Jewish Interpretation of Psalm 51:5

[Augustine3]

Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me. - Psalm 51:5

We Christians understand this to be a reference to original sin. How do Jews interpret it?

 

[meltzerboy]

Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me. - Psalm 51:5

We Christians understand this to be a reference to original sin. How do Jews interpret it?

First of all, in the Hebrew Bible (OT), there are too many other verses to the contrary: read Genesis 8:21, Ezekiel 18:20, Jeremiah 3:25, Isaiah 7:15, and Ecclesiastes 12:7, for example. There are even verses in the New Testament which some Christians claim contradict this notion, such as in Hebrews and Corinthians, but I have much less knowledge of the meaning of these.

Second, the verses come from David’s penitential Psalms, so that the language is thought to be figurative (just as the whole Book of Psalms is poetical) and thus put into the mouth of the child. The reference to sin is applicable to David’s adulterous affair with Bathsheba. IOW, it is the mother, as well as David, who committed the sin rather than her baby.

Finally, the notion of free will, choice, and sin in Judaism is a matter of human development up to the age of responsibility. The newborn is not regarded in any way as sinful, or the inheritor of sin, until s/he is capable of choice. Although there are genetic and environmental influences on the baby from birth, the baby’s own soul, given by G-d and not their parents or their environment, is essentially sinless.

In sum, a careful reading of these verses in the context of the psalm itself, the whole Book of Psalms and other books of the Hebrew Bible, as well as an appreciation of the style of language used and the concept of free will as it relates to sin, demonstrates that this particular verse can hardly be taken as a proof-text for the doctrine of original sin.

 

[Augustine3]

First of all, in the Hebrew Bible (OT), there are too many other verses to the contrary: read Genesis 8:21, Ezekiel 18:20, Jeremiah 3:25, Isaiah 7:15, and Ecclesiastes 12:7, for example. There are even verses in the New Testament which some Christians claim contradict this notion, such as in Hebrews and Corinthians, but I have much less knowledge of the meaning of these.

Second, the verses come from David’s penitential Psalms, so that the language is thought to be figurative (just as the whole Book of Psalms is poetical) and thus put into the mouth of the child. The reference to sin is applicable to David’s adulterous affair with Bathsheba. IOW, it is the mother, as well as David, who committed the sin rather than her baby.

Finally, the notion of free will, choice, and sin in Judaism is a matter of human development up to the age of responsibility. The newborn is not regarded in any way as sinful, or the inheritor of sin, until s/he is capable of choice. Although there are genetic and environmental influences on the baby from birth, the baby’s own soul, given by G-d and not their parents or their environment, is essentially sinless.

In sum, a careful reading of these verses in the context of the psalm itself, the whole Book of Psalms and other books of the Hebrew Bible, as well as an appreciation of the style of language used and the concept of free will as it relates to sin, demonstrates that this particular verse can hardly be taken as a proof-text for the doctrine of original sin.

Easy cowboy I was not opening the door to polemics, I was merely curious how Jews interpret this verse (perhaps I should have worded my original post differently!).

Thanks for your response though

BTW – I don’t see how Genesis 8:21 is contrary to the doctrine of original sin especially when it says “desires of man’s heart are evil from the start”. That fits in perfectly with original sin. I suppose it all comes down to our dispositions when interpreting a text.

 

[meltzerboy]

Easy cowboy I was not opening the door to polemics, I was merely curious how Jews interpret this verse (perhaps I should have worded my original post differently!).

Thanks for your response though

BTW – I don’t see how Genesis 8:21 is contrary to the doctrine of original sin especially when it says “desires of man’s heart are evil from the start”. That fits in perfectly with original sin. I suppose it all comes down to our dispositions when interpreting a text.

