Weary in well doing

[Henaynei]

I am slightly confused, henaynei, aren't you currently attending an orthodox Jewish synogogue?

No, I said (in another thread) that we would if one was with in walking distance but there are none in this area.

 

[Henaynei]

Then I reckon that Paul and Peter and even Yeshua were myths considering what I quoted is in the B'rit Khadashah.

Ah, but what they said, what they meant by what they said and even who they truly were/are has been skewed by centuries of misunderstanding and politicial smoke.

 

[simchat_torah]

This was said:

Then I reckon that Paul and Peter and even Yeshua were myths considering what I quoted is in the B'rit Khadashah.

In reference to this:

Quote:

Remember Jews weren't supposed to touch a Gentile because they were considered Unclean.

Oy. Some things never die.

Yes, this is another myth that was supported by misunderstanding.

*Sighs*

No, you can not produce a single quote from the Brit Chadasha that says a Jew is not to touch a gentile.

It comes from a misunderstanding of Halacha concerning "not to entertain pagans"... which was interpreted by the first century pharasaic beit din to mean that a Jew could not eat at a pagan's house, or mingle with their company. Galations, among other passages, show that this halacha was askew and did not fully support this interpretation.

A person simply being a 'gentile' did not make them a 'pagan'. There were G-d fearers that were seen as lower beings as they were gentiles and had not gone through full conversion rites. In Galations this issue was addressed very heavily at the beginning of the book.

This halacha has also been revised in today's times as well in the Orthodox community...

but it was always a misnomer that a Jew could not touch a Gentile
In other words, that NEVER was the case...

and to say that this is in the "NT" is just plain silly. It comes from antisemetic rhetoric that never did exist historically, but from gentiles misunderstanding halacha.

It's along the same rhetoric lines as "Jews don't drink Welch's grape juice because it was made by gentiles." Many gentiles who misunderstood halacha shouted out "the Jews are racist!" However, this is another plain example of a misnomer...

Grape Juice flavoring often contained certain unkosher byproducts. There are numerous grape sodas and juices that are still considered unkosher because they either contain certain gelatins, insects, or other unkosher ingredients. Welch's originally contained some of these unkosher ingredients and Jews were forbidden to drink these grape juices/sodas. A neo-nazi group then made up stories that Jews wouldn't drink Welch's because it was made by Gentiles.

Why then would Jews drink other juices or sodas that were made by gentiles and not Welch's? Simply because Welch's contained unkosher ingredients... it had nothing to do with gentiles.

The same thing applies in our little example. Gentiles later misunderstood Jewish halacha. Not only that, but it was old halacha that was later revised as it became seen as incorrectly applied. But the original halacha was never that a Jew couldn't touch a gentile. It was that a Jew could not 'entertain' (or more specifically 'eat dinner with') a gentile. This was because of fear that these gentiles were:
1) pagan
2) Serving unkosher food

However, with many "G-d fearers" (gentiles who worshipped HaShem and even went to the extent of following Torah without conversion) they were not pagans, and nor would they serve unkosher food to a Jew.

Thus this halacha was later revised. But through Gentile misunderstanding of the previous halacha, a misnomer was created that Jews were not allowed to touch Gentiles....
that simply never was the case.

Maybe Yatziv can explain more fully than I did.

Shalom,
Yafet.

 

[simchat_torah]

Ah, but what they said, what they meant by what they said and even who they truly were/are has been skewed by centuries of misunderstanding and politicial smoke

Hopefully my mishmash of a post above settled the "what they meant by what they said" part.

hehe...

maybe I only muddied the waters more?

 

[SonWorshipper]

No, I said (in another thread) that we would if one was with in walking distance but there are none in this area.

But you are attending a non-messianic synogogue, correct?

 

[KelsayDL]

hi, personally, i see ONE WAY, no doubt, there will always be differences in the WAY that we observe, BUT WHAT ARE FOUNDATIONS should always be in correct.

Yeah, I thought thats what I said. If not, it's what I meant.


Anyway, I do see how people can find offense at one who will not even shake hands in greeting.

It's a nice "fence law" and all, I suppose...

What of the incident where the woman anointed the lord with oil and rubbed his feet with her hair, and kissed him?

Were they in violation to the laws of God?

Luke 7:36-50 36 And one of the Pharisees desired him that he would eat with him. And he went into the Pharisee's house, and sat down to meat. 37 And, behold, a woman in the city, which was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster box of ointment, 38 And stood at his feet behind him weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment. 39 Now when the Pharisee which had bidden him saw it, he spake within himself, saying, This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him: for she is a sinner.



I dunno.

 

[SonWorshipper]

I guess then you could also bring up the woman that touched his tzitzit ( or hem) that had an "issue of blood" for 12 years. Was it ok because she touched only his clothes? ( As per KJV)

 

[sojeru]

Throughout the gospels where Yeshua speaks "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees..." to what is he referring?

the teachings /leaven that puts man's laws above Torah.
However, the one of not touching is not putting above the Torah of HaShem. It infact protects people from breaking it.
You forget that Torah must also "evolve" with the evolving of time in different places.
If the people today had the fear of torah (though it was little) that was of back then, then we would say, let the women greet the men, but let not the men greet the women [by touch].
But as today many of us dont care so we put ourselves in a fence to protect ourselves and others.
Today there is a group of "orthodox" jews that smoke marijuana and say that this is the closest thing to the tree of life in Brooklyn- these are rabbis that say the such and I am appauled- this is the evil leaven.
There is a group of "orthodox" jews that accept homosexuality- this is their leaven in its extremity, to promote man things instead of the p'[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse](simplicity) to Sod(last level) containing and not doing away its p'[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse].
be very careful as to not to come close to lashon hara, we even have fence laws for this. For this was a cause in the destruction of the temple.

 

[sojeru]

I guess then you could also bring up the woman that touched his tzitzit ( or hem) that had an "issue of blood" for 12 years. Was it ok because she touched only his clothes? ( As per KJV)

he would have gone through a mikvah of some sort to clean himself

 

[KelsayDL]

Thats all well and good Sojeru.

Would you rebuke the woman or Yeshua for what occured in Luke?


Perhaps we need to examine the reason those purity laws were given.

 

[sojeru]

no i wouldnt, different times- those times were cleaner than these.
the purpose pf not touching is the issue of mentruation- not fornication.

and, thats the reason the purity laws were given- however, halacha is something else

 

[KelsayDL]

Those times may well indeed have been cleaner than these.

But the woman who performed this act was not cleaner than a fellow servant of the Lord today.

She was a known sinner (probably a prostitute). And not observant to the Torah, and it's highly doubtful she observed any form of purity laws.

 

[SonWorshipper]

How do you know she was a prostitute, and not observant? It says she was a sinner, and who isn't?


sojeru, I agree that the woman should be allowed to shake hands or hug, but not the other way around, for only the woman knows. But if all do not have this understanding at the synogogue I think it is best to stay home that shabbat, and let the husband go.

 

[KelsayDL]

How do I know?


I don't. I said probably.

probably a prostitute

The pharisee seemed to know who she was and what her sins were. When he says who and what manner of woman.

From that I reckon her sins were known by most, including Yeshua, and more than likely a life pattern of sin.

I find it hard to believe that the woman was a sinner in some small regard. Not the way the Pharisee spoke of her.

We also have the parable of Yeshua to consider. And his very words concerning the woman, when he says her many sins. From that bit I gather she was not observant.

But who knows. Maybe he knew that at one time in her life she broke sabbath somehow and was pointing that out.

She just seems to be well known for her sins by a simple reading of the matter.


Thanks for pointing it out that we are all sinners. I guess I forgot that.

 

[Henaynei]

How do you know she was a prostitute, and not observant? It says she was a sinner, and who isn't?


sojeru, I agree that the woman should be allowed to shake hands or hug, but not the other way around, for only the woman knows. But if all do not have this understanding at the synogogue I think it is best to stay home that shabbat, and let the husband go.

For the woman to touch Him made His human body ritually unclean and He would have gone to a mikvah at a later time to cleanse. BUT, both of the situations presented were such that one was to save a life and another was in compassion. Both of these are very high mitzvot and are certainly allowed by both Torah and tradition. Even though a mikvah was required afterwards.



Remember too that men, in particular, did tevilah in the mikvah nearly daily. That would have included Yeshua. Torah makes gracious provision for remedying ritual impurity.



As to allowing the woman to shake a man's hand "but not the other way around" that would require a community where you knew that all kept the mitzvah of family purity, otherwise you would never know whether the woman was cognizant of the restraints or not.



And hugging of the opposite sex was never a "done thing" in traditional Judaism - it is more of a gentile Christian touchy-feely thing and has led to far too many temptations. IMHO (and experience)

Shalom
Henaynei

 

[simchat_torah]

Modern Orthodoxy interprets the passage in Leviticus to mean no sexual touching during Niddah. I feel this position is strongly supported, however, I always respect the community I am in and observe and respect their halacha concerning the Shomer Negiah (forbidding of contact with members of the opposite sex).

My wife is from the Greek culture where all of her family and friends hug and kiss each other. As well, I have friends who lead Orthodox shuls where contact of the opposite sex is strictly forbidden. I am somewhat like a chameleon and adapt to each community's standards.

This does not mean that I will ever violate my own personal standards, but I do try to respect each community's halacha as I am in their prescence.

My two wooden nickels.

Shalom,
yafet.

 

[Shamash Of Yeshua]

Please tell me how one would become clean after being unclean in the Jewish understanding. Did one need to bring a sacrifice to the Temple? If so then how do you fulfill the requirement if you need to go bring a sacrifice to the Temple which doesn't exist since it was torn down in 70A.D. or how ever the date is.

Shalom,

Tag

 

[simchat_torah]

One thing that everyone must first understand is that being unclean and sin are two seperate concepts. For example, a woman who has her monthly flow is unclean, but this is not sin.

I hope this makes sense.

With that...

Each type of uncleanliness necessitates a different ritual cleansing. Some are actual physical acts, such as washing... while some may be sacraficial in nature.

Sacrafices and the temple, I'll get to later.

 

[SonWorshipper]

Is it the blood you think or the curse from the garden Yafet? What say you?

 

[YatzivPatgam]

Please tell me how one would become clean after being unclean in the Jewish understanding. Did one need to bring a sacrifice to the Temple? If so then how do you fulfill the requirement if you need to go bring a sacrifice to the Temple which doesn't exist since it was torn down in 70A.D. or how ever the date is.

Shalom,

Tag

BS'D

Blood was never a neccsity in the first place, but regardless, Prayer and Repentence suit the bill.