I consider this topic to be ultra-sensitive, so I usually try to avoid becoming involved in discussions such as this one. I would like to say, though, that I have found aspects of everyone's comments here to be helpful and sound. Of course, since there are disagreements being expressed regarding how certain aspects of the laws of niddah should be carried out today, I need to add my disclaimer that I do not agree with everything expressed.

One thing I hope we all agree on ... Yeshua's death on the cross did not do away with the law, which in turn means His death did not suddenly render all things formerly considered "unclean" to be "clean." From what I have read to this point, we all agree on this much. The clean/unclean animals is an obvious aspect of YHWH's law that we agree is still very much in effect.

Just as touching a corpse renders a person unclean, so does touching a woman who happens to be menstruating, and so does touching anything she sits on or lies upon. I do not believe this law has been "done away." Nevertheless, there is nothing in Torah that I'm aware of stipulating that it is a sin for a man to touch a woman who happens to be menstruating. We are only told that it makes him unclean until evening, that's all.

Missy described this state of uncleanness as being "ceremonially unclean." Another way of referring to it is "ritually unclean." I agree with Missy on this point. To fully grasp the significance of being "ceremonially" or "ritually" unclean, I believe we need to picture ourselves as living during the days of ancient Israel when their central focus of worship was either the tabernacle or the temple. In order to prevent defilement of His temple, YHWH forbade unclean people from approaching it, much less taking part in any ritual activities.

I notice that a large portion of this discussion is centered around Leviticus chapter 15, which addresses bodily discharges, both for men and women. This same chapter, at the end, addresses the "why" question ... as in why and for what purpose was an individual considered unclean. The reason: uncleanness defiles the temple.

Lev 15:31: “Thus shall you separate the children of Israel from their uncleanness; that they die not in their uncleanness, when they defile My tabernacle that is among them.”

One might ask why uncleanness was not permitted to come into contact with the temple. I believe the obvious answer is because YHWH dwelt in the temple.

As I ponder the principle behind YHWH's definition of what makes a person unclean, here is what I come up with (in layman's terms): YHWH did not want anyone unclean officiating or otherwise taking part in any temple functions. Thus, if I were a priest who for whatever reason came into contact with a menstruating woman, I would (figuratively-speaking) call in sick that day. I would then bathe and wash my clothes, then at sunset be ritually clean again. Presuming I am from that point going forward able to avoid touching anyone or anything considered unclean, I am fit for going back to work the next day.

Is it, then, a sin for a man to touch or kiss his menstruating wife? Not from what I have read in Scripture. It just makes him ritually unclean, which is not in and of itself a sin. Since my wife and I are "one flesh" anyway (according to Scripture), I prefer to just kiss and hug her each day regardless of whether or not it makes me unclean. Of course, this also includes sharing the same bed, and of course this also includes obedience to such laws as the one found in Lev. 18:19 and Lev. 20:18.

Now some folks believe the place of assembly qualifies as a temple, which in turn means it would be a sin to attend services in a state of ritual uncleanness. I disagree, but out of respect for those who believe this, and who therefore believe anyone unclean should just stay home, I think it is fitting to just stay home when you find yourself in a state of ritual uncleanness. That's just my opinion, because I believe we should do our best to respect the wishes of others. I will add to this the fact that I believe we should all do our best to come before YHWH on His sabbath days in a state of ritual cleanness. By this, I mean that there are certain things I believe a husband and wife should avoid doing on the Sabbath day that would change them from being clean to unclean. On His special day, I want to do all I can to be ritually clean. However, if my wife happens to be unclean, then I always end up being unclean, too. I mean, why would I want to go to some assembly to worship, but leave my wife at home by herself that day? So I just stay home with her, and I see nothing wrong with an unclean person studying the Bible on any day of the week. Granted, if I were a priest, I would take more precautions due to the nature of my job. Since I'm not, though, my personal choice is to go ahead and be unclean with my wife. If I could find where it is a sin for a man to touch his unclean wife, then I will try to stop touching my wife, especially on the Sabbath, when she is in a state of niddah. Based upon a previous discussion I have had on this topic in this forum, I have found that many folks do not agree with my personal conviction on this matter, and that is fine, as I'm just letting everyone know my own personal conviction, nothing more.

I know one thing that distinguishes a place of assembly from the temple is the fact that women were not allowed in the temple. I would say one very likely reason for this is because women have no control over the timing of their monthly cycle, which in turn means a woman could have suddenly become unclean while inside the temple. That would have been very bad. In the same way, a woman may suddenly become unclean while attending services. What does the assembly do when that happens? Cordon off the pew?

Love in Messiah,

Larry

_____________________

Blessed be the name of YHWH

quote:

---

John Cordaro wrote: 3) In Moses' day, the "camp" was the confines where the children of Israel dwelt, in the midst of which was the tabernacle. If Yahshua suffered "without the gate" and that is equivalent to "without the camp", then Jerusalem was the camp. Yet, all of Israel, even those living in the farthest reaches of Israel (the settlements of Dan and Asher) were to obey the laws of uncleanness, not just those "within the camp".

---

Most people believe the separation for menstruating women was not outside the camp but simply the separating spoken of, that being no physical contact. Regardless, did the laws governing the expulsion of individuals outside the camp apply to those outside Jerusalem? And do they apply to us today?

Were those returning from traveling outside Jerusalem considered unclean? Were those working with Gentiles inside Jerusalem considered unclean? Of course they were unclean, just as we know we are unclean everyday but uncleanness is only imputed when we are aware of becoming unclean.

quote:

---

John Cordaro wrote:4) In Num.19:1-7, after performing the requirements of the red heifer outside the camp (vs.3) the priest was to wash his clothes and flesh and then come back into the camp and remain unclean until even. He was unclean within the camp. See Rabbinic note below.

