Conference taveng::bagels

Prayer and atonement as outlined in the Yom Kippur liturgy.

Dave

And to ask the person that you sinned against for their
forgiveness.

Amy

Re: .0

>     Where does a Jew look for salvation from sin when there is no
>     Temple and no sacrifices made as according to the Books of Moses?

With the single exception of a thief who lied about stealing (Lev. 5:24),
animal sacrifices are required only for sins committed unwittingly
(_shogeg_, see Lev. 4:2, 13, 22, 27, 5:5, 15). Even for those cases
which require animal sacrifice, a meal (flour) offering could be sub-
stituted for it if the unwitting sinner could not afford the price of the 
birds required (Lev. 5:11).

The prophets reiterated many times the fact that atonement was not auto-
matically granted by virtue of the sacrifice (see Jer. 7:22, "...for
I spoke not unto your fathers, nor commanded them...concerning burnt
offerings or sacrifices. But this thing I commanded them, saying, obey
My voice and I will be your G-d, and you will be My people; and walk in 
all the ways I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you." This
chapter, BTW, was chosen by the Sages as the _haftara_ (prophetic portion)
to be read in conjunction with the Torah portion "Tzav," which deals
exclusively with the sacrificial rites!). 

That prayer does substitute for sacrifices when that means of atonement
is not available (i.e. when the Temple lay in ruins), is explicitly
stated by the prophets in several places (I Samuel 15:22, Hosea 14:3,
Ps. 51:17, 69:32).

The notion that one who sins knowingly can magically be "saved" from
his sin through any kind of (animal or other) sacrifice is anathema
to Judaism and is contrary to all Jewish teachings. We have the ability
to approach G-d directly to ask forgiveness, and indeed, this is *required*
at all times, even (especially!) when the Temple is standing, and sac-
rifices are being offered. These are the words of the *Jewish* prophet,
Zechariah:

	"Turn unto me, says the L-rd of Hosts, and I will turn unto you."

Jem

      I read in Lev. 17 that atonement of sin requires blood.  Even without
    the blood sacrifices do you not need Preist.
    
    
    
    
                                     Marshall

Our rabbis have concluded that the positive commandments are not as strong
as the negative commandments. "Don't do X" normally requires only willpower,
but "Do X" may require equipment or knowlege that we don't have. The
sacrifices in Leviticus require an altar in the Temple in Jerusalem. We
feel bad (I suppose) that we are unable to fulfill the commandments regarding
sacrifices, but without that Temple we simply cannot.

As Jem and others pointed out, the sacrifices by themselves never provided
forgiveness for sin. Prayer, repentance, and good deeds (charity) are the
Jewish means for asking for G-d's forgiveness.

Dave

Re: .4

>      I read in Lev. 17 that atonement of sin requires blood.

Lev. 17:10,11 --

	If any man from the House of Israel, or a proselyte who lives 
	amongst them, should eat any blood, I will direct my wrath
	towards him, and I will cut him off from his people. For the
	life-force of flesh is in blood, and I have given it to you
	(to be placed) on the altar to atone for your lives, for blood
	atones for a life. Therefore I have told the Israelites - let
	none of you eat blood!

The passage makes mention of the blood of animal sacrifices "atoning
for a life," however, nowhere does it say that this is the only means
through which such atonement can be attained. Numerous sources were cited
in previous replies which specify alternate means of achieving G-d's
forgiveness. I suggest studying them thoroughly, preferably in the
original Hebrew. Also, in the very chapter you referred to, see verse
4: "If any member of the House of Israel sacrifices an ox, sheep or
goat, inside or outside the camp, and does not bring it to the Tent
of the Congregation to be offered as a sacrifice...that person is
a shedder of blood, he has spilled blood, and he is cut off from
his people." Not only is the improper sacrifice utterly useless, but 
the one who brought it is considered a murderer! The "blood of atonement"
refers only to sacrifices carried out according to the strict rules
outlined throughout Leviticus. Anything else is useless at best, an
abomination at worst, *especially* human sacrifice.

Jem

      Well, I see your point about when the Temple is destroyed, but Israel
    has had the Temple site, I believe, for 23 years or more.  And if your
    country is willing to let soldiers die for the land around the Jordan
    River, why not clear the Temple mount and rebuild the Temple?  Did not
    your people rebuild the Temple after coming out of Babylon (sp?)?
    In fact I believe the Old Testament teaches that when the Hebrews 
    took time to build their houses before rebuilding the Temple God 
    was full of wrath.  

.7>                                                                 ... Israel
.7>    has had the Temple site, I believe, for 23 years or more.  And if your
.7>    country is willing to let soldiers die for the land around the Jordan
.7>    River, why not clear the Temple mount and rebuild the Temple?

First of all, those soldiers have died to defend the security of the State of
Israel and the lives of its citizens, not to reestablish the Temple.  And
realistically, the political and human rights issues involved would prevent us
from doing so at this time.

But even ignoring all other factors, there are serious halachic problems in
rebuilding the Temple.  I am *not* an expert in this area, but I believe that
most present authorities would agree that the Temple should not be rebuilt
until after the Messiah has come.  And personally, I don't see how anyone else
could resolve all of the above-mentioned issues to everyone's satisfaction.

      I am not trying to get anyone mad at me but I still have a question
    on my mind.  If human rights and political elements are a factor now
    why were they not a factor in 1967 in Jerusalem?  Was the taking of
    Jerusalem a matter of the security of the State of Israel?  Jerusalem
    was not even part of the State of Israel in 1967.  
      Even with all of that why in 1967 did not the army destroy the
    Mosslim temple it would have been no question of human rights because
    those people had lost their rights to the city, ie their lives.
    
    
                                Marshall

Re 1011.9                   -< A FEW QUESTIONS >-
>
>      I am not trying to get anyone mad at me but I still have a question
>    on my mind.  If human rights and political elements are a factor now
>    why were they not a factor in 1967 in Jerusalem?  Was the taking of
>    Jerusalem a matter of the security of the State of Israel?  Jerusalem
>    was not even part of the State of Israel in 1967.  
>      Even with all of that why in 1967 did not the army destroy the
>    Mosslim temple it would have been no question of human rights because
>    those people had lost their rights to the city, ie their lives.

Marshall, no-one will get mad at you for asking genuine questions, but I think
you might spend a little time reading about the history of Israel to improve
your knowledge.  Jerusalem was a part of the State of Israel, and its capital,
from the start.  The Jordanian Legion seized the Old City and drove the Jewish
defenders out in 1948, and we merely recaptured it in 1967, after the
Jordanians opened fire on Israel.  The western part of Jerusalem was always in
Israeli hands.  

The question as to why the Muslim temples on the Temple Mount were not
destroyed has been asked many times. The simple answer is that the IDF do not
do that kind of thing.  The Jordanians destroyed the synagogues in the Old City 
in 1948 when they captured them, and desecrated gravestones, but we do not have
to copy our neighbours.  If we did copy them, then the "intifada" would almost
certainly be history by now.  We have always done our utmost to respect the
religious beliefs of others and allow them freedom to pursue their religions.

Shalom
Baruch

      Some of you told me that willful sin cannot be forgiven.  I
    understand that Lav. 16 teaches that once a year the High Priest enters
    the Holy of Holies to offer up the blood for willful and non-willful
    sins of all the people.  Of course that cannot be done without a temple
    or a priesthood.  Is that why willful sin cannot be forgiven?
    
    
                               Marshall
    

For a "sin" between two individuals the Jew is required to go to the
one who was harmed and ask for forgiveness. G-d does not grant forgiveness
for such a "sin", but the the "other" person grants forgiveness. At Yom
Kippur time, it would be uncouth not to grant forgiveness to one who
appears genuinely repentant.

For a "sin" between an individual and G-d, repentance, prayer, and good deeds
are what is needed. It is not necessary to wait until next Yom Kippur for this.

Willful/unwillful does not enter in this equation. In the granting of
forgiveness, it is the sincerity of the repentance that matters (and to
whom addressed).

Dave

    
   Re: .11
    
    > Some of you told me that willful sin cannot be forgiven.
    
    You should read the replies more carefully. What was stated was that 
    animal sacrifices were brought only for unwitting sins (except for 
    the one exception mentioned). For intentional sins, atonement was
    to be had, even when the Temple was standing, only through sincere
    repentence (there are other requirements as well, of course, depending
    on the severity of the transgression - see Yoma 86a; Maim., Tesh. chap.
    1).
    
    Jem