I didn’t take your post as a polemical debate and mine wasn’t intended to be so either. I was just trying to present a cogent argument that expresses the Jewish viewpoint on original sin: hence my beginning with “first of all.” I guess one’s tone can often be misinterpreted in print. The Genesis passage must be interpreted in the context of other passages that point to the lack of inheritance of sin despite the presence of an evil inclination some time in childhood, but not at birth. This “evil inclination,” which accompanies the “good inclination,” is described in Judaism as an aggressive but necessary need for survival, that is not “evil” per se as we commonly define the word, but can become so when it is misused.

 

[DelsonJacobs]

Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me. - Psalm 51:5

We Christians understand this to be a reference to original sin. How do Jews interpret it?

While I can’t speak as a member of Judaism itself, as a Catholic who is a Sephardic Jew, ethnically speaking, I can repeat what I have learned and may be able to say in it a way that a Catholic audience would understand.

It isn’t that the Jews don’t believe in “original sin” per se, namely that Adam and Eve did not pass on a “spiritual” aspect of them that included iniquity. Just as physical traits can be passed on to the next generation, some Jews believe that spiritual traits–both good and bad–can be passed on as well.

This is one of several ways that Jews might interpret Psalm 51:1. (Be aware that in Judaism itself there are many ways to interpret a Scripture and likely no agreement on an “official” interpretation, so don’t expect to find that.)

Does this understanding equal the Catholic understanding of “original sin”? No. Whereas Catholics teach that the original sin of Adam and Eve placed humanity in such a dire situation with no way out from the effects of sin on their own, Jews do not see it that way.

While they do not deny that it could be said that Adam and Eve introduced sin as part of the human experience, they do not believe that this would make it impossible for any of their offspring to have a righteous standing before God on their own merit. Many Jews view Abraham himself as being righteous and meritorious enough on his own standing.

Of course Catholics and Christians in general see things from a bit of a different perspective than Jews on many details, such as what righteousness entails and what it does not. Also it is often a matter of semantics when discussing these matters, a problem that is difficult to solve among members of Judaism let alone an interchange between Jews and Christians. The matter may not be one easily solved because it is sort of like trying to make an AC current match with DC.

And there is also the matter of how difficult it is to understand the matter from a Jewish perspective when history is filled with Christians trying to save Jews via forced conversions, torture, and death. (Members in my own family line were treated horribly and even killed during the Spanish Inquisition, even though some of my ancestors were among the first Christians in history before any Gentiles came into the Catholic Church–many of us were even practicing Catholics during the time of the Spanish Inquisition and still persecuted!) Thus the Christian doctrine of “original sin” has for centuries come with demands of “conversion,” a conversion which often included giving up all of Jewish culture and identity–that is until lately.

For 2000 years almost you could have Irish-Catholics, Mexican-Catholics, Italian-Catholics, etc., but a Jew who accepted Yeshua as the Messiah?..even though it’s a Jewish concept and not a Gentile one, we have been told and even forced to give up everything about our culture in favor of losing all to be like the rest of the world.

A gospel of “salvation” becomes hard to believe under these circumstances, don’t you think? How many things do you believe from people who are hurtful towards you?

Of interest, however, is the Jewish understanding of the ability of any person to rise above the sin of their parents and ancestors (a very formidable belief of Judaism that also seems contrary to “original sin”). Judaism teaches that we don’t have to give in to our base nature, even if this is “inherited.” We have a choice to do what is right with God’s strength.

As Catholics we may want to ask ourselves: Will I rise above what Christians have acted like in the past? Are we as Christians free from making amends for the many crimes made by fellow members of our faith of yesteryear or should we take a more penitent stand? How can I prevent myself from these mistakes of yesterday and prevent others from doing the same? Are burned bridges really impossible to build back up again?

Whatever answers you choose, remember, both Catholics and Jews see the plight of the psalmist in 51:5 as a reality for all, you and me. The real question is: What choices will we make to rise above sin?

 

[meltzerboy]

While I can’t speak as a member of Judaism itself, as a Catholic who is a Sephardic Jew, ethnically speaking, I can repeat what I have learned and may be able to say in it a way that a Catholic audience would understand.

It isn’t that the Jews don’t believe in “original sin” per se, namely that Adam and Eve did not pass on a “spiritual” aspect of them that included iniquity. Just as physical traits can be passed on to the next generation, some Jews believe that spiritual traits–both good and bad–can be passed on as well.

This is one of several ways that Jews might interpret Psalm 51:1. (Be aware that in Judaism itself there are many ways to interpret a Scripture and likely no agreement on an “official” interpretation, so don’t expect to find that.)

Does this understanding equal the Catholic understanding of “original sin”? No. Whereas Catholics teach that the original sin of Adam and Eve placed humanity in such a dire situation with no way out from the effects of sin on their own, Jews do not see it that way.

While they do not deny that it could be said that Adam and Eve introduced sin as part of the human experience, they do not believe that this would make it impossible for any of their offspring to have a righteous standing before God on their own merit. Many Jews view Abraham himself as being righteous and meritorious enough on his own standing.

Of course Catholics and Christians in general see things from a bit of a different perspective than Jews on many details, such as what righteousness entails and what it does not. Also it is often a matter of semantics when discussing these matters, a problem that is difficult to solve among members of Judaism let alone an interchange between Jews and Christians. The matter may not be one easily solved because it is sort of like trying to make an AC current match with DC.

And there is also the matter of how difficult it is to understand the matter from a Jewish perspective when history is filled with Christians trying to save Jews via forced conversions, torture, and death. (Members in my own family line were treated horribly and even killed during the Spanish Inquisition, even though some of my ancestors were among the first Christians in history before any Gentiles came into the Catholic Church–many of us were even practicing Catholics during the time of the Spanish Inquisition and still persecuted!) Thus the Christian doctrine of “original sin” has for centuries come with demands of “conversion,” a conversion which often included giving up all of Jewish culture and identity–that is until lately.

For 2000 years almost you could have Irish-Catholics, Mexican-Catholics, Italian-Catholics, etc., but a Jew who accepted Yeshua as the Messiah?..even though it’s a Jewish concept and not a Gentile one, we have been told and even forced to give up everything about our culture in favor of losing all to be like the rest of the world.

A gospel of “salvation” becomes hard to believe under these circumstances, don’t you think? How many things do you believe from people who are hurtful towards you?

Of interest, however, is the Jewish understanding of the ability of any person to rise above the sin of their parents and ancestors (a very formidable belief of Judaism that also seems contrary to “original sin”). Judaism teaches that we don’t have to give in to our base nature, even if this is “inherited.” We have a choice to do what is right with God’s strength.

As Catholics we may want to ask ourselves: Will I rise above what Christians have acted like in the past? Are we as Christians free from making amends for the many crimes made by fellow members of our faith of yesteryear or should we take a more penitent stand? How can I prevent myself from these mistakes of yesterday and prevent others from doing the same? Are burned bridges really impossible to build back up again?

Whatever answers you choose, remember, both Catholics and Jews see the plight of the psalmist in 51:5 as a reality for all, you and me. The real question is: What choices will we make to rise above sin?

Very informative post from your special vantage point. I would only add that the act of “rising above one’s sins with G-d’s strength” entails making some effort to seek forgiveness from G-d as well as making amends toward those we have wronged. Achieving a state of sinless perfection is not the issue in Judaism, but rather the effort exerted–often in small increments–in the right direction. Also, as you probably know, the terms “salvation” and “redemption” have very different meanings in Judaism compared to their meanings in Catholicism and Christianity in general.

 

[DelsonJacobs]

Very informative post from your special vantage point. I would only add that the act of “rising above one’s sins with G-d’s strength” entails making some effort to seek forgiveness from G-d as well as making amends toward those we have wronged. Achieving a state of sinless perfection is not the issue in Judaism, but rather the effort exerted–often in small increments–in the right direction. Also, as you probably know, the terms “salvation” and “redemption” have very different meanings in Judaism compared to their meanings in Catholicism and Christianity in general.

Agreed.

 

[LivingWaters7]

Also, as you probably know, the terms “salvation” and “redemption” have very different meanings in Judaism compared to their meanings in Catholicism and Christianity in general.

I’m curious about this. So, Jews do not believe that the Adam and Eve events resulted in original sin being passed on to all of humanity. So, Judaism wouldn’t accept the need of a Savior as understood in Christianity, right? How are the terms “salvation” and “redemption” understood in Judaism? What did “the Fall” result in, according to Judaism? Christians tend to view the practice of animal sacrifice in the OT as prefiguring the atoning sacrifice of Christ in the NT. How do Jews view that relationship, especially when animal sacrifice is no longer performed?

If this is off topic or too long to answer, a link to an article would be much appreciated.

Thanks!

 

[chosen_people]

Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me. - Psalm 51:5

We Christians understand this to be a reference to original sin. How do Jews interpret it?

The verse in the Tanach to which your refer appears as verse 7 (not verse 5) of psalm 51 as in some Christian editions of the Jewish scriptures.

ז הֵן-בְּעָווֹן חוֹלָלְתִּי; וּבְחֵטְא, יֶחֱמַתְנִי אִמִּי.

“Behold, in iniquity was I fashioned and in sin did my mother conceive me”

Ibn Ezra explains: The impulses which can cause man to sin are present in him from his inception. It is man’s duty to control and channel them properly.

 

[DelsonJacobs]

I’m curious about this. So, Jews do not believe that the Adam and Eve events resulted in original sin being passed on to all of humanity. So, Judaism wouldn’t accept the need of a Savior as understood in Christianity, right? How are the terms “salvation” and “redemption” understood in Judaism? What did “the Fall” result in, according to Judaism? Christians tend to view the practice of animal sacrifice in the OT as prefiguring the atoning sacrifice of Christ in the NT. How do Jews view that relationship, especially when animal sacrifice is no longer performed?

If this is off topic or too long to answer, a link to an article would be much appreciated.

Thanks!

You need to think “outside the [Catholic] box” to understand what Judaism is, and especially what it is NOT saying about this.

“The Fall,” “salvation,” and “redemption” as we as Catholics understand them do not even exist in Judaism.

So if you don’t have “the Fall” as we as Catholics understand it, then the following concepts of “salvation” and “redemption” don’t come in.

However, this doesn’t mean that Judaism is without the concept of a messiah that comes to “set all things right” for both Israel and the Gentiles. It does indeed, and in fact that is where Catholicism got its doctrines of “the Fall,” “salvation,” and “redemption.”

But saying that these concepts are directly built upon Judaism’s theology may not be completely accurate, especially in light of the fact that there is no consensus among Jews about topics that don’t exist. It’s really a lot more complex than what I just explained above, too. It’s similar to explaining color to a someone who does not see color and the other party trying to explain depth to someone who is has stereo-blindness (cannot see in 3D). There is no real comparison or middle ground in theological terms.

So as Catholics we shouldn’t ask how Judaism therefore explains concepts it does not even deal with or have. Instead we need to try to understand Judaism on its own terms and not demand it have the facets that Catholicism cannot do without. Doing so will actually help us understand our beliefs better as well as build strong roads of trusting communication.

 

[LivingWaters7]

You need to think “outside the [Catholic] box” to understand what Judaism is, and especially what it is NOT saying about this.

“The Fall,” “salvation,” and “redemption” as we as Catholics understand them do not even exist in Judaism.

So if you don’t have “the Fall” as we as Catholics understand it, then the following concepts of “salvation” and “redemption” don’t come in.

However, this doesn’t mean that Judaism is without the concept of a messiah that comes to “set all things right” for both Israel and the Gentiles. It does indeed, and in fact that is where Catholicism got its doctrines of “the Fall,” “salvation,” and “redemption.”

But saying that these concepts are directly built upon Judaism’s theology may not be completely accurate, especially in light of the fact that there is no consensus among Jews about topics that don’t exist. It’s really a lot more complex than what I just explained above, too. It’s similar to explaining color to a someone who does not see color and the other party trying to explain depth to someone who is has stereo-blindness (cannot see in 3D). There is no real comparison or middle ground in theological terms.

