Not gettin this line of logic

[HalcyonFire]

When the woman with an issue of blood (called a zavah), touched Messiah in the crowd, He immediately became tomeh/unclean and would have to immerse Himself, wash His garment and be tomeh/unclean for a whole day. This did not mean that He had sinned or was in a sinful state. The woman could have been punished severely for being out in public in a state of tomeh/ritually unclean. The virtue that went out of Messiah was His tahor/ritual purity with enough power to heal her. Yeshua's purity was enough to overcome all her ritual impurity. The woman would have to fullfill all the requirements to become tahor/clean also.


for some reason I just can't seem to "get" what the underlined bolded part is saying.

Any takers?

[Henaynei]

what is the source of the quote?

I know it *refers* to a passage of scripture - but I'm asking the source of the drash

[HalcyonFire]

http://www.haydid.org/ledevar.htm

[GerTzedek]

It is a misunderstanding of the passage. The gospels say that JC healed her. He did not ritually purify her. She would still be required to wait the specified number of days and then immerse.

The story of the bleeding woman is in all three synaptic gospels, Matthew 9, Mark 5, Luke 8.

[HalcyonFire]

ah. so his ritual purity was enough to heal her malady, but not purify her ritually (which makes sense because ritual implies that you need action). is that what she's saying?

[GerTzedek]

Ritual purity doesn't heal other people, otherwise everyone coming out of a mikvah could heal a town.

What was it about JC that presumedly could heal? You get different answers with every different person you ask. Miracles happen. I tend to think of it as our Father responding to our prayers, sometimes directly, sometimes through the holiness of others.

According to the story of the bleeding woman, she didn't just reach for JC, whom she believed to be a tzaddik (holy person), she reached for the fringes, the tzitzit, on his garment. What do they represent? All the commandments. They represented for this woman the covenant between herself and HaShem. And as JC is reputed to have said, "You faith has healed you."

[HalcyonFire]

right, but that doesn't explain what the woman is trying to say - lol. just the bolded part. as to whether it's right I am not so concerned at the moment... as to what exactly she's trying to convey is my current concern. lol. (I appreciate your point though)

[Henaynei]

The virtue that went out of Messiah was His tahor/ritual purity with enough power to heal her. Yeshua's purity was enough to overcome all her ritual impurity. The woman would have to fullfill all the requirements to become tahor/clean also.
taken in the context of who Yeshua is/was.... HaShem.... the "virtue" that "went out of him" was his power.... not his purity per se.... the woman was healed, not made pure - nothing in the account suggests she was made ritually pure - that is a leap the author of that article made....

[GerTzedek]

It seems that the sentence giving the most trouble is this one:
Yeshua's purity was enough to overcome all her ritual impurity.

After reflecting, I've decided that what the author seems to think is that normally her ritual impurity would have been some kind of obstacle to being healed. I thought at first she was saying that JC had made her ritual pure (and then contradicted herself in the last sentence). But now I think she is stating the woman was only healed. The above sentence is awkward, and an example of very bad writing.

I think her UNDERLYING concern seems to be whether or not being touched by this woman would have made JC ritually impure, and of course it would have, and of course he would have immersed later.

Do you know what is meant by ritual purity? Perhaps that is the question you need to ask.

[HalcyonFire]

I just want to understand what she was TRYING to say before I discount it. KWIM? I think I owe anyone that much.

[HalcyonFire]

ritual purity - being clean to participate in worship of God and be among His people? elevated to a higher level of holiness for this purpose?

not clean like washing

[GerTzedek]

Right! Not the same as clean as in washing.

Nor is it the same as being sinless or virtuous, or pure of heart.

As Chrstians need to think of JC as being sinless, I suspect your author is going overboard to extend into the idea even into his being absolute perfect in every way, aka never having been ritually impure. I've run across this with people before, who think JC could never have been sick, for example, never even have had diaper rash or acne. The story of the bleeding woman is one example of a time in his life when he became ritually impure. It is not a problem. Like all Jews, he knew what to do.

