Jewish Mamas...a Question about Jesus (stay with me lol) - Page 2

[merpk]

Pardon the interjection ...

Feeling compelled to point out that I'm the only Jewish mama who's replied (that I'm aware of) on this thread.

All the talk of "Christ" and "Jesus" and all of that was entirely from a Christian perspective.

(This PSA was brought to you by The Resident Neurotic Poster Entirely Because of the Thread Title.  Thank you.  Carry on ...)  

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by merpk 

Pardon the interjection ...

Feeling compelled to point out that I'm the only Jewish mama who's replied (that I'm aware of) on this thread.

All the talk of "Christ" and "Jesus" and all of that was entirely from a Christian perspective.

(This PSA was brought to you by The Resident Neurotic Poster Entirely Because of the Thread Title.  Thank you.  Carry on ...)  

I'm sure if more Jewish posters want to post their perspective would be welcome. 

[Chavelamomela]

Another Jewish mama here.  Just wanted to reply that Merpk's explanation is a good one, and I also echo her feelings/PSA, as my feelings are similar!  Us Jewish mamas probably won't be able to contribute the to rest of the thread, unless you have a specific question about Jewish laws, customs, or belief.

...bowing out....

[AFWife]

Originally Posted by Chavelamomela 

Another Jewish mama here.  Just wanted to reply that Merpk's explanation is a good one, and I also echo her feelings/PSA, as my feelings are similar!  Us Jewish mamas probably won't be able to contribute the to rest of the thread, unless you have a specific question about Jewish laws, customs, or belief.

...bowing out....

What ARE the laws/customs/beliefs surrounding childbirth? Is the father allowed to be there and watch or participate? Can he catch?

[merpk]

Originally Posted by AFWife 

Originally Posted by Chavelamomela 

Another Jewish mama here.  Just wanted to reply that Merpk's explanation is a good one, and I also echo her feelings/PSA, as my feelings are similar!  Us Jewish mamas probably won't be able to contribute the to rest of the thread, unless you have a specific question about Jewish laws, customs, or belief.

...bowing out....

What ARE the laws/customs/beliefs surrounding childbirth? Is the father allowed to be there and watch or participate? Can he catch?

There are laws/customs/beliefs surrounding childbirth and they're the accumulation of 3,000 years' worth of laws/customs/beliefs.  More specific, maybe?

In brief, I know Orthodox men who have been there and caught.  I know one or two or more who've done the whole UC thing themselves (well, the wife helped a little, too LOL).  And I know Orthodox men who hold that they should stay outside and let the midwife handle it while they pray.

Kind of like nonJews, you know?  Some do, some don't; some believe one way is the right way, others don't.

[Oubliette8]

I'm kind of wondering if the laws/rules would have been interpreted in the same way in Mary's time as they are today? It seems to me, a few thousand years is a long time. With cultural changes, new technologies etc I would think the way the rules are interpreted may have been altered in between? Plus, a few thousand years of religious study might have brought about new interpretation or understanding?

For instance, and I'm not religious, so I'm sorry if this is wrong, I know that "work" is prohibited on the sabbath. but individual interpretations of "work" vary, depending on the form of Judaism and other things. Some very observant Jews will not turn off a TV if a baby accidentally turns it on for instance, as doing so would be work (this was an example from a university class on religion I took) Or, they cannot carry items outside of their household. and then, in the case of carrying items, some communities have made symbolic larger "households" that encompass a few blocks, so it would be possible to say, carry an item to the Synagogue, without breaking the rules. I'm not seeing how some of this stuff would have been practical in Mary's time.

The other thing I was thinking is, I was reading about Niddah, and how the prohibition on touching was to avoid temptation for the type of touching that might be against the rules. So while touching is technically ok, because it might lead to not ok touching, its avoided as well. It also appears that anyone who touches the woman or anything she has touched becomes ritually impure for a day (unless they lay in the same bed- then its a week) At the end of the day they wash and become pure again. So I'm guessing, back in that time, it might not have been such a big deal? Perhaps noone had decided that a friendly or helpful touch might lead to a forbidden sexual touch and outlawed that yet. And perhaps being ritually impure was just something that was dealt with?

I'm not sure. I'm just thinking things might have changed between now and then in interpretation of the laws.

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by Oubliette8 

I'm kind of wondering if the laws/rules would have been interpreted in the same way in Mary's time as they are today? It seems to me, a few thousand years is a long time. With cultural changes, new technologies etc I would think the way the rules are interpreted may have been altered in between? Plus, a few thousand years of religious study might have brought about new interpretation or understanding?

For instance, and I'm not religious, so I'm sorry if this is wrong, I know that "work" is prohibited on the sabbath. but individual interpretations of "work" vary, depending on the form of Judaism and other things. Some very observant Jews will not turn off a TV if a baby accidentally turns it on for instance, as doing so would be work (this was an example from a university class on religion I took) Or, they cannot carry items outside of their household. and then, in the case of carrying items, some communities have made symbolic larger "households" that encompass a few blocks, so it would be possible to say, carry an item to the Synagogue, without breaking the rules. I'm not seeing how some of this stuff would have been practical in Mary's time.

The other thing I was thinking is, I was reading about Niddah, and how the prohibition on touching was to avoid temptation for the type of touching that might be against the rules. So while touching is technically ok, because it might lead to not ok touching, its avoided as well. It also appears that anyone who touches the woman or anything she has touched becomes ritually impure for a day (unless they lay in the same bed- then its a week) At the end of the day they wash and become pure again. So I'm guessing, back in that time, it might not have been such a big deal? Perhaps noone had decided that a friendly or helpful touch might lead to a forbidden sexual touch and outlawed that yet. And perhaps being ritually impure was just something that was dealt with?

I'm not sure. I'm just thinking things might have changed between now and then in interpretation of the laws.

As I understand it, you are correct - the Jewish "scene" in year 0 was not the same as it is now, even among Orthodox Jews.  Even as far as pretty basic things like exactly which texts are used.  However, even at that time, as Merpk said, there were a variety of groups that believed somewhat different things.  I know for sure that one significant division was between the educated and the peasant classes.  The peasants were not expected to practice or even know the details of the ritual practices of the educated, which corresponds perhaps to some degree to what you are talking about.

I know there are a fair number of books about Jewish belief and practice during that period, including the various Jewish sects, and also stuff specifically about where Mary and Joseph would have fit into that.
 

[merpk]

There were different sects then, yes, but "Orthodox Jews" did not exist then.  It was Jewish, all of it, and you were either observant or not, but there weren't "denominations" like there are now. 

So Ouiblette, there are some problems with your descriptions of the laws, they're not correct.  But certain things we have as the law are very clearly specifically spelled out from that time via the Talmud, which tells us very specifically how various laws were observed, so we know that we follow these things the same way.  Yes, there were no light switches to turn on back then, but the law works with the times to deal with the changes. 

Which, by the way, is the difference between the Jewish denominations ... the Orthodox believe that the law does not change, and innovations (like, say electricity) are dealt with as per the law; and the Reform believe that the law does change with the times.

Anyway, The laws of nidda are dealt with very intensively in the Talmud (it has its own tractate, named Nidda, in the Talmud), so we know very clearly how it was observed back then.  Which is not much different than the way it is observed now.

Edited by merpk - 12/11/10 at 11:23am

[Vallere]

Originally Posted by Shami 

Yes, here it is underlined.

14 And Jehovah God said to the serpent, Because you have done this, You are cursed more than all the cattle And more than all the animals of the field: Upon your stomach you will go, And dust you will eat All the days of your life.

15 And I will put enmity Between you and the woman And between your seed and her seed; He will bruise you on the head, But you will bruise him on the heel.

16 To the woman He said, I will greatly multiply Your pain in your childbearing; In pain you will bring forth children. And your desire will be to your husband, And he will rule over you.

17 And to Adam He said, Because you listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree concerning which I commanded you, saying, You shall not eat of it; Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil will you eat of it All the days of your life.

18 And thorns and thistles it will bring forth for you, And you will eat the herb of the field;

19 By the sweat of your face You will eat bread Until you return to the ground, Because from it you were taken; For dust you are, And to dust you shall return.

Late to this, I know, but just wanted to add...IIRC, in the Hebrew of these verses, the word translated as "pain" is actually the same word translated as "toil" in regard to Adam. Really, the word should be translated as something like "labor" for both of them...her labor, or her work, in childbirth will increase...and his labor and toil will increase. It has nothing to do with pain. That is a terrible mistranslation that I feel is very hurtful to many women. (fyi, not Jewish, but a Torah observant Christian. :) )

Edited by Vallere - 9/25/11 at 6:13am

[mylilmonkeys]

The OP may be interested in investigate the Protoevangelium of James.  While not canon, it is a very early document which encapsulates a lot of what was known and believed about the Holy Family from antiquity, and does include the presence of midwives at the Nativity.  You can find the whole document many places online.  It's not terribly long, and quite interesting reading.  

[Shami]

In reply to Vallere.  I am no expert on OT translation, but I found this one that says the literal transation is 'grief'.  Then the English version chose 'sorrow'.  Here the link:  http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen3.pdf

Pain doesn't necessarily mean physical although that is the first thought when reading the translation I first posted.  Most people think of physical pain.  Bringing forth a child is a labor of love from conception until, well, it goes on and on even when your child is an adult.  I do like the word toil.

Another interesting thing I have heard...Paul in the New Testament makes reference to caring for new believers as a nursing mother.  When caring for new believers it is a labor of love that can be full of joy or grief just as our own physical children. 

In typology Adam is a type of Christ and Eve is a type of the church.  Some believe that these verses of toiling or pain in childbirth are referring to the church (all of the believers) being formed or brought forth in Christ, a spiritual birth.  There are several references in the NT about all the earthly calamities being the beginning of birth pangs.  The human sufferings cause people to come to Christ.  God's desire is to bring forth many sons to glory.   Sadly, the sufferings of this earthly life can also turn people away from God.

Oops!  I just realized how far off topic I am. Sorry, I got wrapped up in my reply to Vallere and forgot the OP's question.  I am also not Jewish.

[miriam]

.  

Edited by miriam - 5/28/12 at 9:16pm

[xekomaya]

Originally Posted by Nazsmum 

COOL!!! Who are the two guys with sticks?

I know this is kind of an older thread but I didn't see the answer given. Actually I don't know the full answer as I have never seen an icon of the Nativity with two "guys with sticks", but the one in the furry coat talking to Joseph ( who is sitting on the rock in the lower left corner) is Satan tempting him.  Here is a good explanation of the icon if anyone wants to read it. http://www.goarch.org/special/listen_learn_share/nativity

[Nazsmum]

xekomaya- Thanks.