So as Catholics we shouldn’t ask how Judaism therefore explains concepts it does not even deal with or have. Instead we need to try to understand Judaism on its own terms and not demand it have the facets that Catholicism cannot do without. Doing so will actually help us understand our beliefs better as well as build strong roads of trusting communication.

Thank you (I’m not Catholic, btw).

I was directly responding to the poster, meltzerboy, that said that “the terms ‘salvation’ and ‘redemption’ have very different meanings in Judaism compared to their meanings in Catholicism and Christianity in general.”, so I’m curious as to what those “very different meanings are”, as well as the Jewish understanding of the so-called “Fall”, and the purpose of animal sacrifice, which Christians would interpret as prefiguring Christ’s sacrifice.

So, my entire line of questioning is in understanding those concepts and events within the Jewish understanding (the “very different meanings” that meltzerboy referred to), and not seeking for it to have facets of Catholicism (especially when I’m not even Catholic and certainly don’t hold to Catholic understandings of those things!).

 

[MaryT777]

 

[DelsonJacobs]

Thank you (I’m not Catholic, btw).

I was directly responding to the poster, meltzerboy, that said that “the terms ‘salvation’ and ‘redemption’ have very different meanings in Judaism compared to their meanings in Catholicism and Christianity in general.”, so I’m curious as to what those “very different meanings are”, as well as the Jewish understanding of the so-called “Fall”, and the purpose of animal sacrifice, which Christians would interpret as prefiguring Christ’s sacrifice.

So, my entire line of questioning is in understanding those concepts and events within the Jewish understanding (the “very different meanings” that meltzerboy referred to), and not seeking for it to have facets of Catholicism (especially when I’m not even Catholic and certainly don’t hold to Catholic understandings of those things!).

Forgive me for the implication that you were Catholic.

While a far more precise answer on this will likely be forthcoming from meltzerboy, being that I am quite familiar with LDS theology (my best friend in the world was a Latter Day Saint and we were like brothers) the information I presented should work similarly with your questions as well.

In fact, from what I understand on the importance of eternity to the theological paradigm of Mormons, it may be a bit of hard pill to swallow in the sense of comprehension.

As one Jewish writer put it: “One must start with the awareness that salvation is not a Jewish concept, as it implies a focus on the afterlife, which is not [the] significant focus of Judaism…Judaism is about being good to be good and to have a healthy relationship with God, man, and oneself—not to be saved."–Social Culture Jewish Newgroups: www.scjfaq.org/faq/12-37.html

Therefore none of the concepts you are asking about even occur in Judaism whatsoever. Judaism is about doing good in the here and now through the Mosaic Law. Again I am sure meltzerboy will definitely do a better job at it than I ever could, but it still entails letting go of the concepts you are asking about.

A great encapsulation on it all was uttered by the Jewish character Howard Wolowitz on television’s The Big Bang Theory: “Jews don’t have Hell. We have acid reflux.”

 

[meltzerboy]

Forgive me for the implication that you were Catholic.

While a far more precise answer on this will likely be forthcoming from meltzerboy, being that I am quite familiar with LDS theology (my best friend in the world was a Latter Day Saint and we were like brothers) the information I presented should work similarly with your questions as well.

In fact, from what I understand on the importance of eternity to the theological paradigm of Mormons, it may be a bit of hard pill to swallow in the sense of comprehension.

As one Jewish writer put it: “One must start with the awareness that salvation is not a Jewish concept, as it implies a focus on the afterlife, which is not [the] significant focus of Judaism…Judaism is about being good to be good and to have a healthy relationship with God, man, and oneself—not to be saved."–Social Culture Jewish Newgroups: www.scjfaq.org/faq/12-37.html

Therefore none of the concepts you are asking about even occur in Judaism whatsoever. Judaism is about doing good in the here and now through the Mosaic Law. Again I am sure meltzerboy will definitely do a better job at it than I ever could, but it still entails letting go of the concepts you are asking about.