[HalcyonFire]

right. Simchat Torah (sp?) told me that - he's a great teacher. I'm discipling (not the same as disciple - lol) under him and some others on another board. :) it's great.

so, since you cannot make sacrifice, how does a modern day Jew deal with sin? (since the temple is not around) he's supposed to answer me but that bum is actually WORKING - lol. :)

[Henaynei]

if you agree that Yeshua is HaShem..... no kind of impurity can make HaShem impure... KWIM ;)

[GerTzedek]

right. Simchat Torah (sp?) told me that - he's a great teacher. I'm discipling (not the same as disciple - lol) under him and some others on another board. :) it's great.

so, since you cannot make sacrifice, how does a modern day Jew deal with sin? (since the temple is not around) he's supposed to answer me but that bum is actually WORKING - lol. :)

Hosea 14:2
Take with you words, and return unto Jehovah: say unto him, Take away all iniquity, and accept that which is good: so will we render as bullocks the offering of our lips.

This is why our prayers are said at the same times as the daily sacrifices, and carry the same names: Shacharis, Mincha, Maariv...

[HalcyonFire]

interesting. thx

[GerTzedek]

if you agree that Yeshua is HaShem..... no kind of impurity can make HaShem impure... KWIM ;)
HaShem declared the law. JC was a Jewish male. He came into contact with a Niddah. It put him into a state of ritual impurity. There really is nothing to discuss here.

[Henaynei]

HaShem declared the law. JC was a Jewish male. He came into contact with a Niddah. It put him into a state of ritual impurity. There really is nothing to discuss here. GT I'm sorry if I offended you.... since I believe you and various other posters here don't agree Yeshua was/is HaShem I meant the wording of my comment to make it obvious that I was really only addressing those who do believe that.... I really didn't mean to step on toes, ruffle feathers, whatever...

IF he was/is HaShem then it would be that he could only impart tahor, not acquire tamai.... whether or not He separated and immersed I don't think the text makes clear....

[HalcyonFire]

I think he probably would have because he kept Torah and told others to do so, but this is just my opinion. (whether he needed to is a completely different subject)

[Henaynei]

I think he probably would have because he kept Torah and told others to do so, but this is just my opinion. (whether he needed to is a completely different subject)true, true enough

[Henaynei]

and it is worth mentioning:

the kind of impurity of which this is speaking has nothing to do with physical cleanliness or contamination -- it is a ritual impurity that G-d taught Israel - having to do with a holy people (holy meaning set apart, consecrated to a unique purpose, in the service of G-d) - it is G-d who defined what THIS purity/impurity entailed and how it was preserved/corrected... to maintain this holiness within the people of Israel...

[HalcyonFire]

right. I still have a hard time wrapping my mind around the difference between sin and ritual impurity. for someone with no Jewish background at all, there has been no distinction in this in my lifetime education. it's all so new.

[GerTzedek]

IF he was/is HaShem then it would be that he could only impart tahor, not acquire tamai.... whether or not He separated and immersed I don't think the text makes clear....It's just not true, even by Christian reasoning. It's like saying he never had to go to the bathroom. It's just rediculous reasoning. Even Christians believe that he was fully man. That would mean he had to obey all the laws of nature, and as a Jewish man he had to obey all the laws of Torah. He could NOT, for example, steal and then say, "Oh well, for me it's not stealing because after all I'm HaShem and incapable of sin, so it can't be stealing for ME." Christianity simply does not make this foolish backwards argument.

We have right there in the text an example of him becoming ritually impure. That's it. End of discussion.

I don't even know why this bothers you.

[HalcyonFire]

actually some Christians believe he never got sick, etc, which I think is stupid, but some people don't think he was held to physically being a man the same way (but this is just a commentary and not a disagreement with your premise)

[GerTzedek]

right. I still have a hard time wrapping my mind around the difference between sin and ritual impurity. for someone with no Jewish background at all, there has been no distinction in this in my lifetime education. it's all so new.
I know. Had you been Catholic, I could have reminded you of certain cultural holdovers, such as the priest washing his hands before Eucharist. But I thought and thought and thought, and I really couldn't think of a single example of ritual purity in Protestantism. In general, Reform Chrstianity has worked very hard to rid itself of all physical expressions of spirituality, because there has been a general belief that people will substitute these things for authentic faith (rather than combine them with authentic faith).

