Question on Ancient Judaism

T

TaylorTRoom

1,000+ Posts
OK, this is going to be a very weird question, but Hornfans has never let me down as the source of information. As I understand it, animal sacrifice ended in Judaism with the fall of the 2nd temple in the 1st century AD, and that until then sacrifices could only be done at the temple. Is that right?

Animal sacrifice requires cutting tools much like butchers or surgeons needed. Would the priests have their own collection of knives and saws, or would their be a "temple set"?

I told you this would be weird (churches are notably absent of stained glass images of the prophet Isaiah, in a blood-stained robe, holding a bone saw), but any help is appreciated.
 
I can't answer whether there were only temple sets or whether priests each had their own set. You are correct that sacrifices were only to be made at the temple. However, food preparation in general was controlled by a very strict process for everyone. Sacrifices and general food preparation were very similar in that the sacrifices in the temple served as a food source to the priests who were preparing and offering the sacrifices. There was the part that was burnt, but the other parts were consumed.

The name of the type of knife used to kill the animal was a ma'akelet. I may have misspelled the word but that is close. The word is derived from food or food preparation but it was the knife used to kill the sacrificial animal. They were typically very sharp. The animal's throat was slit and the blood was poured out. At least according to some of the rabinnic writings the ma'akelet was used in order to execute a quick and relatively painless death for the animal. I am guessing, but I would think the length would be somewhere on the order of 6-10 inches. But it was a very specific kind of knife which was used even as early as the days of Abraham. He precedes the Law and the temple, but maybe there is a clue to how common it would be to have the sacrificial utensils. Again, people were not make sacrifices anywhere but the temple, but people had to eat. Also, I think there may be an exception to that law that allowed one to make a sacrifice or carry out one of the Jewish feasts at one's own home location. I think I remember reading about some kind of exception in Leviticus some where, but I could be mistaken. From a faded memory again, those exception were for very specific circumstances. Another thing to think about regarding who had these types of implements is that after the split the kings of Israel set up places to sacrifice in Samaria and maybe a couple more cities to keep the people from going down to Jerusalem. So at least after Solomon you had multiple sites where there were sacrifices taking place.
 
Look, Puddle Cruiser, I knew my question was weird, but was it really so weird as to inspire you to pile on with that?
laugh.gif

Thanks for the info. I imagine at some point, as the area became more cosmopolitan, animal sacrifice probably became less emphasized in the worship. Perhaps it became a rote form rather than the focus of the holiday. Still, the Romans were still doing it then, right? I wonder when the Romans and Greeks stopped...
 
As far as the Jews were concerned, animal sacrifice was not affected by the size and sophistication of the city. The largest and most sophisticated was Jerusalem where basically all the sacrifices took place until the temple was destroyed, both times.
 
Battleship, the tabernacle was used for a very long time, true. From my understanding, the same sacrifices that had to be made at the temple, previously had to be made at the tabernacle, where ever that was.

I know there were lots of altars built around the area. What I am unclear on is whether or not sacrifices were made there and if so what kind?

It is pretty clear from Leviticus that atonement type sacrifices were to be performed by on-duty priests, all of whom were at the tabernacle. Let me know.
 
Battleship, my assumption was that we were discussing the time of Moses and after. The rules I mentioned did not exist at all until Moses and Aaron. So we are in total agreement there.

My question is about during the post-Moses time period when you had either the tabernacle or temple. You gave examples of people building altars. I agree, that altars are for the purpose of sacrifice in general. My question is in regard to what type of sacrifice was in view when these non-priest class people like Elijah built one. I know Saul was essentially cursed by God for carrying out sacrifices that he was not supposed to. I don't think he is the only one either. Elijah's altar/sacrifice is for the purpose of showing the Baal was a false god to the prophets of Baal. The "temple" sacrifices were specifically to make atonement for sin. There were various kinds but that is how I would summarize it. So my question is for any other non-temple/tabernacle sacrifices mentioned post-Moses what were there purposes and was there a negative consequence mention for the people who offered it.

For Elijah again, the purpose was to prove the LORD's existence and Baal's falsity. There was no negative consequence for him from God. The others? Do you know?
 
Yeah, when the land was parceled out, the levites were not given any block of areas. They were distributed through the tribes. I gather that they did the priestly duties locally, and that may have included sacrifices at scattered locations.

When the temple was built, the kings used it as a way to establish Jerusalem as the capitol- it became the official place for sacrifices. Now, there seemed to be a controversy about the northern kingdom, and whether it had an equivalent holy place. The priests in Israel seemed to think so, while their counterparts in Judah were sure Jerusalem was the only official place. This was settled when the northern kingdom fell.

As a side note wrt sacrifice- what a theological advancement it was when Moses established sacrifices as a "looking backward" giving of thanks, rather than a (primitive theology) "looking forward" act to elicit a certain behavior from a deity.
 
I don't believe the 48 towns were for the Levites to make sacrifices in. They were for them to live in when they were not in Jerusalem serving in the temple. There were many, many priests, so they all couldn't be at the temple at once. They all worked at the temple and when they were done with their "shift" went back to their hometown. At least that is how I remember it from Levitcus.
 
Thanks for the replies. A lot of people try to "clean up" the Old Testament, to make it more palatable to modern sentiments (I got in trouble with my wife when a friend was showing the Noah's Ark mural on her newborn's baby room. I asked where the pictures of the drowned people and happy sharks were.). I take another approach. I see the Old Testament as the story of a loving God taming, molding and even liberalizing a savage people. It's fascinating to think that the same guy who could write something as radical and beautiful as "Hosea" could also roll up the sleeves, grab a knife, and cut a sheep's throat on an altar, and that he could do it as easily as my pastor breaks the bread of the Host.
 
People also rarely talk about keepig slaves, having multiple wives, or stoning people to death. All of which are commonly mentioned in the old testament. But you BETTER keep Kosher.
 
Just to be clear, there is no command in the OT to enslave people or to have multiple wives. It happened of course, but God never told anyone to do that.

Stoning was commanded for people who broke the law in certain ways. I don't that was ever practiced widely though.
 
In jewish law, for an offense to be punished by stoning, the offense in question had to be eye-witnessed by two reputable men who were not related. Not only did these witnesses have to be able to see the crime, they had to be close enough to issue a warning AND have the offender acknowledge the warning PRIOR to the offense... after which point there would be a trial overseen by no less than 23 elders who would investigate the crime, ALL OF WHICH would have to agree in the verdict.

To receive the punishment of stoning (which doesn't mean having people throw rocks at you), you had to commit the crime in public, indicating in advance that you knew you could receive capital punishment. At this point you aren't talking about a crime of passion or a crime of need... more likely you are talking about a political crime.

Stonings were incredibly rare... and as far as state sponsored death penalties go, fairly humane... particularly when weighed against its contemporary punishments in other cultures.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict TEXAS-KENTUCKY *
Sat, Nov 23 • 2:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top