Judaism-Jesus Christ, and Atonement?

[LivingWaters7]

Recently I became aware of various arguments made by various Jewish apologists that aim to counter the validity of Christian claims in fulfilling OT prophecies and laws. Specifically, they focus on why Jesus Christ not only does not fit what they view the Messiah to be (and the prophecies of the Messiah to be fulfilled), but that the Christian understanding of sin and atonement is not in continuity with Judaism. They claim that such a sacrifice is not necessary, and that even when blood sacrifices were offered, there were other, non-bloody sacrifices offered for atonement in the Temple and elsewhere, including prayerful repentance (if I understand the argument correctly).

So, from my brief reading on this, it seems as if Judaism comes from an entirely different perspective on sin (including original sin), to the point where the Christian concept of atonement and the necessity of Christ’s atoning sacrifice aren’t necessary in their worldview. What are some thoughts on this matter? I’m interested in both Christian and Jewish perspectives. Is the fact that there Judaism has evolved throughout time relevant? Did the Judaism of the Biblical period (First and Second Temple Judaism?) differ on this from the Rabbinic Judaism of today?

 

[phil19034]

My wife is Jewish. From my understanding Rabbinic Judaism does differ from Judaism of the Biblical period (First and Second Temple Judaism?). The Torah did not take it’s currently form until around the year 100 AD. There were many groups of Jews in the time of Jesus, but today, most of them decend from one group (I can’t remember which). The Jewish perspective on sin is also difference because of their perspective on Hell can be different. Many Jews believed that the longest you would stay in Hell was for 11 or 12 months and then you would be reincarnated. This cycle would repeat until your soul was good enough to enter Heaven. Today, especially among some Reform Jews, the thing you must believe is that Christ is not the Messiah. Being an Athiest Jew is ok, but not one who beleives in Christ.

Catholics beleive in the Sacraments because Christ gave them to us. Christ corrected our ideas of sin and redemption. Since the Jews do not accept Christ, it’s not a stretch for Jews to view our beliefs as inconsistant with the Jewish people.

 

[daisychain]

I guess one could argue that the concept of original sin is really the law of karma as the “sins” we are born with are the unresolved issues we carry over from previous lives rooted in the “fall of Adam & Eve” or our separation from the Creator. So believing in reincarnation or original sin might not be that far off from each other…

 

[UbiCaritas15]

The daily unbloody sacrifices offered at the temple in the time of Jesus were incense, the bread of the presence, wine and oil.

On high holy days the temple saw the slaughter of thousands of animals. So much that there was a river of blood flowing out.

There were many ways of atonement. They all involved confession, the laying on of hands, a priest and a sacrifice. Leviticus (4,5,6) is full of the sacrificial observations.

 

[Augustine3]

Recently I became aware of various arguments made by various Jewish apologists that aim to counter the validity of Christian claims in fulfilling OT prophecies and laws. Specifically, they focus on why Jesus Christ not only does not fit what they view the Messiah to be (and the prophecies of the Messiah to be fulfilled), but that the Christian understanding of sin and atonement is not in continuity with Judaism. They claim that such a sacrifice is not necessary, and that even when blood sacrifices were offered, there were other, non-bloody sacrifices offered for atonement in the Temple and elsewhere, including prayerful repentance (if I understand the argument correctly).

What the Jews don’t tell you is that all of these sacrifices (except two) are meant for sins committed unintentionally. The two sacrifices (The Red Heifer and Day of Atonement) were obviously insufficient because they had to be repeated. The Day of Atonement had to be repeated every year on a set date no matter if the Jews were good or bad which furthermore shows the insufficiency of the sacrifice. Plus common sense tells us a finite animal sacrifice cannot make up for an infinite offence (infinite because God is the one who is offended).

All the sacrifices in the OT are primarily drawn from the olat-ha-tamid, “the standing (as in perpetual) burnt” offering (Exodus 29:38-46). This was a perpetual sacrifice of a burnt offering on the altar. One lamb was offered in the morning and another in the evening. The fire was never allowed to go out; the priest had the duty to ensure the sacrifice was ongoing every morning and evening and flame kept alight. Obviously Christ fulfils this sacrifice by offering his own body as the perpetual sacrifice. Just like the animals were drained of all their blood, so was Christ’s blood drained, proven by the spear of the soldier. How does Christ not fulfil this?

Jews have to be careful when approaching the text, they can fall into the trap of eisegesis rather than exegesis. Most approach the text with preconceived ideas about the expectancy of the Messiah and using their filters to forcing the text to mean it that way rather than allow the text to speak for itself.

 

[Simca]

Recently I became aware of various arguments made by various Jewish apologists that aim to counter the validity of Christian claims in fulfilling OT prophecies and laws. Specifically, they focus on why Jesus Christ not only does not fit what they view the Messiah to be (and the prophecies of the Messiah to be fulfilled), but that the Christian understanding of sin and atonement is not in continuity with Judaism. They claim that such a sacrifice is not necessary, and that even when blood sacrifices were offered, there were other, non-bloody sacrifices offered for atonement in the Temple and elsewhere, including prayerful repentance (if I understand the argument correctly).

So, from my brief reading on this, it seems as if Judaism comes from an entirely different perspective on sin (including original sin), to the point where the Christian concept of atonement and the necessity of Christ’s atoning sacrifice aren’t necessary in their worldview. What are some thoughts on this matter? I’m interested in both Christian and Jewish perspectives. Is the fact that there Judaism has evolved throughout time relevant? Did the Judaism of the Biblical period (First and Second Temple Judaism?) differ on this from the Rabbinic Judaism of today?

Jewish scholars have long been trying to prove that Jesus is not the Messiah. But in Israel alone, there are an estimated 15,000 Messianic Jews (a sect of Judaism which believes that Y’shua (Jesus) is the Messiah (source: maozisrael.org/site/PageServer?pagename=messianic_jews). By believing this, Orthodox Jews would say that Messianic Jews are no longer Jews, but have turned away from the faith.

The belief that it is the blood that makes atonement comes from Leviticus 17:11 which says ‘For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.’ Jewish scholars would say that this verse is taken out of content, because the chapter is speaking about the unlawfulness of eating blood. (but it seems like a pretty clear statement.) The New Testament Book of Hebrews confirms this when it says, “All things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” (Hebrews 9:22).

O Yom Kippur (The Day of Atonement) 2 goats would be chosen. One goat was destined to die as the sacrifice, and the Nation’s sins were confessed and ‘placed’ onto the scapegoat. These two goats had to be identical in appearance. The choice would be made by drawing lots. Throughout history the lot to choose the sacrificial goat would always come up in the Priest’s right hand. To differentiate one goat from the other, a scarlet cord was tied around the horns of the Scapegoat. The Scapegoat, having become ‘guilty of sin’, was led away. The innocent goat died in its place. (This is fulfilled in the story of Jesus and Barabbas, where Barabbas, the guilty one, was set free, and Jesus, the innocent one, died in his place.

On the Day of Atonement, The Scarlet Cord, which was tied onto the Scapegoat’s horns, turned white, signifying that God had accepted the sacrifice. (This is reminiscent of Isaiah 1:18 which says, ‘Though your sins are like scarlet, I will make them as white as snow.)

In the centuries following the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem (70 CE), the Jewish people began writing two versions of Jewish thought, religious history and commentary. One was written in Palestine and became known as the Jerusalem Talmud. The other was written in Babylon and was known as the Babylonian Talmud.

We read in the Jerusalem Talmud:
“Forty years before the destruction of the Temple, the western light went out, the crimson thread remained crimson, and the lot for the Lord always came up in the left hand. They would close the gates of the Temple by night and get up in the morning and find them wide open” (Jacob Neusner, The Yerushalmi, p.156-157). [the Temple was destroyed in 70 CE]

A similar passage in the Babylonian Talmud states:
“Our rabbis taught: During the last forty years before the destruction of the Temple the lot ‘For the Lord’] did not come up in the right hand; nor did the crimson-colored strap become white; nor did the western most light shine; and the doors of the Hekel [Temple] would open by themselves” (Soncino version, Yoma 39b).

What are these passages talking about? Since both Talmuds recount the same information, this indicates the knowledge of these events was accepted by the widespread Jewish community.

(There are many sources that site this, but I copied the above 4 paragraphs from www3.telus.net/public/kstam/en/temple/details/evidence.htm )

These events began happening after Jesus was crucified. This would lead us to believe that God was telling them something. No longer would the blood of lambs and goats be accepted to remove sin. The final sacrifice had been made.

 

[meltzerboy]

Recently I became aware of various arguments made by various Jewish apologists that aim to counter the validity of Christian claims in fulfilling OT prophecies and laws. Specifically, they focus on why Jesus Christ not only does not fit what they view the Messiah to be (and the prophecies of the Messiah to be fulfilled), but that the Christian understanding of sin and atonement is not in continuity with Judaism. They claim that such a sacrifice is not necessary, and that even when blood sacrifices were offered, there were other, non-bloody sacrifices offered for atonement in the Temple and elsewhere, including prayerful repentance (if I understand the argument correctly).

So, from my brief reading on this, it seems as if Judaism comes from an entirely different perspective on sin (including original sin), to the point where the Christian concept of atonement and the necessity of Christ’s atoning sacrifice aren’t necessary in their worldview. What are some thoughts on this matter? I’m interested in both Christian and Jewish perspectives. Is the fact that there Judaism has evolved throughout time relevant? Did the Judaism of the Biblical period (First and Second Temple Judaism?) differ on this from the Rabbinic Judaism of today?

This is a huge topic and there are many misconceptions regarding what Judaism believes and teaches. First of all, it should be clear that we are not obsessed with disproving the Messiahship of Jesus. There are Jewish apologists who are reacting to the work of largely Protestant missionaries by instructing Jews about their own Hebrew Bible and Talmud to provide them with some ammunition, so to speak, against the proof-texts offered by these Christian apologists. But this is not something that Judaism thinks about or preaches very often; Judaism is much more concerned with teaching Jews about their own history and religion. Second, Judaism has a different worldview compared to Christianity on a number of issues apart from Jesus and the Trinity, not only with regard to original sin and the Fall, but also the meaning of salvation, heaven and hell, the role of HaSatan relative to G-d, the nature of the Creation and of G-d, the relationship between mankind and G-d, the meaning of sin itself, orthopraxy as distinct from orthodoxy, among several other issues. Many books have been written regarding the purpose of the Messiah and the Messianic age, the importance of blood and non-blood sacrifice in the context of prayer, human forgiveness, and change in behavior, and the nature of man according to Jewish teaching. As I stated at the outset, it is a very broad topic and cannot properly be addressed within the confines of a single thread.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

meltzerboy:

As I stated at the outset, it is a very broad topic and cannot properly be addressed within the confines of a single thread.

That is putting it mildly. IOW, Judaism is not a monolithic. It is a spectrum of ideologies and theologies ranging from the ultra-orthodox to the most liberal reformed.

It would not be unlike saying “Christianity teaches…” One has to be more specific than that.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Recently I became aware of various arguments made by various Jewish apologists that aim to counter the validity of Christian claims in fulfilling OT prophecies and laws. Specifically, they focus on why Jesus Christ not only does not fit what they view the Messiah to be (and the prophecies of the Messiah to be fulfilled), but that the Christian understanding of sin and atonement is not in continuity with Judaism. They claim that such a sacrifice is not necessary, and that even when blood sacrifices were offered, there were other, non-bloody sacrifices offered for atonement in the Temple and elsewhere, including prayerful repentance (if I understand the argument correctly).

So, from my brief reading on this, it seems as if Judaism comes from an entirely different perspective on sin (including original sin), to the point where the Christian concept of atonement and the necessity of Christ’s atoning sacrifice aren’t necessary in their worldview. What are some thoughts on this matter? I’m interested in both Christian and Jewish perspectives. Is the fact that there Judaism has evolved throughout time relevant? Did the Judaism of the Biblical period (First and Second Temple Judaism?) differ on this from the Rabbinic Judaism of today?

Of course they don’t think it was necessary. If they did, they would be Christians. The Jews of today are spiritual descendants of the Pharisees who rejected Jesus. They were the one’s to survive the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in AD 70. Don’t forget, there were many Jews who were Christians. The Apostles for instance. Finally, it doesn’t matter so much what someone’s theory of atonement is as much as what actually happened. God rose Jesus from the dead. The Apostles didn’t even understand it until after it happened and with revelation from the Lord who walked with them opening up the Scriptures to them. They came to see for instance Isaiah 53 and the suffering servant as Jesus. The Cross obviously was necessary or the Lord would have never done it. Those who reject the sacrifice of Jesus do so at their own peril as the book of Hebrews mentions, and there is no longer any sacrifice for sin, but a fearful expectation of judgment. For what the old system of sacrifices could not do (bloody or not) Christ did through his death and Resurrection. Ultimately, God is the one who determines if Christ’s sacrifice was sufficient for atonement or not, not the Jews.

 

[LivingWaters7]

This is a huge topic and there are many misconceptions regarding what Judaism believes and teaches. First of all, it should be clear that we are not obsessed with disproving the Messiahship of Jesus. There are Jewish apologists who are reacting to the work of largely Protestant missionaries by instructing Jews about their own Hebrew Bible and Talmud to provide them with some ammunition, so to speak, against the proof-texts offered by these Christian apologists. But this is not something that Judaism thinks about or preaches very often; Judaism is much more concerned with teaching Jews about their own history and religion. Second, Judaism has a different worldview compared to Christianity on a number of issues apart from Jesus and the Trinity, not only with regard to original sin and the Fall, but also the meaning of salvation, heaven and hell, the role of HaSatan relative to G-d, the nature of the Creation and of G-d, the relationship between mankind and G-d, the meaning of sin itself, orthopraxy as distinct from orthodoxy, among several other issues. Many books have been written regarding the purpose of the Messiah and the Messianic age, the importance of blood and non-blood sacrifice in the context of prayer, human forgiveness, and change in behavior, and the nature of man according to Jewish teaching. As I stated at the outset, it is a very broad topic and cannot properly be addressed within the confines of a single thread.

Thanks. Yes, I do know that Judaism is not obsessed with disproving Christian claims about Christ (I hope I did not imply that).

I think when you mention the different worldview, that’s really what I’m curious about. It seems as if Jewish apologists that address the matter tend to claim that the Christian view of Jesus and His Atonement and Messiahship solves problems that Judaism doesn’t claim are problems in the first place. So, it’s interesting to me to wonder if these different worldviews were apparent in the Judaism of the Bible, during the time of Christ.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Of course they don’t think it was necessary. If they did, they would be Christians. The Jews of today are spiritual descendants of the Pharisees who rejected Jesus. They were the one’s to survive the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in AD 70. Don’t forget, there were many Jews who were Christians. The Apostles for instance. Finally, it doesn’t matter so much what someone’s theory of atonement is as much as what actually happened. God rose Jesus from the dead. The Apostles didn’t even understand it until after it happened and with revelation from the Lord who walked with them opening up the Scriptures to them. They came to see for instance Isaiah 53 and the suffering servant as Jesus. The Cross obviously was necessary or the Lord would have never done it. Those who reject the sacrifice of Jesus do so at their own peril as the book of Hebrews mentions, and there is no longer any sacrifice for sin, but a fearful expectation of judgment. For what the old system of sacrifices could not do (bloody or not) Christ did through his death and Resurrection. Ultimately, God is the one who determines if Christ’s sacrifice was sufficient for atonement or not, not the Jews.

Jesus was a Jew, Paul was a Jew…etc. Christianity was born and spread by Jews.

 

[Augustine3]

Jewish scholars have long been trying to prove that Jesus is not the Messiah. But in Israel alone, there are an estimated 15,000 Messianic Jews (a sect of Judaism which believes that Y’shua (Jesus) is the Messiah (source: maozisrael.org/site/PageServer?pagename=messianic_jews). By believing this, Orthodox Jews would say that Messianic Jews are no longer Jews, but have turned away from the faith.

The belief that it is the blood that makes atonement comes from Leviticus 17:11 which says ‘For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.’ Jewish scholars would say that this verse is taken out of content, because the chapter is speaking about the unlawfulness of eating blood. (but it seems like a pretty clear statement.) The New Testament Book of Hebrews confirms this when it says, “All things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” (Hebrews 9:22).