A great encapsulation on it all was uttered by the Jewish character Howard Wolowitz on television’s The Big Bang Theory: “Jews don’t have Hell. We have acid reflux.”

Exactly. The focus in Judaism is on the here and now, not the hereafter. The period of life from birth to death is the domain of concern rather than what may happen to us after death. The latter is regarded as speculation and something we are forbidden to ponder too much. No need to worry, though, since G-d will provide for all of us with mercy and justice in the World to Come. Our task, as you state, is to lead a moral life in accord with the teachings of the Torah. This means we must “repair” the world created by G-d, which is believed to contain, intentionally, holes of imperfection. This can be done by means of good works for others and (random) acts of kindness, the purpose of which is not to achieve personal salvation but to do what G-d wills us to do because it is the right thing. Such behavior can take a lifetime to learn, and we certainly backslide at times, but at the same time are capable of improvement provided we keep trying. G-d has redeemed us by providing His Law instructing us on how to lead a good life according to His will, and we can achieve salvation in this life for ourselves and, through our example, for others, by living according to G-d’s Law.

 

[benjohnson]

Exactly. The focus in Judaism is on the here and now, not the hereafter.

I’ve noticed this in my Jewish friends, that they seem to have a impetus to correcting errors right away - they make amends and restore the situation as fully as possible as quickly as possible.

Sometimes I would think it would be healthy for Christians to note how Jewish people perform acts of restitution, and perhaps emulate that aspect - that we (as a group) sometimes seek G-d’s forgiveness while we sometime neglect the restitution of those we have wronged.

 

[LivingWaters7]

Forgive me for the implication that you were Catholic.

While a far more precise answer on this will likely be forthcoming from meltzerboy, being that I am quite familiar with LDS theology (my best friend in the world was a Latter Day Saint and we were like brothers) the information I presented should work similarly with your questions as well.

In fact, from what I understand on the importance of eternity to the theological paradigm of Mormons, it may be a bit of hard pill to swallow in the sense of comprehension.

As one Jewish writer put it: “One must start with the awareness that salvation is not a Jewish concept, as it implies a focus on the afterlife, which is not [the] significant focus of Judaism…Judaism is about being good to be good and to have a healthy relationship with God, man, and oneself—not to be saved."–Social Culture Jewish Newgroups: www.scjfaq.org/faq/12-37.html

Therefore none of the concepts you are asking about even occur in Judaism whatsoever. Judaism is about doing good in the here and now through the Mosaic Law. Again I am sure meltzerboy will definitely do a better job at it than I ever could, but it still entails letting go of the concepts you are asking about.

A great encapsulation on it all was uttered by the Jewish character Howard Wolowitz on television’s The Big Bang Theory: “Jews don’t have Hell. We have acid reflux.”

Ok thanks again. I completely understand.

 

[LivingWaters7]

I guess what I’m wondering, without making this complicated, or having anyone read into my questions things that I’m not saying or thinking, is how do Jews view the events of the Garden of Eden involving Adam and Eve and eating the fruit? What is the Jewish understanding of their disobeying God? I’m assuming that Genesis is part of the Hebrew Bible, so I’m wondering how that is understood, especially since Jews do not hold to a belief in original sin.

Also, what was the purpose of animal sacrifice as we read in the OT (which again, I’m assuming is also read by Jews)? How do Jews today view it since it is no longer practiced? Did another practice replace it? Was there a relationship between animal sacrifice and atonement for sin?

 

[meltzerboy]

I guess what I’m wondering, without making this complicated, or having anyone read into my questions things that I’m not saying or thinking, is how do Jews view the events of the Garden of Eden involving Adam and Eve and eating the fruit? What is the Jewish understanding of their disobeying God? I’m assuming that Genesis is part of the Hebrew Bible, so I’m wondering how that is understood, especially since Jews do not hold to a belief in original sin.

Also, what was the purpose of animal sacrifice as we read in the OT (which again, I’m assuming is also read by Jews)? How do Jews today view it since it is no longer practiced? Did another practice replace it? Was there a relationship between animal sacrifice and atonement for sin?