---

The priest (in your example) or anyone else wasn’t made clean by the red heifer or by the water or by the sunset but by faith. That is why when we are actually unknowingly unclean we are in fact clean.

quote:

---

John Cordaro wrote:5) The concept that since we are dwelling "without the camp", therefore we are not obligated to obey the laws of uncleanness is based merely on a man-made analogy, not on Scripture.

---

quote:

---

John Cordaro wrote: Are we permitted to touch dead bodies today? I would say no. For the most part, whenever possible, we are to avoid such touching. Are we to touch lepers whenever we so choose today? I would say no, except under certain circumstances such as laying on of hands for healing. Why, then, is it permissible to touch someone with an issue?

---

Heb 10:10 By that will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Yahshua Messiah once for all.
14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

1Co 6:11 But ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified.

Ep 5: 26-27 Sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.”

He 9:13-14 states if the blood of animals made them fleshly clean in the OT how much more must the blood of Messiah make us still cleaner.

He 10:19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Yahshua, 20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; 21 And having an high priest over the house of Elohim; 22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.

If a menstruating woman is “washed and sanctified” and “holy and without blemish” and her body “washed with pure water” and clean enough for Yahweh to allow to “enter into the holiest” is it possible that something has changed in regard to these commandments?

quote:

---

These commandments were for inside the camp and to impose them on those outside the camp is a yoke which neither we or our children are able to bear.

---

I believe you have taken Acts 15:10 out of context. It is not referring to any law of Yahweh as being a yoke that we cannot bear. It is talking about imposing those laws upon people as a means of salvation. We are saved through the grace of the Master Yahshua Messiah as verse 11 states.

Shalom,
John

I have to say I was sort of taken back by that understanding since I never heard or thought of it in that way.

But I feel like this, it's not my job to worry about someone's perception. I deal in reality and I know how I mean something and if someone chooses to extend it beyond that..it's on them. And I am not going to play coddle mommy to please them and change who and what I am. It's not the way I am and for record sake people shouldn't expect it from me.

Larry, I appreciate you "sticking up" for me. And I don't have an issue with you expressing your views at all. Obviously you felt the need to state something on the matter and that is your choice. Nothing for me to have an issue with one way or the other.

John, I accept your apology but I didn't feel offended by what you said, I simply chalked up to , "that's just how John Cordaro is".. and really the matter doesn't affect me one way or the other since Missy will always continue to be Missy in the context that she sees fit.

So I hope now, we all can go back to discussing the original topic of this thread and get off the whole Missy discussion because it's really moot.

Shalom,
M

Both of your posts have been duly acknowledged

I have removed the portions of my posts that do not relate to this discussion. Like I said, I consider this to be an ultra-sensitive topic, so I think I've pretty much stated my position ... with no intent to impose my personal belief on anyone. My wife and I simply want to honor YHWH in every way possible, as we trust everyone else here does as well!

May YHWH bless all!

In the love of YHWH through His Son Yeshua the Messiah,
Larry

_____________________

Blessed be the name of YHWH

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

I apologize for this lengthy post. I do not normally post anything but I always read most of the post and I must tell you that you have no knowledge of how your posts have edified and strengthen me as a new believe in Yahweh through Yahshua the Messiah. May Yahweh continue to bless you all.

Shalom

Since you felt it necessary to delete portions of your post, I have deleted my response to it.

seriously, it makes perfect sense why such a body of exposition came into existence when we look at the immense grey areas of commandment application.

look at the proscribed methods of offering the sacrifices, doing the festivals, tying tassles, wearing frontlets, building roof-fences, writing on the doorposts, etcetera and etcetera. all those are commanded in Scripture, and yet only a certain amount of information is actually given. i am sure many of the people desired to know how to more intricately apply those commandments in their lives, and i am also sure that the "leaders/wise-ones" of the day had their own specific interpretations. we are no different. some interpretations are probably more Scripturally-based than others, but it is the process of looking over those interpretations and clinging to the ones which best fit Scripture and our own personality, for in there application there is freedom.

this topic alone elicits such a myriad of reactions. no wonder those ancient writings came into being -- so many people desired guidance on how they were to perform the less-explicit commands, that if we look at it in that way, those writings served as a great instrument in the performance of the commandments.

While I agree with much of what you wrote, I believe we need to be careful about sprinkling in certain controversial teachings as though they are literal commands, such as the one some Messianics have been promoting here in our local area ... that of wearing "frontlets." Here is what you wrote:

quote:

---

look at the proscribed methods of offering the sacrifices, doing the festivals, tying tassles, wearing frontlets, building roof-fences, writing on the doorposts, etcetera and etcetera. all those are commanded in Scripture, and yet only a certain amount of information is actually given. i am sure many of the people desired to know how to more intricately apply those commandments in their lives, and i am also sure that the "leaders/wise-ones" of the day had their own specific interpretations. we are no different. some interpretations are probably more Scripturally-based than others, but it is the process of looking over those interpretations and clinging to the ones which best fit Scripture and our own personality, for in there application there is freedom.

---

I drew a line through the part about wearing frontlets because there is no such command in Scripture, except by interpretation, and one that I certainly disagree with. If anyone is going to teach that we are commanded to wear frontlets, then they may as well also teach that we should wear the commandments and the law on our fingers (Prov. 7:2-3).

Apart from that and your apparent [pious?] desire to reinvent the English language by ignoring capitalization rules, I agree with what you wrote!

May YHWH bless!

Love in Messiah,
Larry

_____________________

Blessed be the name of YHWH

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged