[OPEN]Tallitot

[Espada]

I was wondering what your views on the wearing of tallitot are? Of course for men there isn't much discussion here but what about for women, do you think women should wear them in a synagogue.

What about gentile Christians? I recently saw a letter in a Jewish news paper expressing disgust about a Christian who would wear a tallit when praying and a rabbi agreed. What are your views on this?

[ChavaK]

I was wondering what your views on the wearing of tallitot are? Of course for men there isn't much discussion here but what about for women, do you think women should wear them in a synagogue.

What about gentile Christians? I recently saw a letter in a Jewish news paper expressing disgust about a Christian who would wear a tallit when praying and a rabbi agreed. What are your views on this?

I agree that only Jews should wear a tallis, and that
it is not appropriate for women to wear them
(either at home or at shul...I do know one woman
who davens with one in her home but never in
the shul).

[Torah]

I was wondering what your views on the wearing of tallitot are? Of course for men there isn't much discussion here but what about for women, do you think women should wear them in a synagogue.

What about gentile Christians? I recently saw a letter in a Jewish news paper expressing disgust about a Christian who would wear a tallit when praying and a rabbi agreed. What are your views on this?



ChavaK
I agree that only Jews should wear a tallis, I agree with you, because I have seen to many times where Christians get a Tallis and treat it as a common thing. Wear it like a scarf wrapped around there neck, wear it out side, leave it lying around (on the floor), and use it as a coat to wrap around the wife or kids to keep warm. Two separate times I have spoken to Christians about the way they treat there Tallis as a common thing and both times I was told, “The Holy Spirit has not convicted me of this. So don’t try to put your convictions on me.”
[being led by the spirit]. But! on the other hand, If there is training and respect given to the proper use of a Tallis, I see no problem.


and that it is not appropriate for women to wear them
(either at home or at shul...I do know one woman
who davens with one in her home but never in
the shul). I agree 100%. I also find it funny that I have never seen a man wearing the beautiful scarfs that woman wear.

[Ivy]

ChavaK
“The Holy Spirit has not convicted me of this. So don’t try to put your convictions on me.”
[being led by the spirit].

:sigh: Can I apologize for this attitude? I think it's terrible.

I was talking to a friend the other day--and as you probably know, it's popular in some Christian churches to have shofars now--and I told her that I'd recently learned that in a traditional Jewish synagogue, they only have the shofar out at Rosh Hashanna. I was really just saying, isn't this interesting, and she said huffily, "Well I am not under the law!!"

I don't understand why someone thinks that having respect for other people's customs is "under the law". It makes no sense. It's just an excuse for rudeness & unteachableness.

[Ivy]

I agree 100%. I also find it funny that I have never seen a man wearing the beautiful scarfs that woman wear.

we get the pretty scarfs
we get the pretty scarfs

nanner nanner nanner :P

I wouldn't wear a tallit, both because I'm female & gentile. We don't have to go around appropriating other people's stuff all the time in order to feel o.k. about ourselves for Pete's sake.

[Torah]

“The Holy Spirit has not convicted me of this. So don’t try to put your convictions on Me.” or [being led by the spirit].

I know this is off subject here and pleas forgive me. Over the years I have seen this statement us as a tool when someone wants to do what they want. “I am led by the spirit, and I don’t have to follow the law. And the Holy Spirit wants me to be happy, & I am not happy with my husband”. This was said to me, by a woman who wanted to leave her husband for another man. And still claim to love G-d and go to Church. I have had this statement used just like this one "I’m not under the law". These statements are very wide and can, and are used to justify whatever one wants to do, or don’t want to do.
It is my understanding that the Holy Spirit convicts us of sin-{that witch is already written) and draws us to salvation.


“We get the pretty scarfs” Ivyand you look very good in your scarf. :wave:

[Wags]

Women in some reform and conservative synagoge's wear very feminie looking tallis and kippot. I think the key is that they do not look like men's garments at all.

I agree that there are christians (usually not messianics) who tend to treat tallit with very little respect. I've seen the photos of Benny Hinn prancing around on stage dragging a tallit on the floor behind him. And he isn't the only "preacher" that I've seen doing that. I find it very disturbing to say the least. Same goes with people who indescriminately blow the shofar.

[LadyGarnetRose]

I'm trying to figure out...where one gets that only a man should wear tallis and tefflin. Unto the Children of Israel. Not the male children...but all the children of Israel.

Numbers 15:38 'Speak unto the children of Israel, and bid them that they make them throughout their generations fringes in the corners of their garments, and that they put with the fringe of each corner a thread of blue.

Deuteronomy 6:4-9 4 Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God, the LORD is one. 5 And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. 6 And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be upon thy heart; 7 and thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thy house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. 8 And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thy hand, and they shall be for frontlets between thine eyes. 9 And thou shalt write them upon the door-posts of thy house, and upon thy gates.

[ChavaK]

Women in some reform and conservative synagoge's wear very feminie looking tallis and kippot.

The last time I was in a Reform Temple I saw a sister
and brother- the girl had a tallis on and the boy did
not.
To me that spoke volumes about Reform Judaism,
and it was not positive....


:clap: This is my 1,000th post :clap:

[ChavaK]

ChavaK
I agree that only Jews should wear a tallis, I agree with you, because I have seen to many times where Christians get a Tallis and treat it as a common thing. Wear it like a scarf wrapped around there neck, wear it out side, leave it lying around (on the floor), and use it as a coat to wrap around the wife or kids to keep warm. Two separate times I have spoken to Christians about the way they treat there Tallis as a common thing and both times I was told, “The Holy Spirit has not convicted me of this. So don’t try to put your convictions on me.”
[being led by the spirit]. But! on the other hand, If there is training and respect given to the proper use of a Tallis, I see no problem.


There are many issues as to why non-Jews should
not wear a tallis....but if they do they should
certainly treat it with the utmost respect....

[ContraMundum]

I was wondering what your views on the wearing of tallitot are?

Jews only, IMHO.

Of course for men there isn't much discussion here but what about for women, do you think women should wear them in a synagogue.

A Tallit, like a yarmulke, is a male garment.

The Torah strictly forbids cross-dressing.

Deut. 22:5 A woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment; for whosoever doeth these things is an abomination unto the LORD thy God.

(Having said that, Reform/Progressive Judaism allows women to wear these items in shule. Since many congregations within MJism are more like the Reform in form perhaps this wouldn't be frowned upon in their meetings.)

What about gentile Christians? I recently saw a letter in a Jewish news paper expressing disgust about a Christian who would wear a tallit when praying and a rabbi agreed. What are your views on this?

I think Gentiles need to re-discover wonderful, Godly traditions within their own cultures and try them out for themselves. :)

[ChavaK]

I think Gentiles need to re-discover wonderful, Godly traditions within their own cultures and try them out for themselves. :)

An excellent point, Contra.

:thumbsup:

[ContraMundum]

I'm trying to figure out...where one gets that only a man should wear tallis and tefflin. Unto the Children of Israel. Not the male children...but all the children of Israel.

Women are exempt from commandments attached to time. The Tallis and the Tefillin are mitzvot that are connected to certain hours (eg. daylight) and thus women are not bound by them. This is because women have a unique role that would over-ride these obligations. Also, in traditional Judaism women have a heightened spirituality that gives them priviledge in certain aspects.

[Ivy]

prancing around on stage dragging a tallit on the floor behind him.

!!!! :eek: :eek:

These people that feel like they're "not convicted" by the Holy Spirit..... what happened to "looking not only to your own interests, but look to the interests of others"?

Again, it just sounds like a spiritual-sounding excuse for "I'm going to do whatever I darn well please and my 'right' to do what I want is the only thing that counts."

Not exactly the attitude Yeshua would have.

[Ivy]

An excellent point, Contra.

:thumbsup:

I second. :)

[LadyGarnetRose]

Women are exempt from commandments attached to time. The Tallis and the Tefillin are mitzvot that are connected to certain hours (eg. daylight) and thus women are not bound by them. This is because women have a unique role that would over-ride these obligations. Also, in traditional Judaism women have a heightened spirituality that gives them priviledge in certain aspects.
Really? Where does it say that women are excused.

I can find nothing, and nobody for years has been able to provide me with anything that states such a thing in the bible.

I do know what Traditional Judaism states... But we're Messianic, not Traditional Rabbinical Jews. We're supposed to be Bible adherent, not Rabbi adherent. Which was one of Yeshua's greatest messages to us.

Not to be bound by Law, but rejoice in law.

When I hear the excuse, and that is what it is an excuse, that a woman is not bound to time...

Shabbos is time, our menses is time, our first year of marriage is time... the list does go on of time issues we are to adhere to as women.

So again, where does it state a woman is NOT to wear tzitzit or tefflin?

And a Tallis is not a man's garment perse. Just like pants are not a man's garment.

We all wear shirts, but nobody argues which is a man's and which is a woman's.

[ContraMundum]

Really? Where does it say that women are excused.

It's a logical deduction based on centuries of examination- but that's not going to be enough for modern day protestants I would imagine.

Anyway, you're free to do as you wish. Far be it from me to say what you should do.

And a Tallis is not a man's garment perse. Just like pants are not a man's garment.

We all wear shirts, but nobody argues which is a man's and which is a woman's.

I think this does warrant a point or two. A Tallit is based on an ancient men's garment, we all know that. Likewise, bifurcated garments (pants) were clearly and uniquely men's wear in Western nations until the 20thC and the unisex movement came along. Again, that's easy to work out. Fashion is always contextualised within the societies themselves, so a kilt might be ok as men's wear in Scotland but it is definetely a dress by any other name in any other cultural context. Likewise, one could argue that fashion has changed sufficiently to warrant a change of the application of the law so pants are ok for all genders now. While that's ok for me in and of itself regarding the secular I'm a little too conservative for that when it comes to holy things.

Anyway, I think you'll have to agree to disagree with me because I feel that the Rabbis are right about this one, based on theology, Dt 22:5 and the only possible application and perpetual keeping of that law. I don't think blurring the boundaries between men's and women's fashion or roles is doing the best we can to keep the commandments- it's walking the boundaries which is always endangering the fulfillment, IMHO. The blurring of distinctions is not what the essence of this law is encouraging. I also don't think the message of the NT is about blurring boundaries either. Being equal is not about being the same.

[Espada]

Some interesting answers are coming out.

I firmly agree that the tallit should be treated with equal respect to any other command of G-d and therefore mine does not just get stuffed in a drawer and I pray whenever I put it on, recognising that I wear it because we are commanded to.

It is interesting to see that some people argue that the tallitot are for Jews only, yet suggest elsewhere that Goyim should follow the law:scratch: Anyone care to elaborate on that one?

I have to say I agree with the Lady on the issue of women not being required to follow certain time based laws. I am not convinced that G-d wrote the law in such a way that required "centuries of examination". In fact Deut 4:2 appears to suggest that such 'examination' may in deed be wrong.

[LadyGarnetRose]

It's a logical deduction based on centuries of examination- but that's not going to be enough for modern day protestants I would imagine.

Anyway, you're free to do as you wish. Far be it from me to say what you should do.



Maybe you should learn a bit more about me before you pass judgment. I was raised a Jew. I am still a Jew.

So men are right and God is wrong? Because that's what you are saying. For centuries the Rabbis were making non levites wash, as in Mark 7... That doesn't make it right. Moneylenders in the Temple...that doesn't make it right.





I think this does warrant a point or two. A Tallit is based on an ancient men's garment, we all know that. Likewise, bifurcated garments (pants) were clearly and uniquely men's wear in Western nations until the 20thC and the unisex movement came along. Again, that's easy to work out.


Only because Women were regulated to not follow the Law by Rabbis.

Pants, were not exclusively male (bifucated garments) in western civilization. Unless of course the Mediterranean basin is not considered part of Western Civilization. Pants have a very interesting history and FALSE history, if I can find it (it's been a few years since college and not even sure this computer can read that disk but I'll look for the hardcopy as well it was a good essay) I can post said essay I wrote on this very subject.




Fashion is always contextualised within the societies themselves, so a kilt might be ok as men's wear in Scotland but it is definetely a dress by any other name in any other cultural context. Likewise, one could argue that fashion has changed sufficiently to warrant a change of the application of the law so pants are ok for all genders now. While that's ok for me in and of itself regarding the secular I'm a little too conservative for that when it comes to holy things.


Conservative, as in Rabbinical, or conservative as in Christlike?



Anyway, I think you'll have to agree to disagree with me because I feel that the Rabbis are right about this one, based on theology, Dt 22:5 and the only possible application and perpetual keeping of that law. I don't think blurring the boundaries between men's and women's fashion or roles is doing the best we can to keep the commandments- it's walking the boundaries which is always endangering the fulfillment, IMHO. The blurring of distinctions is not what the essence of this law is encouraging. I also don't think the message of the NT is about blurring boundaries either. Being equal is not about being the same.

I do not feel the Rabbis are right on this one based on theology. Especially in line with Dt 22:5. God did not make the distinction, "Men of Israel", He made the inclusion "Children of Israel".

When God is specific about the laws of men He says so. When God is specific about the laws of women He says so.

So again, why follow the words of men, and not the words of God?

[Talmidah]

I'm curious, what is the hebrew for "children of israel" and the hebrew for "sons of israel"?

[jgonz]

I think Gentiles need to re-discover wonderful, Godly traditions within their own cultures and try them out for themselves. :)
I'm curious about this statement... So you're saying that those of us that are of Gentile backgrounds are supposed to stick with "Christian" holidays and traditions???? Sorry, BTDT, and it's PAGAN.

There is ONE law for Jews and Gentiles. We're ONE new man through Yeshua. ONE. There should be no separation wall anymore.

I believe that if a woman is convicted to wear the tzit-tzit, then she should (on whatever type of garment has 4 types of corners). IMO, the Bible does not specify that only men should wear them. As was pointed out already, we're not under Rabbinical laws and instructions, we're under Scripture.

[ContraMundum]

Maybe you should learn a bit more about me before you pass judgment. I was raised a Jew. I am still a Jew.

Well, that makes two of us, but I fail to see that as a validating factor. Perhaps we come from differing backgrounds within our culture. Being Jewish does not make one an authority on all things religious anyway. I can't agree with other Jews on lots of things. (If there's one thing all Jews agree on- it's that we all don't agree on everything, right?)

So men are right and God is wrong? Because that's what you are saying. For centuries the Rabbis were making non levites wash, as in Mark 7... That doesn't make it right. Moneylenders in the Temple...that doesn't make it right.

I honestly don't think I would read the scriptures that way. I think God is right but God gave us tradition to help us with the scriptures. I think the only Judeo-Christian paradigm that rejects all tradition outright is the modern-day evangelical/fundamentalist one, which is far too recent a development for my liking. I try to avoid modernism where I find it, as a rule. Tradition has a role to play, but to what extent is another topic altogether- too complex for this forum.


Pants, were not exclusively male (bifucated garments) in western civilization. Unless of course the Mediterranean basin is not considered part of Western Civilization. Pants have a very interesting history and FALSE history, if I can find it (it's been a few years since college and not even sure this computer can read that disk but I'll look for the hardcopy as well it was a good essay) I can post said essay I wrote on this very subject.

Well, you can post it but I'm not sure it will help us with the topic at hand.

Conservative, as in Rabbinical, or conservative as in Christlike?

I meant conservative in general, religion included. Yes, I still think Rabbinical Judaism has a lot right too.

I do not feel the Rabbis are right on this one based on theology. Especially in line with Dt 22:5. God did not make the distinction, "Men of Israel", He made the inclusion "Children of Israel".

Well, with all due respect, the theology of the text is pretty simple- don't mix and match clothing, God detests it. In fact, the text cited does indeed draw a distinction between men and women, so I don't know what you mean by your comments.

We could get into the reasons behind God's creative purpose in making two genders, and how His laws build upon the distinctions, and how the Laws work and why the application of them is different between genders, but I don't think I have the time to be a lecturer to a hostile crowd.

The simple bottom line is this: Dt 22:5 says men shouldn't wear women's clothing and vice versa. We should ask why. Then, we should ask "how do we live that out?", and if we find that we no longer have distinctive fashions, roles or obligations, we should ask whether or not we have moved from God or whether or not He has moved from us. Who moved the boundaries? The answer is obvious.

[HaNotsri]

I'm curious, what is the hebrew for "children of israel" and the hebrew for "sons of israel"?

Hmmm...b'nei Yisroel :)

[ContraMundum]

I'm curious about this statement... So you're saying that those of us that are of Gentile backgrounds are supposed to stick with "Christian" holidays and traditions???? Sorry, BTDT, and it's PAGAN.

Well, you missed my point. I said "Godly" traditions, not pagan ones. Let's not confuse the two.

I'll let you consider the role of the Holy Spirit in the history of the Church and decide for yourself whether or not He was leading them and inspiring any or all or none of their customs- I don't want to discuss that here with anyone.

There is ONE law for Jews and Gentiles. We're ONE new man through Yeshua. ONE. There should be no separation wall anymore.

There's a number of posters here that do not believe the Law works that way. Another topic for another forum. Best not discussed here.

I believe that if a woman is convicted to wear the tzit-tzit, then she should (on whatever type of garment has 4 types of corners). IMO, the Bible does not specify that only men should wear them. As was pointed out already, we're not under Rabbinical laws and instructions, we're under Scripture.

I don't think it's terribly wise to just adopt some of the laws of Israel but reject others. The Council of Jerusalem agrees by making it clear that not all believers are to be under the same obligations.

The problem is that even the NT teaches that if someone wants to adopt Jewish Laws, they must adopt all of them (Gal 5:3). In other words, accordng to Paul, you'd better start circumcising your kids if you want them to be under the laws of Israel, and them some. Knowing this, the Jews who led the Council of Jerusalem did not place the burden of the whole Torah upon Gentiles.

This is why I think people should take their Torah observance very seriously. a Person should think and pray and think and pray again before they start keeping the Laws of Israel. I'm sure you'd agree.

Finally, I don't think it's a fair distinction to immediately lump rabbinical law as one unit which is somehow opposed to scripture. Rabbinical law is based totally on scripture, intended to clarify and assist one to live right. Thus, it is by definition not against scripture, but in addition to scripture.

[stone]

Jud 4:18
And Jael went out to meet Sisera, and said unto him, Turn in, my lord, turn in to me; fear not. And when he had turned in unto her into the tent, she covered him with a mantle.



1Sa 15:27
And as Samuel turned about to go away, he laid hold upon the skirt of his mantle, and it rent.


1Sa 28:14
And he said unto her, What form is he of? And she said, An old man cometh up; and he is covered with a mantle. And Saul perceived that it was Samuel, and he stooped with his face to the ground, and bowed himself.



1Ki 19:13
And it was so, when Elijah heard it, that he wrapped his face in his mantle, and went out, and stood in the entering in of the cave. And, behold, there came a voice unto him, and said, What doest thou here, Elijah?

[ContraMundum]

I am not convinced that G-d wrote the law in such a way that required "centuries of examination"

I don't think so either...but after centuries of examination the verdict on the matter has not changed...that was my point. The scriptures are sure fromt he start, and so is the understanding. After centuries of examination, the verdict is still that men have obligations that women are free from. I do not think there is any evidence at all to suggest that this is a result of later theological development.

[ContraMundum]

Jud 4:18
And Jael went out to meet Sisera, and said unto him, Turn in, my lord, turn in to me; fear not. And when he had turned in unto her into the tent, she covered him with a mantle.



1Sa 15:27
And as Samuel turned about to go away, he laid hold upon the skirt of his mantle, and it rent.


1Sa 28:14
And he said unto her, What form is he of? And she said, An old man cometh up; and he is covered with a mantle. And Saul perceived that it was Samuel, and he stooped with his face to the ground, and bowed himself.



1Ki 19:13
And it was so, when Elijah heard it, that he wrapped his face in his mantle, and went out, and stood in the entering in of the cave. And, behold, there came a voice unto him, and said, What doest thou here, Elijah?

My brother, the word translated "mantle" is different from verse to verse in some of these verses. I think they are all relating to outer garments, but I'd like your opinion as to which one would be the best one to describe the forerunner of the Tallit? (perhaps Ezra 9:3,5 is the best example?)

Interesting that the description of the mantle is always as men's clothing in scripture.

Thanks for the verses.

[stone]

the point was to be made that its a mans garment.

[stone]

Ezra 9:1-4 1 Now when these things were done, the princes came to me, saying, The people of Israel, and the priests, and the Levites, have not separated themselves from the people of the lands, doing according to their abominations, even of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites. 2 For they have taken of their daughters for themselves, and for their sons: so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the people of those lands: yea, the hand of the princes and rulers hath been chief in this trespass. 3 And when I heard this thing, I rent my garment and my mantle, and plucked off the hair of my head and of my beard, and sat down astonied. 4 Then were assembled unto me every one that trembled at the words of the God of Israel, because of the transgression of those that had been carried away; and I sat astonied until the evening sacrifice.
***

it's interesting to see here that, after the time that they distanced themselves from the torah, they still managed to keep the garments of their culture after mixing with the other nations.

