin? The very essence of offering a physical sacrifice to “god” is a manifestation of anthropomorphism, idolatry that is strictly prohibited by Ta•na"khꞋ!
Recognizing that the Creator-Singularity’s Will prevails in human affairs, His forbearance in allowing the destruction of the First (and then a Second) “Temple”—weaning Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ from making sacrifices—was a constructive mi•tzᵊwâhꞋ designed to wean Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ from both the idolatrous anthropomorphisms of a god emerging from a “sacred spirit mountain” into a “Temple” and from a god that (not “who”) can be placated—manipulated—by physical sacrifices of mortal wealth or machinations. The rabbis were right insofar as they recognized that charity had replaced sacrifice. äÈòåÉìÈí äÄùÑÀúÌÇðÌÈä (mundus mutatus)
 |
 Gadara—About 5 miles SE of the southern tip of Yâm Ki•nërꞋët, E of Nᵊhar Ya•rᵊd•einꞋ in modern Jordan. |
Even before the destruction of Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ ha-Shein•iꞋ, the account of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa’s encounter with ùÌÑÅãÄéí tells us only about the beliefs of the idolatrous Roman inhabitants of the Hellenist goy•imꞋ city of Gadara, who described the event.
The only thing ascribed to RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa is that he replied to the “demon-possessed men” (not to the ùÌÑÅãÄéí), “!ìÀëåÌ”, ordering the crazy threatening men who lived in tombs to leave. The RibꞋi never acknowledged any presence or existence of ùÌÑÅãÄéí.
Ram•ba"mꞋ acknowledged he didn’t know the reasoning underlying certain animals were specified as sacrifices. “Why a lamb and not a ram was chosen is an idle inquiry befitting fools, but not the serious-minded. (Moreh, 3.36.) … The sacrifices more especially are really not of Jewish origin. As during Moses' time it was the general custom among all men to worship by means of sacrifices”.
é‑‑ä, in His Wisdom, laid out the strategy, confirmed by the Nᵊviy•imꞋ, to wean Israel from sacrifices by stages. “The sacrificial service is not the primary object of the Law; but supplications, prayers, and the like are. Hence the restriction of the sacrifices to one locality, by which means [é‑‑ä] kept this particular kind of service within bounds.”
“According to Rambam, [é‑‑ä] ordained the sacrificial service in order to eradicate the deep-seated belief in idolatry and the alleged power of certain forms of animal life… The Egyptians worshiped images of sheep, believing that this would give power to the heavenly constellation of
Ariesthe Ram… To show honor to their deity, the Egyptians refrained from eating the meat of sheep. Similarly, other idolaters worship cattle… In deference to the constellation associated with cattle… those peoples would not slaughter or eat the meat of cattle.Therefore, the Tōr•âhꞋ commanded that offerings be brought from these species to the One [é‑‑ä], in order that it become publicly known that these animals are not to be worshiped…”
vs Anthropomorphic “Temple” & SacrificesBoth Bat•eiꞋ ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ Temples followed the architectural plan obviously handed down from Mōsh•ëhꞋ, replicating the main design features of the Mortuary Temple of Egyptian Queen-Par•ohꞋ Khat-shepset: the 3-tiered courtyard, Sanctuary and Holiest Sanctuary that was built into a sacred mountain. The main concept of the architectural design of her mortuary temple, however, was the holiest sanctuary, which featured a wall into the sacred mountain from which their god—or one of the invisible spirits—was hoped to emerge when beckoned.
Prior to the building of the Bat•eiꞋ ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ Temples, the Israeli heads of households built their own family altars and made their own sacrifices. With 20-20 hindsight, it’s clear that, in constraining Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ to a single, centralized national location for sacrifices, é‑‑ä was weaning Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ in stages from a lingering anthropomorphic idolatry inherited millennia earlier from the surrounding goy•imꞋ. Likewise, the Romans’ destruction of the anthropomorphic Temple and the yō•khas•inꞋ of the kō•han•imꞋ who perpetuated the anthropomorphic (idolatrous) practice of sacrifices could only occur by the Forbearance of é‑‑ä—finally fully weaning Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ from anthropomorphism.
This also prepared Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ for the Beit Tᵊphil•âhꞋ prophesied by Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu (56.6-8); not yet-another anthropomorphic Temple of anthropomorphic sacrifices! Unlike superficial literalist interpretations, the original principles of é‑‑ä and Tōr•âhꞋ never change. Rather, äÈòåÉìÈí äÄùÑÀúÌÇðÌÈä (mundus mutatus)!
Every PësꞋakh, news media show videos of Orthodox Jews near Har ha-BaꞋyit “sacrificing” a PësꞋakh kid or lamb. Orthodox Jews wouldn’t be doing this if it were included among the sacrifices limited to the “Temple” and yō•khas•inꞋ-authenticated kō•han•imꞋ.
The PësꞋakh sacrifice is entirely different in kind. From its inception, it was never intended as a sacrifice offered to any god. Rather, this was an animal sacrificed in order to provide blood to spatter around the front door so that Egyptian soldiers, who were checking every home to enforce the Par•ohꞋ’s command that every family sacrifice their firstborn son, would see the blood around the door and assume the command had been carried out—and “skip (pass) over” that household. Families had to eat the kid or lamb in its entirety to “get rid of the evidence” of the deception that delivered the lives of the firstborn sons of all of Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ. Even the Par•ohꞋ sacrificed his firstborn son. The Tenth Plague!
Today’s commemorations are not sacrifices. They are annual commemorative feasts recalling the great deception of the Tenth Plague, which enabled Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ to escape the Par•ohꞋ’s firstborn-sacrifice decree. Butchering a kid or lamb for PësꞋakh is a commemoration, like killing the turkey is to the American Thanksgiving holiday; not a sacrifice offering at all. Hence, it wasn’t ended, nor even interrupted, by the destruction of the “Temples” nor the destruction of the yō•khas•inꞋ. The mi•tzᵊwâhꞋ remains valid and open-ended.
 |
|
 |