Even in ancient times, forgiveness for intentional sins (with one exception) could only be atoned for by means of repentance, and not animal (blood) sacrifice. Only unintentional sins were atoned for by this means. Repentance–prayer to G-d and seeking restitution from others–was always the main instrument of forgiveness in Judaism.

Your first question is more complicated and I’ll get to that one later.

 

[LivingWaters7]

Even in ancient times, forgiveness for intentional sins (with one exception) could only be atoned for by means of repentance, and not animal (blood) sacrifice. Only unintentional sins were atoned for by this means. Repentance–prayer to G-d and seeking restitution from others–was always the main instrument of forgiveness in Judaism.

Your first question is more complicated and I’ll get to that one later.

Ok thanks! Yes, whenever you have the time, I’m interested.

 

[504Katrin]

I guess what I’m wondering, without making this complicated, or having anyone read into my questions things that I’m not saying or thinking, is how do Jews view the events of the Garden of Eden involving Adam and Eve and eating the fruit? What is the Jewish understanding of their disobeying God? I’m assuming that Genesis is part of the Hebrew Bible, so I’m wondering how that is understood, especially since Jews do not hold to a belief in original sin.

Meltzerboy will volunteer about Gan Eden and I’m already curious also.
May I offer my explantion until he returns. With the serpent came to Eve the zohamah, the spiritual polutant and all subsequent behaviour was poisened by the original sin of the tree of knowledge. When the Torah was given the zohamma was gone but returned with the sin of the golden calf, and ever since then we fight the zohamah and it will only be gone completely when Moshiach will come.

Also, what was the purpose of animal sacrifice as we read in the OT (which again, I’m assuming is also read by Jews)? How do Jews today view it since it is no longer practiced? Did another practice replace it? Was there a relationship between animal sacrifice and atonement for sin?

Offerings are now replaced by an additional service called just that: „Musaf“. In this service that follows the Torah reading we (orthodox rite) also read about the animal sacrifices and long for the Temple being rebuilt. As you know, back then when the Temple still stood sacrifes had been offered also in order to attone for sins. The animal offering was a symbolic act of self sacrifice, you didn’t just sacrifice the animal, but your inner self. And this goes all the way back to Abraham and Isaac. The inner act of self sacrifice is the binding of oneself onto the altar. Even though the ram was offered, Isaak took on its form and was sacrificed with it, because when the Angel had told Abraham not to touch his son, the inner sacrifice had already taken place when Abraham held the knife in his hand. The corbanot, the offerings to G-d, demand human sacrifice, as the binding of Isaac means the binding of man, but it demands it in the form of an animal. Sacrifice is a ransom for man who is obliged to offer himself to G-d. This is (in short) what the sinoffering is about.

Now that there’s no Temple right now - and only in the Temple were animals offered - the physical symbol is gone but the human, inner sacrifice and spiritual act remains in place. When Musaf is said (and of course not only then), man hands over his existence to Him, he approaches G-d in sacrifice and in binding himself to the alter and he gives himself over to G-d completely. There are many references that show that prayer would replace sacrifice. Most important of all, for me personally, is this reference in the Megilla that says that G-d said that since the Temple wouldn’t stand anymore, he would forgive our sins when we read the law of the offerings as if we had actually brought the offering. So to be forgiven you need to bind yourself onto the altar. You can pray Musaf all day long, if you don’t return to the L0rd your G-d you might have fullfilled your mizvah (obligation) but you might not have returned in a spiritual way. This idea to give yourself to G-d and return to G-d in prayer and repentance is and was the same, in ancient times as well as today. Maybe this is comparable to the unintentional or venial sins that are forgiven at the beginning of Mass when you pray?

It might also be intereseting to note that Abraham said to G-d after he already had the knife in his hand „Here I am“. These are the words if I’m not mistaken that every Catholic Priest says when he gets ordained and hands his life over to G-d.