[stone]

2 Kings 2:13-18

13 He took up also the mantle of Elijah that fell from him, and went back, and stood by the bank of Jordan;

14 And he took the mantle of Elijah that fell from him, and smote the waters, and said, Where is the LORD God of Elijah? and when he also had smitten the waters, they parted hither and thither: and Elisha went over.

15 And when the sons of the prophets which were to view at Jericho saw him, they said, The spirit of Elijah doth rest on Elisha. And they came to meet him, and bowed themselves to the ground before him.

16 And they said unto him, Behold now, there be with thy servants fifty strong men; let them go, we pray thee, and seek thy master: lest peradventure the Spirit of the LORD hath taken him up, and cast him upon some mountain, or into some valley. And he said, Ye shall not send.

17 And when they urged him till he was ashamed, he said, Send. They sent therefore fifty men; and they sought three days, but found him not.

18 And when they came again to him, (for he tarried at Jericho,) he said unto them, Did I not say unto you, Go not?

***


Here its used to part the jordan!

:clap:

[ContraMundum]

Indeed stone! :)

[ChavaK]

I'm curious, what is the hebrew for "children of israel" and the hebrew for "sons of israel"?

Ah, you beat me to it, Tal.......:)

[ChavaK]

Hmmm...b'nei Yisroel :)

Exactly- so you get the point Talmidah was making?
:)

[stone]

I think i do, but am not sure

[Ivy]

I don't think blurring the boundaries between men's and women's fashion or roles is doing the best we can to keep the commandments- it's walking the boundaries which is always endangering the fulfillment, IMHO. The blurring of distinctions is not what the essence of this law is encouraging. I also don't think the message of the NT is about blurring boundaries either. Being equal is not about being the same.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

And I also agree with what you said about traditions, that they are developed to help us follow scripture in a concrete way. God never prohibited the developing of traditions, whether rabbinic or christian, though He certainly wants us to develop those things with careful thought. Of course, we don't make those things god in the place of Him--He is the Absolute--but I don't think we should just ditch things merely on the basis that they're traditions. Sometimes traditions are treasures.

About the tallit, one time I was teaching a little girls' shabbat school class, and we were doing the story of the woman who touched the fringes of Yeshua's garment & was healed. We were going to do a little play, a re-enactment of the story, and I had been instructed to play the role of Yeshua, wearing one of the tallitot that the cong. had. Well, I did do it, but I felt so so uncomfortable, it was like "I'm wearing a man's item I'm wearing a man's item I don't want to....."

It just seems to me the solution for women is obvious, don't wear the man's garment, design something that is more feminine.

I think it's hugely problematic when people don't recognize that the genders are different, and that yes while we worship the Lord together, yet on some levels the genders need their own spiritual space, so to speak. Men & women sometimes appropriate spiritual things by very different methods, and I think this is good & healthy & needs to be respected.

[ContraMundum]

I hear ya wags, believe me....

But I have to agree the new "loosening" of the rules is a bit confussing.

We now have people that apparently have posting priveledges like they are MJ but in fact don't hold to the basic MJ beliefs.

While this is completely off topic it does deserve an answer.

Just what are the "basic" MJ beliefs? It appears that there has never really been any concrete unanimous agreement on that, and this, I would suggest, is the core of any confusion that may result in a forum like this. As an observer of this forum for quite some time now, I'd say that until recently there was some tension on this matter and much of the discussion seemed to be centred around what different people perceive to be "right" for MJism.

I think it is far wiser and a greater use of CF resources to allow the discussion at MJ to be greater than the focus of one particular set of MJ denominational tenets, whichever group that may be. As there are manifold MJ groups, there should be manifold perspectives allowable on an MJ forum.

And the Non Tri's still aren't allowed to post freely despite the fact that they are closer in beliefs then then non-MJ's who are now able to post freely here. :confused:

The ban on postings of non-Trinitarians on a CF forum has basically nothing to do with the MJ forum per se. It is a pre-requisite for all denominational forums in the "Christians only" section of CF. To allow it, the MJ forum would have to move to the "non-Christian" section, which would delight the opponents of the MJ movement, but would not properly reflect the evangelical foundations of the movement.

There are other forums on the internet that allow interactive cross-religion posting for people interested in the Judaic.

Also, I don't think it would be true to say that there are currently very many posters who are at odds with what some perceive should be MJ doctrine. Likewise, I think non-Trins have some pretty diverse ideas too, and are far more difficult to pin down to one set of beliefs than MJs or other Christian denominations.

I don't know of another "denominational" forum on CF that is so loose on who it allows to post.

I don't think I could agree to that. Most other forums are far broader (with one or two notable exceptions) and more accomodating than MJ. In fact, many outside of the MJ forum have often called this among the most narrow-minded and spikey forum around, that is, until recently.

I have always thought that the MJ forum should be a leading light in charity and balanced friendly discussion. I actually think it is slowly becoming just that, and I'm proud of you all.

Maybe a break from this place will help it all make some sense....:sigh:

Perhaps. We all do it from time to time.

[stone]

Thank you for those kind words CM.

and since were on the subject of tallits, here are a few to take a gander at:

http://www.jewisheart.com/index.asp?mode=ReviewCategory&item=1

[stone]

I was reading this on the order page of the tallits:

Please write in the note on the order page which style you want (Sepharad, or Ashkenaz)


What's the difference between sepharad and ashkenaz?

[Devasha]

According to the Scriptures, it is the same group of people who are to abstain from unclean animals and to wear tzitziyot on the corners of their garments.

The same Hebrew word for "children"--

בני1121


--is used in each address:

Lev 11:2 "Speak to the children of Yisra’ĕl, saying, ‘These are the living creatures which you do eat among all the beasts that are on the earth:

Num 15:38 "Speak to the children of Yisra’ĕl, and you shall say to them to make tzitziyot on the corners of their garments throughout their generations, and to put a blue clord in the tzitzit of the corners.

The Scriptures also give the reason for wearing tzitziyot:

Num 15:39 "And it shall be to you for a tzitzit, and you shall see it, and shall remember all the commands of יהוה and shall do them, and not search after your own heart and your own eyes after which you went whoring,
Num 15:40 so that you remember, and shall do all My commands, and be set-apart unto your Elohim.

According to the Scriptures, the woman had "eyes after which [she] went whoring":

Gen 3:6 And the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, and she took of its fruit and ate. And she also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.


According to the Scriptures, the woman was deceived and fell into transgression:

1Ti 2:14 And Aḏam was not deceived, but the woman, having been deceived, fell into transgression.


According to the Scriptures, women can be loaded down with sins and led away by various lusts:

2Ti 3:6 For among them are those who creep into households and captivate silly women loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts,

According to the Scriptures, even women can have degrading passions:

Rom 1:26 Because of this Elohim gave them over to degrading passions. For even their women exchanged natural relations for what is against nature,
According to the Scriptures, both men and women have an inclination to follow after their own heart and their own eyes.

According to the Scriptures, both men and women need to remember and do the commands of YHWH.

Num 15:39 "And it shall be to you for a tzitzit, and you shall see it, and shall remember all the commands of יהוה and shall do them, and not search after your own heart and your own eyes after which you went whoring,
Num 15:40 so that you remember, and shall do all My commands, and be set-apart unto your Elohim.
Num 15:41 "I am יהוה your Elohim, who brought you out of the land of Mitsrayim, to be your Elohim. I am יהוה your Elohim."

According to the Scriptures, YHWH brought both men and women out of Mitsrayim, and He wants both men and women to be set-apart unto Him.

Mat 23:13 "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you shut up the reign of the heavens before men [anthropos=human beings], for you do not go in, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.

[jgonz]

CM, if I hurt your feelings I'm sorry. You're right, you don't come in the "right" wrapper... just as I don't come in "any" correct wrapper on Any forum I post on. Everyone has biases about me because I have a scroll icon. HERE I used to be more comfortable, because we were all on the same basic page...

As Wags said, it's confusing. And to be honest, I'm rather irritated that the rules keep changing without telling us.

[stone]

According to the Scriptures, YHWH brought both men and women out of Mitsrayim, and He wants both men and women to be set-apart unto Him.


good post! :thumbsup:

[LadyGarnetRose]

According to the Scriptures, it is the same group of people who are to abstain from unclean animals and to wear tzitziyot on the corners of their garments.

The same Hebrew word for "children"--

<snip to save space>


Thank you. You have put that a lot more eloquently than I could have. I was extremely insulted by the previous comments that came across like I had no clue as to what I was talking about trying to make like it was only to the sons of Israel, and not all of Israel.

It is to ALL of Israel. When we find error in tradition where it CONTRIDICTS biblical teaching, we are to say something are we not?

The problem I have with "Traditionally" is that "Traditionally" Rabbis have been wrong, they are just humans, and we're not supposed to follow another human Blindly and put our faith in them that they got it correct.

[stone]

my wife wears one, and its obviously made for a woman. I use the loaners on a table, i've really got to get my own.

:pray:

[Devasha]

It is important to note the entirety of the conclusion of the council of Yerushalayim:

Act 15:19 "Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the gentiles who are turning to Elohim,
Act 15:20 but that we write to them to abstain from the defilements of idols, and from whoring, and from what is strangled, and from blood.
Act 15:21 "For from ancient generations Mosheh has, in every city, those proclaiming him - being read in the congregations every Sabbath."

The reason for the initial four abstensions for gentiles was so that they would be accepted into the "congregations every Sabbath" so that they could then hear and do the entirety of the Torah.

Deu 31:12 "Assemble the people, the men and the women and the little ones, and your sojourner who is within your gates, so that they hear, and so that they learn to fear יהוה your Elohim and guard to do all the Words of this Torah.


There is one Torah:

Exo 12:49 "There is one Torah for the native-born and for the stranger who sojourns among you."

Num 15:29 ‘For him who does whatever by mistake there is one Torah, both for him who is native among the children of Yisra’ĕl and for the stranger who sojourns in their midst.


There is one good olive tree into which believing gentiles and Yehudim are grafted:

Rom 11:24 For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree, how much more shall these who are the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?


There is one body, one Spirit, one Master, one belief, one immersion, one Elohim and Father of all:


Eph 4:1 I call upon you therefore, I the prisoner of the Master, to walk worthily of the calling with which you were called,
Eph 4:2 with all humility and meekness, with patience, bearing with one another in love,
Eph 4:3 being eager to guard the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace –
Eph 4:4 one body and one Spirit, as you also were called in one expectation of your calling,
Eph 4:5 one Master, one belief, one immersion,
Eph 4:6 one Elohim and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

YHWH is not exclusionary, but wants all to come to the knowledge of the truth (Torah):

1Ti 2:3 For this is good and acceptable before Elohim our Saviour,
1Ti 2:4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
1Ti 2:5 For there is one Elohim, and one Mediator between Elohim and men, the Man Messiah יהושע,

[Espada]

I was reading this on the order page of the tallits:

Please write in the note on the order page which style you want (Sepharad, or Ashkenaz)


What's the difference between sepharad and ashkenaz?

The number of knots I believe. I will try to check tomorrow for the exact details.

[Devasha]

The Hebrew word beged is translated into English as the word garments in the instructions regarding tzitziyot.

Num 15:38 "Speak to the children of Yisra’ĕl, and you shall say to them to make tzitziyot on the corners of their garments throughout their generations, and to put a blue cord in the tzitzit of the corners.

Beged is the same word used for garments in the following passages:

Gen 38:14 And she took off her widow’s garments, and covered herself with a veil and wrapped herself, and sat at the entrance to Ěnayim which was on the way to Timnah. For she saw that Shĕlah was grown, and she was not given to him as a wife.

Gen 38:19 And she arose and went away, and removed her veil and put on the garments of her widowhood.

Isa 52:1 Awake, awake! Put on your strength, O Tsiyon, put on your garments of splendour, O Yerushalayim, the set-apart city! For no more do the uncircumcised and the unclean come into you.
Isa 52:2 Shake yourself from the dust, arise, and sit down, O Yerushalayim. Loose yourself from the bonds of your neck, O captive daughter of Tsiyon!

Whenever we find ourselves clinging to a tradition--whether Christian, Jewish or heathen in origin--we need to examine it, and if it nullifies Torah, we have to make a decision as to whether we are going to serve YHWH or man.

Mar 7:6 And He answering, said to them, "Well did Yeshayahu prophesy concerning you hypocrites, as it has been written, ‘This people respect Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me.
Mar 7:7 And in vain do they worship Me, teaching as teachings the commands of men.
Mar 7:8 "Forsaking the command of Elohim, you hold fast the tradition of men."
Mar 7:9 And He said to them, "Well do you set aside the command of Elohim, in order to guard your tradition.

[torahgrandma]

The Hebrew word beged is translated into English as the word garments in the instructions regarding tzitziyot.

Num 15:38 "Speak to the children of Yisra’ĕl, and you shall say to them to make tzitziyot on the corners of their garments throughout their generations, and to put a blue cord in the tzitzit of the corners.

Beged is the same word used for garments in the following passages:

Gen 38:14 And she took off her widow’s garments, and covered herself with a veil and wrapped herself, and sat at the entrance to Ěnayim which was on the way to Timnah. For she saw that Shĕlah was grown, and she was not given to him as a wife.

Gen 38:19 And she arose and went away, and removed her veil and put on the garments of her widowhood.

Isa 52:1 Awake, awake! Put on your strength, O Tsiyon, put on your garments of splendour, O Yerushalayim, the set-apart city! For no more do the uncircumcised and the unclean come into you.
Isa 52:2 Shake yourself from the dust, arise, and sit down, O Yerushalayim. Loose yourself from the bonds of your neck, O captive daughter of Tsiyon!

Whenever we find ourselves clinging to a tradition--whether Christian, Jewish or heathen in origin--we need to examine it, and if it nullifies Torah, we have to make a decision as to whether we are going to serve YHWH or man.

Mar 7:6 And He answering, said to them, "Well did Yeshayahu prophesy concerning you hypocrites, as it has been written, ‘This people respect Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me.
Mar 7:7 And in vain do they worship Me, teaching as teachings the commands of men.
Mar 7:8 "Forsaking the command of Elohim, you hold fast the tradition of men."
Mar 7:9 And He said to them, "Well do you set aside the command of Elohim, in order to guard your tradition.

All of the language points were also discussed on this thread:

http://www.christianforums.com/t4851506-did-jesus-wear-a-prayer-shawl-tallit.html

This was posted there:

Isaiah 64
6 But we are all as an unclean<2931> thing , and all our righteousnesses<6666>are as filthy<5708> <rags899>; and we all do fade<5034-1101>as a leaf<5929>; and our iniquities<5771>, like the wind<7307>, have taken us away<5375>.

H899
בּגד
beged
BDB Definition:
1) treachery, deceit
2) (CLBL) garment, clothing (used indiscriminately)
Part of Speech: noun masculine
A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: from H898
Same Word by TWOT Number: 198a

[ContraMundum]

The real issue is that people are trying to prove an androgynous Israel. The wearing of Tzitzit, Tallitot, Tefillin and the like are laws not based on the scriptures that specifically mention them alone. The basis of gender distinctions is found in the creation account, and in the many other places in the Torah, and the mitzvot are to be understood in the counsel of the rest of Torah.

One cannot pluck scriptures out and apply them against the grain of centuries old counsel and come away thinking they've "worked it all out". That's not the way the Judeo-Christian religions work.

Furthermore, using the NT to explain the use of Tallitot is like window cleaning with a hammer. Wrong tool.

The reason I shouldn't explain this further is that the topic is too "private" (for want of a better word) for a public forum. Those who know where I'm coming from will know why I should be candid. It's about gender distinctions. ;)

[ContraMundum]

While your extensive proof-texting is quite interesting and useful, I think it all comes down to this point:

There is one Torah:

Exo 12:49 "There is one Torah for the native-born and for the stranger who sojourns among you."

Num 15:29 ‘For him who does whatever by mistake there is one Torah, both for him who is native among the children of Yisra’ĕl and for the stranger who sojourns in their midst.


While there is one Torah, there is no unilateral set of laws for a genderless Israel. That would be ridiculous, because not every law applies to every Jew. There are laws in the One Torah for the priests, laws for the lepers, laws for the Levites, laws for women, laws for men...etc etc etc. You get the point.

The issue is not even whether or not women should wear tzitzit per se, but whether or not they should wear a tallit. This goes deeper than the bare scriptures, but has to be understood in the light of the progress of fashion and the modern penchant for gender blurring launched by the atheist unisex movement (which for some reason many modern religious people follow).

The real underlying thing as I see it is that modernist interpretive paradigm- eg. the scriptures are interpreted individually and each man or woman does what is right in their own eyes. (See Judges 21:25) Scary world we live in.

[simchat_torah]

A Tallit, like a yarmulke, is a male garment.

The Torah strictly forbids cross-dressing.

A very famous rabbinical decision was made during Rashi's time declaring that women who are compelled to wear a tallit are allowed to, as long as the tallit is of feminine colors and design. From the beginning, the tallit did not begin as a man's garment. However, in the Middle Ages it became standard for the tallit to only be worn by men. Rashi's daughters who were particularly well educated and observant came under scrutiny for wearing talliyot. It was decided that while the tallit had become traditional for a man to wear, it was not explicitly stated to be a man's garment only. Thus, if a woman were observant and so desired to wear a tallit, she is permitted as long as it is feminine in style and color (so as not to "cross dress"). This decision is still followed by the Orthodox (and Conservative) today.

Your average congregant may not be aware of the Rabbinical decision, and find it odd to see a woman wearing a Tallit. However, it certainly is permissable for a woman to wear a Tallit by both Torah and Rabbinic standards.... so long as the tallit itself is of feminine design/coloring.

Historically, the tallit has mostly been permitted for use by women (Isaac ibn Ghiyyat (b. 1038), Rashi (1040-1105), Rabbenu Tam (ca 1100-1171), Zerachya ben Yitzhak Halevi of Lunel (ca 1125-1186), Rambam (1135−1204), R. Eliezer ben Yoel Halevi (ca 1140-ca 1225), Rashba (1235−1310), Aharon Halevi of Barcelona (b. ca 1235?), R. Yisrael Yaaqob Alghazi (1680-1761), and R. Yomtob ben Yisrael Alghazi (1726-1802)).

quoted from: http://www.religionfacts.com/judaism/things/tallit.htm


Women are exempt from commandments attached to time. The Tallis and the Tefillin are mitzvot that are connected to certain hours (eg. daylight) and thus women are not bound by them.
ummmm... WHAT?

?????

There are a number of mitzvot that apply to women during specific time frames (ie: uncleanliness from the monthly flow lasts 7 days, etc)

[simchat_torah]

According to the Scriptures, it is the same group of people who are to abstain from unclean animals and to wear tzitziyot on the corners of their garments.

The same Hebrew word for "children"--

בני1121
Correct ;) Devarim does not explicitly state the Tzitzit are to be worn by men and men only. Thus, it was open to debate and was eventually settled during Rashi's time. The ruling is still upheld today.

-Yafet

[ContraMundum]

ummmm... WHAT?

?????

There are a number of mitzvot that apply to women during specific time frames (ie: uncleanliness from the monthly flow lasts 7 days, etc)

That's correct. However, as you well (should) know, this is not what I was talking about. Context.

Seeing that you question the traditional halacha, I will quote:

"According to the Halakhah (http://javascript<b></b>:showILG('halakhah.htm');) [Jewish law], women are exempt from the obligation to carry out those precepts that depend for their performance on a given time. Since the precept of tzitzit is binding only during the day and not during the night it follows that this is a precept from which they are exempt. Thus women have no obligation to wear the tallit, and until recent years it was extremely unusual for women to wear it for prayer." http://www.myjewishlearning.com/daily_life/Prayer/Ritual_Garb/Tallit.htm

Also-

"Due to women’s unique role, they are exempt from any mitzvah which has a time contingency."..."Women are exempt from tzitzit too, for the obligation to wear tzitzit is only during the daytime."...

http://www.askmoses.com/article.html?h=150&o=2396

You should know there's much, much more out there on this. You made a valid point, but not the only one.

[simchat_torah]

Interestingly, even the material you quote states explicitly that women are "not obliged" to wear tzitzit and talliyot. It does not state they are denied from doing such... which was addressed in Rashi's time, and held up by today's rabbinic standards. While it may offend your mind it does not break Jewish law for a woman to wear a tallit. Women are allowed, but not required, to wear a tallit. This is not my opinion, but Jewish law.

Shalom,
Yafet

[ContraMundum]

Interestingly, even the material you quote states explicitly that women are "not obliged" to wear tzitzit and talliyot. It does not state they are denied from doing such... which was addressed in Rashi's time, and held up by today's rabbinic standards. While it may offend your mind it does not break Jewish law for a woman to wear a tallit. Women are allowed, but not required, to wear a tallit. This is not my opinion, but Jewish law.

Shalom,
Yafet

Yafet,

We already know that and have addressed it.

Much earlier in this thread it was mentioned that a woman should follow her conscience on this (in fact I even said "far be it from me to tell [others]..." and also "women are not bound by them" etc etc- I said words almost identical with yours!), so your point is ok per se and already addressed and generally agreed upon. You've come into the debate too late, too hard and in the wrong spirit.

Your post is a waste of your time.

[simchat_torah]

Much earlier in this thread it was mentioned that a woman should follow her conscience on this (in fact I even said "far be it from me to tell [others]..." and also "women are not bound by them" etc etc-
Yes, I know what you stated what could be done by women...

But let's be clear here. I'm not making my claim on what women should do. I have not even given my opinion.

In fact, what I have done instead is take issue with your claim that Judaism teaches it is wrong for a woman to wear a tallit, or that the Torah implies it is wrong. I have merely pointed to Jewish sources that state otherwise. Not just a fringe source either, but mainstream and well accepted Jewish sources that have become the standard application within Judaism.

[simchat_torah]

Your post is a waste of your time.
As well, good sir, I will try not to state that your posts are a waste of space if you will kindly address me in the same fashion.

-Yafet

[ContraMundum]

It might be best to let observant Jews speak for Judaism or messianics to speak for messainics. I promise I won't try to speak for Anglicans ;)

To be honest, I don't think you're speaking well for any group right now.

I've already had correspondence from orthodox Jews on this topic who have commended my answers to you even in the last few minutes (thanks friends!) so I think you're probably posting this for some other reasons than trying to be "right".

[simchat_torah]

Besides, didn't you walk away from Christianity last year?
Actually... no.

I "walked away" from Christianity well over 8 years ago. I have Jewish ancestory, but was raised christian. My family moved to the US to escape the death camps during WWII. I have attended Jewish Synagogue for 7 1/2 years (messianic congregations before that)... and I formally converted (conservative conversion) over two years ago now.

[simchat_torah]

...so I think you're probably posting this for some other reasons than trying to be "right".
I'm afraid not. I posted because I see an Anglican attempting to speak for Rabbinic Judaism. Having some formal Rabbinic training, I felt qualified to address the posts in an informed manner.

Trust me, there's no angst in my posting. I merely wanted to inform others (even before I saw your posts) about the Jewish stance on tallit and women. My wife specifcally looked into this issue and we found Rashi's story and the Rabbinic answer to this question several years ago. I found it to be fascinating and wanted to share it when this thread was created. Granted, I put off making a post for some time, but when I finally did... I had to address incorrect assumptions that were laid out in previous posts. Nothing more.
There is no personal agenda I have against you Contra ;)

-Yafet

[ContraMundum]

I'm afraid not. I posted because I see an Anglican attempting to speak for Rabbinic Judaism. Having some formal Rabbinic training, I felt qualified to address the posts in an informed manner.

To be frank, there's different shades of Rabbinic Judaism. My background is a lot more Orthodox than the Conservative stream, so if I come across as having a more spikey point of view that's probably why. While you speak for Rabbinic Judaism as you understand it, I speak from what I know (and yes, I've done my little bit of study too) and I say that while we agree in principle we do not agree in practicum. Not a big deal, really. It's really indicative of the various positions within Rabbinic Judaism as it is anyway.

[IamGodslittlegirl]

simchat,

I am wondering if there are any earlier sources than what you quoted from that refer to "tallit". I see that often times the word tsitit is used in Jewish writings, but seems to have evolved into the word "tallit". Do you have any idea when this began to occur? I am curious if Rashi or any of the other sages did so.

thanx :)

[simchat_torah]

To be frank, there's different shades of Rabbinic Judaism. My background is a lot more Orthodox than the Conservative stream, so if I come across as having a more spikey point of view that's probably why. While you speak for Rabbinic Judaism as you understand it, I speak from what I know (and yes, I've done my little bit of study too) and I say that while we agree in principle we do not agree in practicum. Not a big deal, really. It's really indicative of the various positions within Rabbinic Judaism as it is anyway.

It is quite true that there are different streams within Judaism. The wonderful thing about Judaism is that while the different streams are of varied colors, it is quite literally one body...

Anyway, my presentation of Rashi and his daughters wearing talliyot is coming from an Orthodox teaching and perspective. The other forms of Judaism haven't really done anything to change the view that women are allowed but not required to wear a tallit. I think that Conservative Jewish women tend to wear Talliyot the most. Rarely do you see anyone in reform wearing a Tallit, male or female. Maybe on high holy days and festivals. I think that Orthodox women try to keep a very feminine role, most don't wear any sort of tallit. I've met a few who do... but it is rare. Oddly enough, Conservative Jewish women who want to be observant tend to be the largest crowd within Judaism who do wear talliyot.

Go figure ;)

[simchat_torah]

I am wondering if there are any earlier sources than what you quoted from that refer to "tallit". I see that often times the word tsitit is used in Jewish writings, but seems to have evolved into the word "tallit". Do you have any idea when this began to occur? I am curious if Rashi or any of the other sages did so.Tallit is garment which holds the tzitzit. Tzitzit are the fringed strings you see on the corners of a prayer shawl (the prayer shawl itself is the "tallit").

The commandment in Devarim was given to wear these strings (tzitzit) on the "corners" of your garments. Considering most garments today don't have corners, a specific rectangular prayer shawl was created to wear which carries the tzitizt.

Sooo....to recap:
tzitzit - the strings that dangle from the corners
tallit - the garment that carries the tzitzit

There are also undergarments that have corners which carry the tzitzit as well. Most Jews you meet will only wear their tallit on holy days or to services or when they pray. However, very traditional Jews will wear a tallit katan (the undergarment) all day.


I hope this helps!
-Yafet

[IamGodslittlegirl]

Tallit is garment which holds the tzitzit. Tzitzit are the fringed strings you see on the corners of a prayer shawl (the prayer shawl itself is the "tallit").

The commandment in Devarim was given to wear these strings (tzitzit) on the "corners" of your garments. Considering most garments today don't have corners, a specific rectangular prayer shawl was created to wear which carries the tzitizt.

Sooo....to recap:
tzitzit - the strings that dangle from the corners
tallit - the garment that carries the tzitzit

There are also undergarments that have corners which carry the tzitzit as well. Most Jews you meet will only wear their tallit on holy days or to services or when they pray. However, very traditional Jews will wear a tallit katan (the undergarment) all day.


I hope this helps!
-Yafet

So then are you saying that there is no earlier sources other than the middle ages writings that mention the tallit?

Also, When do you think the tallit came about?

[simchat_torah]

Oh, yes... there are many sources for the Tallit. I thought you were asking the difference between the two. My appologies. When I get home later, if I have time, I'll find some resources and post them here ;)

shalom,
Yafet

[simchat_torah]

The Tallit is mentioned in the Talmud (circa 350 c.e. though its origins date back to at least 70 c.e.) and various other historical Jewish texts. So it at least predates the Middle Ages by a millenia ;)

A great resource for all things Jewish is a site called "About Judaism". They have a small article about the origins of the Tallit:
http://judaism.about.com/library/3_askrabbi_c/bl_tallit_history.htm

As well, you can find almost anything in wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tallit

I hope these help!
-Yafet

[IamGodslittlegirl]

The Tallit is mentioned in the Talmud (circa 350 c.e. though its origins date back to at least 70 c.e.) and various other historical Jewish texts. So it at least predates the Middle Ages by a millenia ;)

A great resource for all things Jewish is a site called "About Judaism". They have a small article about the origins of the Tallit:
http://judaism.about.com/library/3_askrabbi_c/bl_tallit_history.htm

As well, you can find almost anything in wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tallit

I hope these help!
-Yafet

I am really looking for some actual quotes from the Talmud that refer to the word "tallit" that you are referring to - hoping that you can provide me with them. If you have some quotes from the other sources that you mentioned where the actual word "tallit" is used that predates the middle ages by 1000 years - that would be an added blessing!

thanx!

[IamGodslittlegirl]

The Tallit is mentioned in the Talmud (circa 350 c.e. though its origins date back to at least 70 c.e.) and various other historical Jewish texts. So it at least predates the Middle Ages by a millenia ;)


I hope these help!
-Yafet

Are you saying then that Jesus did not wear a tallit?

[Ivy]

I don't know whether you'll get a bonafide MJ answer at the moment, IamGodslittlegirl, since as you are probably well aware, this is the first night of Passover. There may not be too many people around at present.

However, I will try to help if I can. My understanding is that the tallit as it's known now was developed after the time of Yeshua. I believe that the custom of wearing tzitzit was what was followed during his time and it is highly likely, that since he was a Jew, he followed this practice.

[IamGodslittlegirl]

I don't know whether you'll get a bonafide MJ answer at the moment, IamGodslittlegirl, since as you are probably well aware, this is the first night of Passover. There may not be too many people around at present.

However, I will try to help if I can. My understanding is that the tallit as it's known now was developed after the time of Yeshua. I believe that the custom of wearing tzitzit was what was followed during his time and it is highly likely, that since he was a Jew, he followed this practice.

yes, thank you - I am aware that this is pesach :)

I also believe that Jesus wore tzitzit. My questions really pertain to the history of the tallit itself, but thank you for your thoughts :wave:

[Devasha]

The real issue is that people are trying to prove an androgynous Israel.

I am definitely not one of those people.

Belief in One Torah does not equate with belief in nor promotion of a "genderless Israel". Obviously Israel as well as all of mankind are gendered, regardless what man does (transvestism, gender reassignment surgeries, etc.).

I haven't seen any evidence that anyone who has posted here is unaware that the Torah consists of gender-specific, time-specific, role-specific, etc., etc., instructions as well as those that apply to all.

The point is that a tallit is a garment upon which the mitzvah of attaching tzitziyot is carried out. There is no Scriptural mitzvah to wear a tallit.

The mitzvah of the tzitziyot was given to women as well as men. Because women are women and men are men, the women's tzitziyot are attached to their women's clothing, and the men's tzitziyot are attached to their men's clothing, which is in complete harmony with Debarim 22:5 and maintains gender distinction.

Some of us believe that it is imperative to examine "centuries-old counsel" in the light of Scriptural Truth because it is about submitting our will to YHWH and not about submitting our will to "Judeo-Christian religions".

Shaul said that--

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Granted he was speaking of the Tanakh at the time, but those of us who accept the entire canon as "Scripture given by inspiration of God" believe that all of Scripture--including the Ketuvim Netzarim--is profitable for doctrine and instruction in righteousness.

To be clear, our community is extremely gender distinct. The men sit on one side, the women on the other. The women wear long skirts and full headcoverings. The men's faces are unshaved. We follow the laws of niddah, so there is no casual contact between the men and the women. The women are feminine, and the men are masculine. We take our gender-assigned roles very seriously and are diligent to learn and follow all Scriptural instructions, including those specific to each gender.

[stone]

Are you saying then that Jesus did not wear a tallit?


hmmm...

looks like Peter did;

Acts 12:
8 And the angel said unto him, Gird thyself, and bind on thy sandals. And so he did. And he saith unto him, Cast thy garment about thee, and follow me.

***

If you've ever done fishing and worked with nets you know when something is cast, you grab it with both hands and throw it out, cast, just like you would a tallit over your back and then you will pull it over your head, this is what is called a mantle or a tallit.

[torahgrandma]

hmmm...

looks like Peter did;

Acts 12:
8 And the angel said unto him, Gird thyself, and bind on thy sandals. And so he did. And he saith unto him, Cast thy garment about thee, and follow me.

***

If you've ever done fishing and worked with nets you know when something is cast, you grab it with both hands and throw it out, cast, just like you would a tallit over your back and then you will pull it over your head, this is what is called a mantle or a tallit.

I know a little bit about fishing, but I know a little more about Biblical languages. Let’s take a look at the passage that you cited:

Act 12
8 And the angel said unto him, Gird yourself, and bind on your sandals. And so he did. And he said unto him, Cast your garment <G2440> about you, and follow me.

The Greek word himation <G2440> occurs 61 times in the NT text. Let’s take a look at a few of the ways it is used:

Luke 22
36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that has a purse, let him take it, and likewise his bag: and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment <G2440>, and buy one.

Was Jesus instructing him to sell his holy garment (tallit) and buy a sword?

Mark 10
49 And Jesus stood still, and commanded him to be called. And they called the blind man, saying unto him, Be of good comfort, rise; he calls you.
50 And he, casting away his garment <G2440>, rose, and came to Jesus.

If this was a talit, I am wondering why Jesus did not scold the blind man for throwing his holy garment on the ground. It also begs the question of how the man saw the fringes to remind him to keep the commandments.

Mark 13
16 And let him that is in the field not turn back again to take up his garment <G2440>.

Is Jesus instructing him to leave his holy garment behind?

Matthew 21
7 And brought the donkey, and the colt, and put on them their clothes<G2440>, and they sat him thereon.
8 And a very great multitude spread their garments<G2440> in the way; others cut down branches from the trees, and spread them in the way.

Would they throw their tallit over a donkey, and also throw them on the ground? Would Jesus be approving of that?

[stone]

I know a little bit about fishing, but I know a little more about Biblical languages. Let’s take a look at the passage that you cited:



what is your answer then?

[Espada]

An interesting thing I have heard is that Mic 4:2 can be translated as But for you who revere my name, the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its corners. Instead "in its wings" as the Hebrew word could be translated either way.

Maybe someone with better Hebrew skills could confirm or deny this.

[torahgrandma]

An interesting thing I have heard is that Mic 4:2 can be translated as But for you who revere my name, the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its corners. Instead "in its wings" as the Hebrew word could be translated either way.

Maybe someone with better Hebrew skills could confirm or deny this.

You confused me :)

It was Malachi 4:2. Here are the many ways it is translated into English.

H3671
כּנף
kânâph
Total KJV Occurrences: 109

wings, 61
Exo_19:4, Exo_25:20 (2), Exo_37:9 (2), Lev_1:17, Rth_2:11-12 (2), 2Sa_22:11, 1Ki_6:27 (2), 1Ki_8:6-7 (2), 2Ch_3:11, 2Ch_3:13, 2Ch_5:7-8 (2), Job_39:13, Job_39:26, Psa_17:8, Psa_18:10, Psa_36:7, Psa_57:1, Psa_61:4, Psa_63:7, Psa_68:13, Psa_91:4, Psa_104:3, Psa_139:9, Pro_23:5, Ecc_10:20, Isa_6:2, Isa_8:8, Isa_18:1, Jer_48:40, Jer_49:22, Eze_1:6, Eze_1:8-9 (3), Eze_1:11, Eze_1:23-25 (4), Eze_3:13, Eze_10:5, Eze_10:8, Eze_10:12, Eze_10:16, Eze_10:19, Eze_11:21-22 (3), Eze_17:3, Eze_17:7, Hos_4:19, Zec_5:9 (3), Mal_4:2

wing, 13
1Ki_6:24 (3), 1Ki_6:27 (2), 2Ch_3:11-12 (6), Isa_10:14, Eze_17:23

skirt, 12
Deu_22:30, Deu_27:20, Rth_3:9, 1Sa_15:27, 1Sa_24:4-5 (2), 1Sa_24:11 (2), Eze_16:8, Hag_2:12 (2), Zec_8:23

borders, 2
Num_15:38 (2)

corners, 2
Isa_11:12, Eze_7:2

ends, 2
Job_37:2-3 (2), Job_38:13

feathered, 2
Psa_78:27, Eze_39:17

skirts, 2
Jer_2:34, Eze_5:3

sort, 2
Gen_7:14, Eze_39:4

winged, 2
Gen_1:21, Deu_4:17

another, 1
1Ki_6:27

bird, 1
Pro_1:17

corner, 1
Isa_30:20

flying, 1
Psa_148:10

one, 1
1Ki_6:27

other, 1
1Ki_6:24

overspreading, 1
Dan_9:27

quarters, 1
Deu_22:12

uttermost, 1
Isa_24:16

[LadyGarnetRose]

Contra,

I completely missed what you were trying to say.

Women are not required, but are permitted I can agree to disagree to :)

To those of you who still wish to continue the argument of Tallit or not.

You can go see a Tallit, that dates to 132 AD, you need to go the Israel Museum in Jerusalem, look for the Bar Kochva Cave exhibit, it's housed in the same building as the DSS. In the exhibit is the tallit.

While it does not predate Messiah. It is contemporary to the eldest fragment of Gospel we have.

[ContraMundum]

Contra,

I completely missed what you were trying to say.

Women are not required, but are permitted I can agree to disagree to :)

To those of you who still wish to continue the argument of Tallit or not.

You can go see a Tallit, that dates to 132 AD, you need to go the Israel Museum in Jerusalem, look for the Bar Kochva Cave exhibit, it's housed in the same building as the DSS. In the exhibit is the tallit.

While it does not predate Messiah. It is contemporary to the eldest fragment of Gospel we have.

Good point.

I was reading an archeological magazine some time ago where there was an archeologist mentioning the tallit that some of the casualties at Masada were buried in.

[torahgrandma]

Contra,

I completely missed what you were trying to say.

Women are not required, but are permitted I can agree to disagree to :)

To those of you who still wish to continue the argument of Tallit or not.

You can go see a Tallit, that dates to 132 AD, you need to go the Israel Museum in Jerusalem, look for the Bar Kochva Cave exhibit, it's housed in the same building as the DSS. In the exhibit is the tallit.

While it does not predate Messiah. It is contemporary to the eldest fragment of Gospel we have.

I went to the museum, and there was no information there. I did find it here:

http://www.israelcraft.com/tallit-information/other-tallit-info.html

This is a site that sells prayer shawls. If you could, please post a link so that I can review this information. I read about a "robe" a while back that was supposedly found in a cave at Qumran, but then it mysteriously turned up missing so it was not verifiable. There was no mention of a tallit.

In this article, it says that it was fringes that were found.
quote:

This question has been a matter of learned debate among Jewish scholars for many centuries. Only quite recently light has been shed upon the subject by an unexpected archaeological discovery. In the Bar Kochba caves by the Dead Sea, tassels have been found which were sufficiently well preserved to reveal that they were composed of linen threads with a cord of blue wool. It is now realised that the prohibition of mixing linen and wool only applied to the weaving process, and not to the added embroidery of the fringe and the tassels.

http://www.bibletopics.com/BIBLESTUDY/14.htm

Like the "ancient" Messianic seal (grafted in), I have yet to see any archaeological proof of tallit, but I am all ears. Please post those links. :).

[ContraMundum]

what is your answer then?

What grannie is saying is that the word translated as "garment" is generic for any garment.

What she is missing is that this garment referred to as being on Peter is to be "cast around" his body. This of course is descriptive of what kind of garment Peter wore. A garment that has to be cast around his body.

This is what we've been saying all along. The word "Tallit" does not appear in the scriptures- that doesn't make a tallis an unsanctified garment or mean that they didn't exist in a more primitive form, called by various other names, abundant in ancient documents.

I wish grannie would be consistant too, in her attempt to rebut your interpretation of this text. She is saying that the word for "garment" is generic and therefore could not be a tallis. However, when pressed to give us the word(s) for specific garments in the scriptures, she refers to generic words to try to prove that the tallit or a tallit-like predessesor never existed. Bizzare.

So, we just ask grannie exactly what garments Peter wore and what the one that he cast about his body was called and what it looked like.... and we are left with the noises of crickets. (But those sincerly interested in ancient Israeli clothing can find ample teaching in many places.)

[ContraMundum]

I went to the museum, and there was no information there.


You went to Israel in the space of a few hours and visited a museum?

[torahgrandma]

You went to Israel in the space of a few hours and visited a museum?

I let my keyboard do the walking. :)

Links please ;)

[torahgrandma]

What grannie is saying is that the word translated as "garment" is generic for any garment.

What she is missing is that this garment referred to as being on Peter is to be "cast around" his body. This of course is descriptive of what kind of garment Peter wore. A garment that has to be cast around his body.

Must have been a little breezy wearing nothing but a tallit :) Could this be why Rhoda didn't let him in at first? And why they were astonished? ;)

Act 12:16 But Peter continued knocking: and when they had opened the door, and saw him, they were astonished.