[HalcyonFire]

protestants for the most part have abandoned torah teachings on a scripture they misrepresent/misunderstand.

personally, I do not think keeping the torah saves, but I think it is good. I am learning. :)

(obviously you know I am learning because two months ago I would have probably chewed you out :))

[GerTzedek]

Oh, you is learning. I gotta tease Simchat for "discipling" you. Hey ST, you have a disciple? Should we call you Rebbe?

Protestants, indeed Chrstians in general, are almost exclusively gentiles, and don't need to be keeping the covenant between G-d and Israel. Simchat would agree.

[HalcyonFire]

Right. I appreciate that from a Jewish perspective. I just think they're beneficial beyond just an obedience standpoint. :)

[GerTzedek]

I can appreciate that.

You don't have to answer, because its not really my business, but if you feel open, I'm curious what if any practices you have begun to take up?

[HalcyonFire]

just food related ones right now (jumping in with both feet to something like this could cause someone to quickly drown)

[simchat_torah]

shhhh, I'm busy assembling my mindless minions.

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

Oh, you is learning. I gotta tease Simchat for "discipling" you. Hey ST, you have a disciple? Should we call you Rebbe?

Protestants, indeed Chrstians in general, are almost exclusively gentiles, and don't need to be keeping the covenant between G-d and Israel. Simchat would agree. Perhaps you should re-evaluate that last statement. :doh:

[HalcyonFire]

shhhh, I'm busy assembling my mindless minions.
I'm blonde, not mindless

[Steve Petersen]

Ritual impurity and sin aren't necessarily equivalent.

Sin is violation of a commandment.

There is a commandment to be fruitul and multiply, yet the act of procreation makes a person ritually unclean.

Most often, ritual impurity relates directly to entry into the Temple precincts. One cannot enter in a state of ritual impurity.

[HalcyonFire]

There is a ritual purity required for "being fruitful" as it were. I.E. niddah equals ritual impurity and intercourse is not okay until mikvah. therefore, it seems to me that this act is also holy and pure.

[Steve Petersen]

There is a ritual purity required for "being fruitful" as it were. I.E. niddah equals ritual impurity and intercourse is not okay until mikvah. therefore, it seems to me that this act is also holy and pure.

Leviticus 15:16-18 If any man has an emission of semen, then he shall wash all his body in water, and be unclean until evening. And any garment and any leather on which there is semen, it shall be washed with water, and be unclean until evening. Also, when a woman lies with a man, and there is an emission of semen, they shall bathe in water, and be unclean until evening.

[HalcyonFire]

yet that doesn't nullify what I said. :) obviously if it is a temple type thing, then sex is a temple type thing. if it is not, then your explanation of what ritual impurity is is not exactly correct.

[Steve Petersen]

yet that doesn't nullify what I said. :) obviously if it is a temple type thing, then sex is a temple type thing. if it is not, then your explanation of what ritual impurity is is not exactly correct.

I'm not following you.

Purification after menstruation makes intercourse thereafter 'kosher' and allows the woman to enter the temple precints, but intercourse then makes both the man and the woman unclean.

[GerTzedek]

Perhaps you should re-evaluate that last statement. :doh:
MTAA:

Just to remind you, you and I have disagree on this since day one. I cannot forsee a time where we will agree. Best hopes are for us to simply disagree agreeably.

[ChavaK]

Protestants, indeed Chrstians in general, are almost exclusively gentiles, and don't need to be keeping the covenant between G-d and Israel. Simchat would agree. I think all of us would agree....;)

[HalcyonFire]

I'm not following you.

Purification after menstruation makes intercourse thereafter 'kosher' and allows the woman to enter the temple precints, but intercourse then makes both the man and the woman unclean.
The definition of kosher is that food which is
permitted to the Jewish people by Biblical law.

Niddah and mikvah afterward seem much more about family purity than temple activities (especially now since there is no physical temple - why keep it if it's just a temple thing?)

it's about the union as much as anything else. Plus, if I'm not mistaken, the being set apart that happens during this time is a time for a woman to focus ON GOD... which would negate IMO any kind of negative image of this time anyway.

[Henaynei]

It's just not true, even by Christian reasoning. It's like saying he never had to go to the bathroom. It's just rediculous reasoning. Even Christians believe that he was fully man. That would mean he had to obey all the laws of nature, and as a Jewish man he had to obey all the laws of Torah. He could NOT, for example, steal and then say, "Oh well, for me it's not stealing because after all I'm HaShem and incapable of sin, so it can't be stealing for ME." Christianity simply does not make this foolish backwards argument.

We have right there in the text an example of him becoming ritually impure. That's it. End of discussion.

I don't even know why this bothers you. I thought I explained why... but again my communication has failed.... I'll take your suggestion and end my part in this discussion :)

b'Shalom
Henaynei

[FaithfulWife]

just food related ones right now (jumping in with both feet to something like this could cause someone to quickly drown)

ERM,

If you don't mind I wanted to slightly derail and commend you on this comment. Since I'm a person who gradually came to understand (as you are doing) I also somewhat struggled with "keeping all these laws" and feeling like I'm drowning in it all. But my rabbi had a great image for me that helped a lot that I'd like to share with you. He said that we are all on a ladder climbing toward God--some are higher up on the ladder (keeping more commandments) and some are lower on the ladder (just beginning to keep commandments). HOWEVER the trick is not WHERE you are on the ladder but rather, do you climb UP, stop climbing, or go down? :P

Okay, it's a bit of a simplistic analogy but it helped me to feel like my goal was not to go from knowing nothing to being "perfectly orthodox observant" (which was just such a big leap for me) but rather that as I learned a commandment--to obey it! Keep on being more and more and more observant. As you learn more, keep more.

Finally one personal word about niddah if you don't mind. As a younger person I used to think of it a little like "being dirty" and I felt like it was almost a punishment for being female (see what I mean? Pretty immature!). As I grew older though I began to use my niddah time as special, DEDICATED time. Sometimes it is time for me to rest and relax and not have the pressures of sexual connection but to be able to concentrate on building a spiritual and emotional connection with my husband. I love that as it seems to be God's lovely way of keeping balance in our relationship! It's also a time for ME to concentrate on my spiritual connection with God and my emotional connection with others. Isn't HaShem just wonderful to us?

Anyway--just sharing my thoughts and I wanted you to know I'm repping you for this post because I thought it was wonderful, open and honest sharing and I appreciate that.

:hug: ~Faithful

[FaithfulWife]

I'm not following you.

Purification after menstruation makes intercourse thereafter 'kosher' and allows the woman to enter the temple precints, but intercourse then makes both the man and the woman unclean.

Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't the exact steps be something like this:

1) niddah--ritually impure and can not enter temple precincts.

2) after mikvah--ritually pure able to enter temple precincts while there is no issue of blood.

3)during the "after mikvah" period but prior to niddah--if there is sexual activity, there is impurity until nighttime THAT DAY.

Now I'm no rabbi and you know how a rabbi can direct the exact timing of it all, but it seems to me that there is a time to have sex and a time to refrain from sex. And if a person has sex during the appointed, correct time, there is a brief period to refrain from entering the temple.

And THIS is where I find that ALL acts we do...ALL (even when and how we have sex and eat--common, every day actions) can either honor God and be in obedience or not.


~Faithful

[MichaelTheeArchAngel]

Being ritually unclean does not make a person spiritually unclean. As for blood; it can be used for cleaning or polluting. And as for women who are unclean at that time; that is the time of their cleansing. It all depends on the circumstances. Example: If I use blood of a bull sprinkled on a piece of metal, after it has thoroughly dried, the alkali in the blood will have cleaned any contaminate from the metal. But again, it all depends on circumstance, because if it is not done right, it will contaminate. If unclean blood gets spread through a large body of people, it can cause disease on a large scale. The purpose was to protect the people. Would you want people to come to any gathering, sick? I hope what I have said is some help.

[HalcyonFire]

I think women are niddah only because the blood is a symbol of death. Purity signifies life giving things. It's not against the woman.

[Henaynei]

yes, niddah is NOT against women

yes, ceremonial uncleanness has nothing to do with spiritual uncleanness

[debi b]

yes, niddah is NOT against women

yes, ceremonial uncleanness has nothing to do with spiritual uncleanness


:thumbsup: