A Jewish Perspective of Blood Atonement

…without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” – Hebrews 9:22b

Is it possible to obtain remission of sins without the shedding of blood? How are Jews forgiven for lack of an altar and Temple? What is repentance? What does it mean to be a kingdom of priests?

Jews for Judaism Australia

Last week left to register for the Tanakh Tour of Israel, November 2016

Truth2U is made possible though your kind support. Please click here to donate.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download this episode (right click and save)


You might also like


  1. Krisi says

    Thanks for your opinions Ira but like I said some of us will just have to agree to disagree at the time. I used oral law and don’t hold it as inspired just as an orthodox antimissionary who doesn’t hold the NT inspired to “prove” to a Christian that they are wrong. 🙂

  2. Krisi says

    My last comment my sound confusing. I’m saying people who dont hold NT scripture as inspired use it to try proving Christians wrong (use their own scriptures “against” them) I’m simply doing the same thing.

  3. Krisi says

    Also as far as taking things out of context I don’t see how much of what I posted could be taken any other way than simply what it states. However I’m not only using oral law to defend the NT I’ve shown how blood is needed to be in covenant with Yehovah (old and new) and as far as I’m concerned Rabbi Cohen is taking the blood atonement needed out of context (relating it to sacrifice and not covenant itself). I think of the key differences between me and you Ira is that you’ve always had Torah; I didn’t. I know Yeshua brought me to Torah and to the Father but it’s not silly in any way but indeed a very beautiful picture of our redemption and promised hope of ingathering!

  4. Ira Michaelson says


    I just want to bring one example, as I do not think the comments section here should be used as a forum.

    Earlier you presented some Rabbinic resources related to the suffering of the righteous, and I spoke about context. So, let me show you what I am speaking about.

    And He said to the Angel that destroyed the people, It is enough [rab]. R. Eleazar said: The Holy One, blessed be He, said to the Angel: Take a great man [rab] among them, through whose death
    many sins can be expiated for them. At that time there died Abishai son of Zeruiah, who was [singly] equal in worth to the greater part of the Sanhedrin.

    The above is the entire paragraph from Berachot 62b, which is referencing 2 Samuel 24 when Hashem sends the angel against Israel. This is shown from the full context.

    The Rabbi’s deduce from this and the subsequent paragraphs that YHVH relented as a result of seeing the Temple. Why would this make sense? Because in 2 Sam 24:16, the angel of YHVH was then by the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite. This threshing floor just happens to be the place that David HaMelech purchased from Araunah the Jebusite to build and altar, and would ultimately be the location of the Holy Temple.

    When one quotes pieces of Talmud that are not in the context of the Mishnah that the Gemarra is based on, this is misleading. I know this is not your intent, however, even when we are passionate about something, we need to make sure that what we are posting really supports our position.

    I am in no way looking to dispute your faith, but I do not think it supports your case to present single lines, or short pieces of Talmud. Especially given the fact that these Rabbi’s would never be speaking of atonement through the blood of the Tzadik.


  5. Krisi says

    I don’t 🙂 I showed in other examples how it shows that when they evaluated why someone died right after they spoke of day of atonement or levitical priests, etc. it was because they said the death of righteous atones. This is showing another example of death of righteous. Thanks!

  6. Krisi says

    I still fail to see how anything I quoted is out of context. I have clearly shown that they use to believe in atonement by the righteous death. Many of their writings support this. The “old testament” supports this as well but since people make it seem like things aren’t speaking of Messiah in it (suffering, etc) I have to show that in fact it is and it was understood by our fathers. I believe I have made my point to those in which my intended “audience” is for (those who are struggling with the issue of atonement as modern Judaism holds). Like I said I’m not here to debate either. I know we will continue to disagree and that’s completely okay. I hope we are all joined together in complete unity and truth one day! 🙂

  7. Ira Michaelson says


    With all due respect, I only commented on one of your quotes, because I did not want to have post regarding each one. You may get offended, but it is clear to me that you have never studied Talmud. I am not talking about reading paragraphs or chapters. If you had then you would understand the Mishneh and codification of the Laws, and then the commentary in the Gemarra.

    First of all, you would need to understand that aggadah and midrash are not taken literally, even in the Talmud. In all of the quotes you posted, not one of them was dealing with the issues of atonement. Thus, one must figure out the context of the Tractate and then determine what is the consensus of the Rabbi’s on that tractate.

    Kiddushin is about marriage. Berachot is about blessings. Moed Katan is about those holidays other than the moedim listed in Torah. So, once again, the themes have nothing to do with atonement.

    The Tanakh speaks for itself on atonement, and the position that Rabbi Eli takes is not based on Modern Judaism, but on Tanakh.

    I have no problem with people that disagree with me on an issue that is ambiguous, however, there is nothing ambiguous about this. You either know Talmud or you don’t. If you don’t, and don’t believe in it, to present Rabbinic interpretation that is so far from what you believe is not good scholarship.


  8. ellen says

    i was under the impression that the replacement of skins for leaves to cover adam and eve(Havah) as they exited the garden was to underscore the necessity of blood sacrifice for the atonement of sins….gen 3:21

    and that this lesson was confirmed when cain(Kayim) and able(Hevel) brought their sacrifices to God…and the fruit of the earth was not accepted while the animal sacrifice was accepted..gen 4:4

    is this just a misunderstanding on my part ?

  9. Krisi says

    They covered themselves with leaves; but ananimal got killed for their covering as well. We will all know the truth one day!
    Ira, can I ask (since you seem to know orthodox writings so well) why did you use to accept Yeshua if it’s so obvious? I’d really like to understand. Thank you and again I feel the need to clarify I mean no offense (it’s so hard to tell someone’s tone in writing).

  10. Ira Michaelson says

    Shalom Krisi,

    That is a very good question, and if you stay tuned, that question will get answered. I just recorded a show with Jono describing my journey over the years, and it should be up some time in the next week.

  11. Krisi says

    Awesome! Thanks Ira..looking forward to hearing it!

  12. rocky jackson says

    Its real simple to me if any atonement was PERMANATE under / in Torah such as fine flour …

    (Bread from heaven Yeshua )
    It seems crystal clear to me that ADAM would have wasted NO TIME in making that simple offering and RETURNED / Shuv back to the Gan Eden.

    But the simple FACT is He couldnt / it Doesn’t make PERMANENT atonement and its very Clear why the 1st century Pharisee wrote what he wrote to the Hebrews then as its still true today.

  13. Karen Harvey says

    In response to Ellen’s post regarding her request for an opposing voice such as Dr Michael Brown; I went to the link she provided and listened to 3 segments. Dr Brown states that although he was raised in a Jewish home he was never taught the Tanach and it’s meaning. He knew basically nothing about the teachings of Judaism. Their family was not really “religious”. He “accepted Jesus” as a teenager. His perspective is really no different than that of a gentile Christian. Now if there is a Jew who was raised in an observant religious Orthodox Jewish home and has lived as a religious Jew and studied the Tanach extensively who has voluntarily “converted” to Christianity later in their life, then I may want to listen to his views.

  14. gail says

    I’d like to point out that no where in Matthew 1 (quoted from in the very first part of this recording) does the angel say the babe Mirium was carrying was to DIE FOR THE SINS OF HIS PEOPLE, as Rabbi Cohen claimed it said. Please don’t confuse christian INTERPRETATION with how the verse actually reads. It says, “But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Yeshua (G-d is salvation)because he will save his people from their sins.”
    Save means: deliver or protect (literally or figuratively): – heal, preserve, save (self), do well, be (make) whole.

    22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel”[g] (which means “G-d with us”).

    So really, to be fair to the text, all we can say here is that this Yeshua will in some way save the people from their sins. There is no mention of dying, or shedding blood in these verses at all.

  15. gail says

    Clearly, 1 Cor. 15:3 does mention DYING FOR SINS. “For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures”. Somy question is, Does this have to mean only the sin sacrifice of the Temple services?

    I’m thinking of the Covenant G-d made with Abram (Genesis 15), which I’m told used the typical agreement pact of the day where a covenant is ratified between the two parties as they walk between cut, bloody pieces of animals (I don’t know why the birds are not cut), the idea being ‘may it be done to me as it is done to these animals if I break my end of the agreement. Only in this case, G-d made it such that He alone was a party to the oath, Abram was ASLEEP! If either side broke the agreement, G-d would take on the punishment. Of course, G-d kept his end of the covenant, because He is faithful, but He also agreed to pay the price for man’s failure to keep man’s end of the covenant. Could it not be said that Emanual (G-d with us)/Yeshua (salvation of G-d) took that death for us? This then would be a different reason for dying for our sins beyond being a Temple serve sin sacrifice.

  16. Lori says

    Indeed G-d did provide a symbol of sacrifice from the very beginning. The Passover was the very first thing reestablished throughout II Chron. various times when the Israelites would come back to G-d. The altar would be purged with blood on those occasions. Indeed the blood did have significance.
    Certainly not every sacrifice represents the atonement; however, the personal sacrifices to G-d would not have been possible had not the Day of Atonement, Yom Kippur, been fulfilled each year according to the Scriptures. Clearly it states that on this day, the sins were purged for a year.

  17. JH says

    I am finding this new “movement” quite interesting, including how Christians are persuaded to “put Paul aside”, or even put the New Testament aside.

    But I want to ask Rabbi Eli (and Jono, who didn’t have one single critical question to Rabbi Eli’s claims):

    Don’t you realize that from a CHRISTIAN viewpoint, you both are totally missing the mark: There is not a single animal sacrifice or flower offering that has ever saved or ever will save a person’s soul.

    From Adam’s first sacrifice to eternity: The only sacrifice that counts is the Lamb of God. All other sacrifices in the Old Testament were merely symbolizing the REAL SACRIFICE to come. That was what Moses and the priests were “preaching”.

    Moses probably knew a great deal about this, because apparently God let him see the Messiah to come. The priests probably didn’t know the real meaning of the sacrifices, and that’s just how God arranged it. The Israelites obeyed and repented, and they were bought and paid for by the King’s ransom to come, even if they didn’t know the whole truth.

    But Jono and Rabbi Elia do know the Gospel, and as always in the Bible: when God reveals more truth to mankind, he expects more of us. And the more truth we’ve been told, the more we are becoming more at risk of rejecting His truth, and by that: rejecting God.

    Your Messiah is my Messiah, and no-one should reject Him. You’ve heard the truth, and you have studied it, but you have not accepted it. Still it is from God.

  18. Daniel says

    if the earthly temple is a copy of the heavenly one, can someone share some light on what is the purpose of the alter in heaven what sacrifice goes/went/will go on that alter? how did the coals from that alter forgive sin when touching the prophets lips is there a Torah teaching of burning coal having power to forgive sin?

    seriously I would like to know.

  19. kirksey Todd says

    Other writing speaking on behalf of Yeshua is not the same as Yeshua speaking himself! Yeshua never claimed to be God or that he has to die for our sins to be forgiven!!!

  20. kirksey Todd says

    Does New Testament salvation matches that of the Tanakh? And if it doesn’t something is wrong. The foundation of all scripture is the Torah, not the gospels or the writings of Paul

  21. kirksey Todd says

    Where does it take that it was the coals that caused his sins to be forgiven?

  22. John H says

    @ Kirksey Todd, Isaiah 6:6-7 for the coal reference.

  23. John H says

    There are many examples in the Tanakh where G-d forgives sin without blood. Just look at Chapter 3 of Jonah, where G-d forgives Nineveh by repentance and prayer alone and they weren’t even part of Israel. G-d can forgive who ever he wants and how he wants. To say G-d can only forgive you by being “covered in the blood” is to put limits on G-d’s ability to forgive people. You can’t put limits on G-d and his Tanakh is filled with many examples of that.

  24. George says

    Hmmm, could not blood sacrifices be seen as Catholic indulgences, if one has not a repentant heart?

    Eternal damnation & Salvation in Jesus alone, are the 2 hooks of Christianity, alone — everything else is dogma. Jesus & Yehovah are always 2 separate individuals on earth & in Revelation’s heaven. If the new testament were a natural progression or goal of Tanakh, Christians would not begin in the back of the Book and force it forward. Deuteronomy 13 is affirmed by 2 Peter 3:16.

    1 Samuel 15:22 Samuel said, “Has Yehovah as much delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of Yehovah? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed than the fat of rams.

    Psalm 34:18 Yehovah is near to the brokenhearted and saves those who are crushed in spirit.
    Psalm 51:16 For You do not delight in sacrifice, otherwise I would give it; You are not pleased with burnt offering.
    Psalm 51:17 The sacrifices of Elohay are a broken spirit; a broken and a contrite heart, O Elohay, You will not despise.
    Hosea 6:6 For I delight in loyalty rather than sacrifice, and in the knowledge of Elohay rather than burnt offerings.
    Micah 7:19 He will again have compassion on us; He will tread our iniquities under foot. Yes, You will cast all their sins Into the depths of the sea.

  25. gary says

    Truth is messianics and christians will believe in Yashua as a high priest as long as there is reason to believe his blood has touched the ark upon his death at jeremiahs grotto or place of counting.

  26. Debra Paulino says

    Isaiah informs us the Presence at the last days {not 30 CE?} will be SEEN by the WHOLE world over JERUSALEM like a canopy. Isaiah tells us more but let’s park there. I’m a simple woman … all the intelligence in these remarkable comments are superlative! … HOWEVER since the claim of 2 billion people and counting believes Rome, the PRESENCE that will be A CANOPY OF LIGHT OVER JERUSALEM must be a mistake… It should be over Rome!

Page 2 of 2 Previous

Leave a Reply