I hope that it wasn't winter ;)


This is what we've been saying all along. The word "Tallit" does not appear in the scriptures- that doesn't make a tallis an unsanctified garment or mean that they didn't exist in a more primitive form, called by various other names, abundant in ancient documents.

Could you please cite a few of those ancient documents?



So, we just ask grannie exactly what garments Peter wore and what the one that he cast about his body was called and what it looked like.... and we are left with the noises of crickets. (But those sincerly interested in ancient Israeli clothing can find ample teaching in many places.)Maybe it isn't crickets, but the sound of Peter shivering ;)

[stone]

Maybe it isn't crickets, but the sound of Peter shivering ;)


exactly, if it was cold enough for Peter to be freez3ing, those prisons are found to be buried and cold and dark right. he would not have left a garment lying about. The garment to cast over his body would be, in context, what is refferred to time and time again within scriptur4es as a mantle.

[stone]

tg

why do folks wear them

[LadyGarnetRose]

I let my keyboard do the walking. :)

Links please ;)
The Archeology Webpage is down.

What is your purpose in arguing this point?

[Espada]

You confused me :)

It was Malachi 4:2. Here are the many ways it is translated into English.

Sorry, my mistake, I even copied and pasted the verse so I don't know what was going on inside my head. I'll blame the Seder wine;)

If it ca be be translated as corners, borders or any of the other options, then it is not surprising that the woman touched Jesus' tzittzit for healing.

[torahgrandma]

The Archeology Webpage is down.

What is your purpose in arguing this point?

I am not arguing. I am hungry for facts.;)

[Mikhail]

I'm trying to figure out...where one gets that only a man should wear tallis and tefflin. Unto the Children of Israel. Not the male children...but all the children of Israel.

Numbers 15:38 'Speak unto the children of Israel, and bid them that they make them throughout their generations fringes in the corners of their garments, and that they put with the fringe of each corner a thread of blue.

Deuteronomy 6:4-9 4 Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God, the LORD is one. 5 And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. 6 And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be upon thy heart; 7 and thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thy house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. 8 And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thy hand, and they shall be for frontlets between thine eyes. 9 And thou shalt write them upon the door-posts of thy house, and upon thy gates.

To be more accurate the Hebrew says Benei Israel which is sons of Israel.

Translating hebrew into another language is problematic at best it is like comparing a 3 dimensioinal image into 2 dimensional one and you literally lose the depth aspect and Hebrew being a Divine language has a richness that modern vernacular language such as English simply does not have the capacity to communicate even with many words.

[Torah]

To be more accurate the Hebrew says Benei Israel which is sons of Israel.

Translating hebrew into another language is problematic at best it is like comparing a 3 dimensioinal image into 2 dimensional one and you literally lose the depth aspect and Hebrew being a Divine language has a richness that modern vernacular language such as English simply does not have the capacity to communicate even with many words.



This has been the problem that the translators had in translating the early scriptures called the “Old Testament” into what we have today. Each letter in a Hebrew word can have deeper meanings giving a word a different understanding. Example: The word “covering” can have a male and female connotation. This is why I stay out of these debates.
Shalom Mikhail, long time no see.

[torahgrandma]

Translating hebrew into another language is problematic at best it is like comparing a 3 dimensioinal image into 2 dimensional one and you literally lose the depth aspect and Hebrew being a Divine language has a richness that modern vernacular language such as English simply does not have the capacity to communicate even with many words.

We had an indepth discussion about the Hebrew language and its divine attributes a while back. You can read it here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t4946526-is-hebrew-a-holy-languae.html#post32581229

[ContraMundum]

Must have been a little breezy wearing nothing but a tallit :) Could this be why Rhoda didn't let him in at first? And why they were astonished? ;)

Are you finally admitting to the fact that the Bible doesn't mention every article of clothing that they wore?

However, we take note that the garment that he cast about his body is mentioned. Cool. Must've been worth mentioning for some reason.

Could you please cite a few of those ancient documents?

Why? Doing a Doctorate?

[torahgrandma]

Are you finally admitting to the fact that the Bible doesn't mention every article of clothing that they wore?

However, we take note that the garment that he cast about his body is mentioned. Cool. Must've been worth mentioning for some reason.



We have a little problem with the casting the net as in fishing concept, because it is two different words:

Act 12:8 And the angel said unto him, Gird thyself, and bind on thy sandals. And so he did. And he saith unto him, Cast [G4016] thy garment about thee, and follow me.

cast <G4016 > periballo
1) to throw around, to put around

a) to surround a city with a bank (palisade)

b) of garments, to clothe one

1) to put a thing on one

2) to clothe one with a thing

c) to put on or clothe one's self


Mat 6:31 Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed [G4016]?

Mat 25:43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed [G4016] me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

Mark 14:51 And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast [G4016] about his naked [body]; and the young men laid hold on him:

Mark 16:5And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed [G4016] in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.

Luke 19:43 For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast [G4016] a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side,

John 19:2 And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put it on his head, and they put on [G4016] him a purple robe,

Rev 10:1 And I saw another mighty angel come down from heaven, clothed [G4016] with a cloud: and a rainbow was upon his head, and his face was as it were the sun, and his feet as pillars of fire:

Rev 11:3 And I will give [power] unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred [and] threescore days, clothed [G4016] in sackcloth.

Rev 12:1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed [G4016] with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:


Here are some other translations of Acts 12:8:


(NKJV) Then the angel said to him, “Gird yourself and tie on your sandals”; and so he did. And he said to him, “Put on your garment and follow me.”

(NET) The angel said to him, "Fasten your belt and put on your sandals." Peter did so. Then the angel said to him, "Put on your cloak and follow me."

(LB) Then the angel told him, "Get dressed and put on your shoes." And he did. "Now put on your coat and follow me!" the angel ordered.

(NLT) Then the angel told him, "Get dressed and put on your sandals." And he did. "Now put on your coat and follow me," the angel ordered.

(Lamsa) And the angel said to him, Bind on your girdle and put on your sandals. And so he did. And again he said to him, Put on your robe and follow me.

And the favorite translation of Messianics:

(CJB) The angel said to him, "Put on your clothes and sandals," and he did. "Throw on your robe," he said, "and follow me!"

Now the other word:

Mat 13:47 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast [G906] into the sea, and gathered of every kind:

cast - <G906> - ballo
1) to throw or let go of a thing without caring where it falls

a) to scatter, to throw, cast into

b) to give over to one's care uncertain about the result

c) of fluids

1) to pour, pour into of rivers

2) to pour out

2) to put into, insert

[stone]

We have a little problem with the casting the net as in fishing concept, because it is two different words:

Act 12:8 And the angel said unto him, Gird thyself, and bind on thy sandals. And so he did. And he saith unto him, Cast [G4016] thy garment about thee, and follow me.

cast <G4016 > periballo
1) to throw around, to put around

a) to surround a city with a bank (palisade)

b) of garments, to clothe one

1) to put a thing on one

2) to clothe one with a thing

c) to put on or clothe one's self


Mat 6:31 Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed [G4016]?

Mat 25:43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed [G4016] me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

Mark 14:51 And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast [G4016] about his naked [body]; and the young men laid hold on him:

Mark 16:5And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed [G4016] in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.

Luke 19:43 For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast [G4016] a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side,

John 19:2 And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put it on his head, and they put on [G4016] him a purple robe,

Rev 10:1 And I saw another mighty angel come down from heaven, clothed [G4016] with a cloud: and a rainbow was upon his head, and his face was as it were the sun, and his feet as pillars of fire:

Rev 11:3 And I will give [power] unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred [and] threescore days, clothed [G4016] in sackcloth.

Rev 12:1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed [G4016] with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:


Here are some other translations of Acts 12:8:


(NKJV) Then the angel said to him, “Gird yourself and tie on your sandals”; and so he did. And he said to him, “Put on your garment and follow me.”

(NET) The angel said to him, "Fasten your belt and put on your sandals." Peter did so. Then the angel said to him, "Put on your cloak and follow me."

(LB) Then the angel told him, "Get dressed and put on your shoes." And he did. "Now put on your coat and follow me!" the angel ordered.

(NLT) Then the angel told him, "Get dressed and put on your sandals." And he did. "Now put on your coat and follow me," the angel ordered.

(Lamsa) And the angel said to him, Bind on your girdle and put on your sandals. And so he did. And again he said to him, Put on your robe and follow me.

And the favorite translation of Messianics:

(CJB) The angel said to him, "Put on your clothes and sandals," and he did. "Throw on your robe," he said, "and follow me!"

Now the other word:

Mat 13:47 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast [G906] into the sea, and gathered of every kind:

cast - <G906> - ballo
1) to throw or let go of a thing without caring where it falls

a) to scatter, to throw, cast into

b) to give over to one's care uncertain about the result

c) of fluids

1) to pour, pour into of rivers

2) to pour out

2) to put into, insert

what's your point?

[ContraMundum]

We have a little problem with the casting the net as in fishing concept, because it is two different words:

Act 12:8 And the angel said unto him, Gird thyself, and bind on thy sandals. And so he did. And he saith unto him, Cast [G4016] thy garment about thee, and follow me.

cast <G4016 > periballo
1) to throw around, to put around

a) to surround a city with a bank (palisade)

b) of garments, to clothe one

1) to put a thing on one

2) to clothe one with a thing

c) to put on or clothe one's self


Mat 6:31 Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed [G4016]?

Mat 25:43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed [G4016] me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

Mark 14:51 And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast [G4016] about his naked [body]; and the young men laid hold on him:

Mark 16:5And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed [G4016] in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.

Luke 19:43 For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast [G4016] a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side,

John 19:2 And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put it on his head, and they put on [G4016] him a purple robe,

Rev 10:1 And I saw another mighty angel come down from heaven, clothed [G4016] with a cloud: and a rainbow was upon his head, and his face was as it were the sun, and his feet as pillars of fire:

Rev 11:3 And I will give [power] unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred [and] threescore days, clothed [G4016] in sackcloth.

Rev 12:1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed [G4016] with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:


Here are some other translations of Acts 12:8:


(NKJV) Then the angel said to him, “Gird yourself and tie on your sandals”; and so he did. And he said to him, “Put on your garment and follow me.”

(NET) The angel said to him, "Fasten your belt and put on your sandals." Peter did so. Then the angel said to him, "Put on your cloak and follow me."

(LB) Then the angel told him, "Get dressed and put on your shoes." And he did. "Now put on your coat and follow me!" the angel ordered.

(NLT) Then the angel told him, "Get dressed and put on your sandals." And he did. "Now put on your coat and follow me," the angel ordered.

(Lamsa) And the angel said to him, Bind on your girdle and put on your sandals. And so he did. And again he said to him, Put on your robe and follow me.

And the favorite translation of Messianics:

(CJB) The angel said to him, "Put on your clothes and sandals," and he did. "Throw on your robe," he said, "and follow me!"

Now the other word:

Mat 13:47 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast [G906] into the sea, and gathered of every kind:

cast - <G906> - ballo
1) to throw or let go of a thing without caring where it falls

a) to scatter, to throw, cast into

b) to give over to one's care uncertain about the result

c) of fluids

1) to pour, pour into of rivers

2) to pour out

2) to put into, insert

What on earth is this?

What on earth is the point of posting half of Strong's Concordance?

Want to discuss the parsing of the verse and find out what it means or just cut and paste the rest of Strong's so we can muddy the waters and figure out what it might or might not be? (does anyone else here think posts look absolutely amateur and ridiculous when people post Strong's numbers, or is it just me?) Having and knowing how to use Strong's does not make one a student of Greek, as you would agree.

The parsing of the verse is simple enough- citing dynamic translations doesn't cut it. None of them are close to the mark in the Greek. I would have thought was obvious. Perhaps you should use a more literal Bible, or just properly apply the Greek.

[ContraMundum]

Redundant post...posted twice in reply to same post.

[torahgrandma]

What on earth is this?

What on earth is the point of posting half of Strong's Concordance?

I post resources that are readily available to all forum members so that they may check it out themselves. This is not the B-Greek forum. The earlier comparision of casting like a fishing net was incorrect, and the simple resources that I posted clearly proves this.



The parsing of the verse is simple enough- citing dynamic translations doesn't cut it. None of them are close to the mark in the Greek. I would have thought was obvious. Perhaps you should use a more literal Bible, or just properly apply the Greek. From the Net Bible explanation:

Is a literal translation the best translation?

Although one of the general principles of this translation is to indicate in the notes a more literal rendering, not every departure from such is noted. For one thing, Greek (or Hebrew) and English are sufficiently different that to document every departure would be an exercise in futility. No translation is completely literal, nor should that be a desirable goal. A completely word-for-word literal translation would be unreadable. John 4:15, for example, would be rendered: “Says to him the woman, ‘Sir, give to me this the water that not I thirst nor I come here to draw.” Matthew 1:18 would say, “Of the but Jesus Christ the birth thus was. Being betrothed the mother of him, Mary, to Joseph, before of to come together them she was found in belly having from Spirit Holy.” Such examples are not isolated, but are the norm. Claims for a literal translation must necessarily have a lot of fine print.
Literal is also not necessarily faithful. The word order differences between English and Greek, the use of the article, case, infinitives, participles, voice, mood, and other grammatical features are often so different that gibberish is the result if an absolutely literal translation is attempted (as in the two examples cited above). Not only this, but the idioms of one language have to be converted into the receptor language. Thus, in Matthew 1:18, no English translation (not even the King James Version) would dare speak of Mary’s pregnancy as “she was having in the belly.” Yet this is the literal Greek expression for pregnancy. But it is [I]not English. Thus the real question in translation is not whether it is literal, but whether it is faithful. And fidelity requires converting the lexical, grammatical, idiomatic, and figurative elements (to mention but a few) of the original language into the corresponding package in the receptor language. At times this can be accomplished by maintaining an approximately literal force. At other times, a loose rendering is required if the sentence is to have any meaning in English at all. Of course, this can be overdone. There are two dangers to avoid in translation. First, a translation should not be so literal that it is not good English. The meaning of the original needs to be as faithfully rendered into good English as possible. Second, a translation should not be so loose that it becomes merely an interpretation or allows sectarian interests to overwhelm the resultant text. All translation is interpretation; it cannot be otherwise. But the issue is how much interpretation and how idiosyncratic an interpretation is.
Part of the problem is this: the more literal a translation is, the less readable it generally is; the more readable it is, the less faithful it is to the original meaning (at least in many cases). Some modern translations are quite readable but are not very faithful to the biblical author’s meaning. A major goal of good translation is of course readability – but not at the expense of the intended meaning. The philosophy of the NET Bible translators was to be interpretive when such an interpretation represents the best thinking of recent scholarship. Thus, for example, in Romans 6:4, the expression “newness of life” is taken to mean “new life” by grammarians and exegetes alike and is thus translated this way. But when an interpretive translation is unnecessary or might suggest sectarian bias, and when a more literal rendering results in good English, we have followed the latter course.
A major category of nonliteral translation involves certain conjunctions. For example, the Greek word καιί (kai), meaning generally “and, even, also, yet, but, indeed,” is often left untranslated at the beginning of a sentence. When such is the case, there is usually no note given. However, if the possibility exists that an interpretive issue is involved, a note is given.
An additional consideration of the translation team was faithfulness (as far as possible without violation of current English style) to the style of the individual biblical authors. Even within the New Testament, written over a short span of time in comparison with the Old Testament, the authors exhibit their own unique literary styles. Paul’s style differs from Peter’s, and both differ from John’s. The translators and editors attempted to give the modern reader an impression of these stylistic differences where it was possible to do so without sacrificing accuracy, clarity, or readability.


http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=3537

P.S.

Have you come up with the links for that 135 ce tallit yet. I am anxious to read the facts.

[ContraMundum]

I post resources that are readily available to all forum members so that they may check it out themselves. This is not the B-Greek forum. The earlier comparision of casting like a fishing net was incorrect, and the simple resources that I posted clearly proves this.

From the Net Bible explanation:

Is a literal translation the best translation?

Although one of the general principles of this translation is to indicate in the notes a more literal rendering, not every departure from such is noted. For one thing, Greek (or Hebrew) and English are sufficiently different that to document every departure would be an exercise in futility. No translation is completely literal, nor should that be a desirable goal. A completely word-for-word literal translation would be unreadable. John 4:15, for example, would be rendered: “Says to him the woman, ‘Sir, give to me this the water that not I thirst nor I come here to draw.” Matthew 1:18 would say, “Of the but Jesus Christ the birth thus was. Being betrothed the mother of him, Mary, to Joseph, before of to come together them she was found in belly having from Spirit Holy.” Such examples are not isolated, but are the norm. Claims for a literal translation must necessarily have a lot of fine print.
Literal is also not necessarily faithful. The word order differences between English and Greek, the use of the article, case, infinitives, participles, voice, mood, and other grammatical features are often so different that gibberish is the result if an absolutely literal translation is attempted (as in the two examples cited above). Not only this, but the idioms of one language have to be converted into the receptor language. Thus, in Matthew 1:18, no English translation (not even the King James Version) would dare speak of Mary’s pregnancy as “she was having in the belly.” Yet this is the literal Greek expression for pregnancy. But it is [I]not English. Thus the real question in translation is not whether it is literal, but whether it is faithful. And fidelity requires converting the lexical, grammatical, idiomatic, and figurative elements (to mention but a few) of the original language into the corresponding package in the receptor language. At times this can be accomplished by maintaining an approximately literal force. At other times, a loose rendering is required if the sentence is to have any meaning in English at all. Of course, this can be overdone. There are two dangers to avoid in translation. First, a translation should not be so literal that it is not good English. The meaning of the original needs to be as faithfully rendered into good English as possible. Second, a translation should not be so loose that it becomes merely an interpretation or allows sectarian interests to overwhelm the resultant text. All translation is interpretation; it cannot be otherwise. But the issue is how much interpretation and how idiosyncratic an interpretation is.
Part of the problem is this: the more literal a translation is, the less readable it generally is; the more readable it is, the less faithful it is to the original meaning (at least in many cases). Some modern translations are quite readable but are not very faithful to the biblical author’s meaning. A major goal of good translation is of course readability – but not at the expense of the intended meaning. The philosophy of the NET Bible translators was to be interpretive when such an interpretation represents the best thinking of recent scholarship. Thus, for example, in Romans 6:4, the expression “newness of life” is taken to mean “new life” by grammarians and exegetes alike and is thus translated this way. But when an interpretive translation is unnecessary or might suggest sectarian bias, and when a more literal rendering results in good English, we have followed the latter course.
A major category of nonliteral translation involves certain conjunctions. For example, the Greek word καιί (kai), meaning generally “and, even, also, yet, but, indeed,” is often left untranslated at the beginning of a sentence. When such is the case, there is usually no note given. However, if the possibility exists that an interpretive issue is involved, a note is given.
An additional consideration of the translation team was faithfulness (as far as possible without violation of current English style) to the style of the individual biblical authors. Even within the New Testament, written over a short span of time in comparison with the Old Testament, the authors exhibit their own unique literary styles. Paul’s style differs from Peter’s, and both differ from John’s. The translators and editors attempted to give the modern reader an impression of these stylistic differences where it was possible to do so without sacrificing accuracy, clarity, or readability.


http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=3537

P.S.

Have you come up with the links for that 135 ce tallit yet. I am anxious to read the facts.

..and what's your point here?

Some chaps think that at times the literal is not always the best...so what? Even my kids know that.

What does the parsing of the verse we are speaking of teach us? Try addressing that first if you want to maintain the interest of the readers on this forum.

Also- I don't have links to hard copy magazines I read several years ago that I couldn't even care less about. I don't need them to "prove" anything to myself. If this is important to you, you do the searching yourself... if you want a Doctorate in "if it's not on the internet it's not true" then go ahead and do it. Enjoy.

[stone]

De 22:12 Thou shalt make thee fringes upon the four quarters of thy vesture, wherewith thou coverest thyself.

[stone]

M
Ge 39:12 And she caught him by his garment, saying, Lie with me: and he left his garment in her hand, and fled, and got him out.


Once again we will look at this word garment. Notice here that this is the book of Genesis, which you should recall is before the birth of the chosen one, Moses.


Now the garment did not rent. Any kind of a clothing garment worn, and for her to have taken a hold of it, and for it to remain within her grasp, would indicate that whatever this was, it must have been cast about him, kinda like a tallit.

[torahgrandma]

..

Also- I don't have links to hard copy magazines I read several years ago that I couldn't even care less about. I don't need them to "prove" anything to myself. If this is important to you, you do the searching yourself... if you want a Doctorate in "if it's not on the internet it's not true" then go ahead and do it. Enjoy.

No need to get testy Mr Contra. I was just asking for substantiation for your assertions.

Here is my overview of the anatomy of how conjecture is constructed:

Jesus wore a