O Yom Kippur (The Day of Atonement) 2 goats would be chosen. One goat was destined to die as the sacrifice, and the Nation’s sins were confessed and ‘placed’ onto the scapegoat. These two goats had to be identical in appearance. The choice would be made by drawing lots. Throughout history the lot to choose the sacrificial goat would always come up in the Priest’s right hand. To differentiate one goat from the other, a scarlet cord was tied around the horns of the Scapegoat. The Scapegoat, having become ‘guilty of sin’, was led away. The innocent goat died in its place. (This is fulfilled in the story of Jesus and Barabbas, where Barabbas, the guilty one, was set free, and Jesus, the innocent one, died in his place.

On the Day of Atonement, The Scarlet Cord, which was tied onto the Scapegoat’s horns, turned white, signifying that God had accepted the sacrifice. (This is reminiscent of Isaiah 1:18 which says, ‘Though your sins are like scarlet, I will make them as white as snow.)

In the centuries following the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem (70 CE), the Jewish people began writing two versions of Jewish thought, religious history and commentary. One was written in Palestine and became known as the Jerusalem Talmud. The other was written in Babylon and was known as the Babylonian Talmud.

We read in the Jerusalem Talmud:
“Forty years before the destruction of the Temple, the western light went out, the crimson thread remained crimson, and the lot for the Lord always came up in the left hand. They would close the gates of the Temple by night and get up in the morning and find them wide open” (Jacob Neusner, The Yerushalmi, p.156-157). [the Temple was destroyed in 70 CE]

A similar passage in the Babylonian Talmud states:
“Our rabbis taught: During the last forty years before the destruction of the Temple the lot ‘For the Lord’] did not come up in the right hand; nor did the crimson-colored strap become white; nor did the western most light shine; and the doors of the Hekel [Temple] would open by themselves” (Soncino version, Yoma 39b).

What are these passages talking about? Since both Talmuds recount the same information, this indicates the knowledge of these events was accepted by the widespread Jewish community.

(There are many sources that site this, but I copied the above 4 paragraphs from www3.telus.net/public/kstam/en/temple/details/evidence.htm )

These events began happening after Jesus was crucified. This would lead us to believe that God was telling them something. No longer would the blood of lambs and goats be accepted to remove sin. The final sacrifice had been made.

Great post! A fantastic insight

Throughout history the lot to choose the sacrificial goat would always come up in the Priest’s right hand.

I’m unable to picture this in my head. How were the lots cast to determine either the right or left hand? Can you please describe the action so I can gain a clearer picture in my head?

 

[Simca]

I’m unable to picture this in my head. How were the lots cast to determine either the right or left hand? Can you please describe the action so I can gain a clearer picture in my head?

Hi. I’m hoping this helps.

Two goats were brought ‘before the Lord’. One goat was to be the Scapegoat and the other goat was was to be sacrificed. One goat was placed before the High Priest’s right hand, the other before his left. A pot was brought out, and two pieces of material or ‘lots’ were placed in the pot. These ‘lots’ could be of either wood, silver, or gold. On one lot was written ‘For the Lord’ indicating the goat that was to be sacrificed to God. On the other ‘lot’ was written the word we now translate as ‘Scapegoat’. With his right hand, the High Priest would draw out one lot, and with his left hand he would draw the other.

Thanks be to God for our fulfillment in Christ.

 

[Augustine3]

Hi. I’m hoping this helps.

Two goats were brought ‘before the Lord’. One goat was to be the Scapegoat and the other goat was was to be sacrificed. One goat was placed before the High Priest’s right hand, the other before his left. A pot was brought out, and two pieces of material or ‘lots’ were placed in the pot. These ‘lots’ could be of either wood, silver, or gold. On one lot was written ‘For the Lord’ indicating the goat that was to be sacrificed to God. On the other ‘lot’ was written the word we now translate as ‘Scapegoat’. With his right hand, the High Priest would draw out one lot, and with his left hand he would draw the other.

Thanks be to God for our fulfillment in Christ.

Now I understand. Thank you so much for that!

I’m curious, where did you get these specific details from?

 

[Simca]

I’m curious, where did you get these specific details from?

I got these specific details from
books.google.ie/books?id=_pI3AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA12&lpg=PA12&dq=the+lot+in+the+priest%27s+right+hand&source=bl&ots=Fcs3iQUuPy&sig=RwFeelgNaWkL6J4ArxlX5QkRhJQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=DmSeUom7L67H7Abf5ID4AQ&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=the%20lot%20in%20the%20priest%27s%20right%20hand&f=false

I have a few books that say the same thing, but I didn’t dig them out.

 

[Augustine3]

Thanks again.

 

[meltzerboy]

What the Jews don’t tell you is that all of these sacrifices (except two) are meant for sins committed unintentionally. The two sacrifices (The Red Heifer and Day of Atonement) were obviously insufficient because they had to be repeated. The Day of Atonement had to be repeated every year on a set date no matter if the Jews were good or bad which furthermore shows the insufficiency of the sacrifice. Plus common sense tells us a finite animal sacrifice cannot make up for an infinite offence (infinite because God is the one who is offended).

All the sacrifices in the OT are primarily drawn from the olat-ha-tamid, “the standing (as in perpetual) burnt” offering (Exodus 29:38-46). This was a perpetual sacrifice of a burnt offering on the altar. One lamb was offered in the morning and another in the evening. The fire was never allowed to go out; the priest had the duty to ensure the sacrifice was ongoing every morning and evening and flame kept alight. Obviously Christ fulfils this sacrifice by offering his own body as the perpetual sacrifice. Just like the animals were drained of all their blood, so was Christ’s blood drained, proven by the spear of the soldier. How does Christ not fulfil this?

Jews have to be careful when approaching the text, they can fall into the trap of eisegesis rather than exegesis. Most approach the text with preconceived ideas about the expectancy of the Messiah and using their filters to forcing the text to mean it that way rather than allow the text to speak for itself.

Judaism does not hesitate to say that the blood and, in the case of poorer people, flour or other sacrifices were only for unintentional sins. Further, many Jews could not even travel to the Temple in ancient times. How did they atone? The answer is everyone atoned for intentional sins, as Isaiah states, by means of prayer and, if the sins were committed not directly against G-d but rather against one’s fellow human being, by asking the person wronged for forgiveness and demonstrating a change in behavior toward that person. Even the blood sacrifices in themselves had no merit, as the Hebrew Bible notes, without sincere repentance. They were only the external manifestation of internal atonement for wrongdoing.

 

[Augustine3]

Judaism does not hesitate to say that the blood and, in the case of poorer people, flour or other sacrifices were only for unintentional sins. Further, many Jews could not even travel to the Temple in ancient times. How did they atone? The answer is everyone atoned for intentional sins, as Isaiah states, by means of prayer and, if the sins were committed not directly against G-d but rather against one’s fellow human being, by asking the person wronged for forgiveness and demonstrating a change in behavior toward that person. Even the blood sacrifices in themselves had no merit, as the Hebrew Bible notes, without sincere repentance. They were only the external manifestation of internal atonement for wrongdoing.

I have no doubt that sincere prayer and repentance must be accompanied with the prescribed practice.

You said something interesting “if the sins were committed not directly against G-d but rather against one’s fellow human being”. So what could the Jews do who could not travel to the temple and had committed an intentional sin against God but later became repentant?

 

[meltzerboy]

I have no doubt that sincere prayer and repentance must be accompanied with the prescribed practice.

You said something interesting “if the sins were committed not directly against G-d but rather against one’s fellow human being”. So what could the Jews do who could not travel to the temple and had committed an intentional sin against God but later became repentant?

That’s the point. G-d accepts sincere repentance in the form of prayer alone; blood atonement is not necessary for G-d to forgive one’s intentional sins directly against Him. However, if one sins against one’s fellow man, one must at least attempt to seek forgiveness from the injured party and demonstrate good will toward them.

 

[Augustine3]

That’s the point. G-d accepts sincere repentance in the form of prayer alone; blood atonement is not necessary for G-d to forgive one’s intentional sins directly against Him. However, if one sins against one’s fellow man, one must at least attempt to seek forgiveness from the injured party and demonstrate good will toward them.

If God can forgive by means of prayer alone then what was the point of the Yom Kippur sacrifices?