Jun 11 2008
Head Coverings for Men and Women, a Torah and Mitzvah
According to the Torah, is a man commanded to wear a kippah or other head covering? Is a woman commanded to wear a head covering?If we are to be ready to “guard” the commandments of God, then yes, wearing a head covering is part of fulfilling that mitzvah to be on guard to do God’s commandments concerning head coverings.
As it is written:
Deuteronomy 27:1
And Moses and the elders of Israel commanded the people, saying: ‘Keep all the commandment which I command you this day.
“Keep” is the Hebrew word “Shamar” which means to “guard” or “hedge around” as if to protect what is inside.
In this, the Torah teaches us that we are to create a hedge to always be ready to do God’s commandments.
Leviticus 13:45
“As for the leper who has the infection, his clothes shall be torn, and the hair of his head shall be uncovered
Numbers 5:18
And the priest shall set the woman before the LORD, and uncover the woman’s head, and put the offering of memorial in her hands, which is the jealousy offering; and the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that causeth the curse.
Here we have two scriptures detailing a clear positive commandment to remove the head covering of a man, and the head covering of a woman for specific cases.
Point: Notice the Torah assumes there is a head covering being worn, and does not say “if there is a head covering, then remove it.”
If we are to guard God’s commandments and be ready to do them, then it follows that if one is instructed here to remove a head covering already assumed to be worn, and this is not a conditional but rather an instructive commandment, then the Torah therefore assumes that we are wearing a head covering! In fact, it not only assumes this, but assumes that we wearing one at all other times, than in these specific cases mentioned here.
It can and should be asked, that if we are commanded to guard God’s commandments, and be ready to do them, then how can we obey the mitzvah to remove our head covering when we aren’t wearing one? Thus if the Torah expects us to have our head covering removed when meeting these conditions for their removal, then wearing a head covering is thus commanded as part of “guarding” God’s commandments!
The next question one may ask is what kind of head covering? Any head covering that meets the Torah’s other requirements for clothing should suffice; such as not wearing a covering identified as one of the opposite sex (cross dressing), or weaving wool and linen together (that is reserved for the High Priest!). This means a man can wear a turban, hat, kippah, or tallit; and women can wear a hat, snood, or tallit in addition to other coverings thus designed for the purpose of covering the head in fulfillment of this mitzvah.
In short,
Wearing a head covering, according to the Torah then, is truly a sign of submission to God. By wearing one, one essentially proclaims that they are intending to guard God’s commandments. Thus you will find that by wearing one, more so than just tzitzit (since tzitzit and their purpose are not easily recognizable by the nations of the diaspora), that you will be held to a higher standard by others, for you wear upon you then a very obvious symbol of submission to HaShem and his ways. From a midrash it can even be drawn that wearing one is a sign of submission to our husband, who is HaShem - the Messiah, in that we intend to guard his commandments. And if you are female, then by implication (and this is where the Apostle gets it from) that it is also a sign of submission to your earthly husband as well - another mitzvah in itself.
Thoughts?
From: http://jerusalemcouncil.org/midrash/viewtopic.php?f=13&p=2135#p2135
Well, you see, the environment that they lived it was a hot environment, and the sun was bright, so it was a necessary part of the wardrobe! If they did not wear it, they could get seriously burned. So watt could we understand from this? Was wearing a head covering a commandment, or was it an absolutely necessary thing for that climatic region?
On June 11 2008 you posted:-
“Point: Notice the Torah assumes there is a head covering being worn, and does not say “if there is a head covering, then remove it.”
If we are to guard God’s commandments and be ready to do them, then it follows that if one is instructed here to remove a head covering already assumed to be worn, and this is not a conditional but rather an instructive commandment, then the Torah therefore assumes that we are wearing a head covering! In fact, it not only assumes this, but assumes that we wearing one at all other times, than in these specific cases mentioned here.”
several times using the word assumes or assumed.
A long time ago someone suggested to me that the word “assume” is like an “ass” followed by “u” and “me”.
I don’t think the Torah “assumes” anything. Can you provide other examples where you think it does?
Sure thing.
“In the beginning God…” Genesis 1:1.
Notice that God is assumed to exist. No case is made for his existence. The Torah immediately starts off with the assumption that God exists. Since the Torah starts with the biggest assumption of them all, the Torah therefore teaches us to be on the look out for what it assumes, one of many of which is having one’s head covered so as to be ready to uncover it when necessary. If one has no head covering in those times the Torah says one should remove their head covering, then one can not literally fulfill that mitzvah at all, and thus by implication one has thus failed to guard the commandments, which is itself an explicit command to be ready/prepared to keep God’s commandments.
““In the beginning God…” Genesis 1:1.
Notice that God is assumed to exist.”
By whom? The complete statement itself viz. “Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” is a straight out STATEMENT OF FACT, not an assumption.
One could just as easily say “In the beginning”, assuming there was a beginning.
‘Assume’ - 5 : to take as granted or true : SUPPOSE’ (from Merriam-Webster)
(my comment-without proof)
Any other examples?
Um, the statement of fact is absolutely written:
Levitcus 13:14
“…the hair of his head shall be uncovered”
“Shall be.”
Not, “if only its covered.”
I agree that the word used in this context is a verb, to indicate action. However that, to me, does not indicate a preexisting commandment.
As “POG” initially suggested it could have been “an absolutely necessary thing for that climatic region” and, a matter of choice.
Wearing of the ‘kippot’ is simply a ‘commandment’ of men, an addition to Torah in defiance of “Deu 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.”
I understand the wearing of the kippah was a practice unknown in Talmudic times viz:-
“Men sometimes cover their heads and sometimes not; but women’s hair is always covered, and children are always bareheaded.”
(source - Babylonian Talmud, Nedarim 30b)
“it could have been” sounds like an assumption to me.
Lev 13:14 is clear, one should have their head covering removed. It does not say “if.”
Deut 27:1 is clear, one should “guard” the commandments.
How can one even do Lev 13:14 without following Deut 27:1 to guard the commandment - as in to prepare for it?
It is not an addition to Torah if we are commanded in Deut 27:1 to guard the commandments by preparing for them.
Preparation in keeping God’s commandments is very much a commandment of the Law, and in fact your saying that one should not be prepared to keep Lev 13:14 is actually you taking away from the Torah’s commandment to prepare to keep the commandment, and an adding to the Torah’s commandment for a priest-declared leprous man to remove his headcovering, by preconditioning it with an “if he’s wearing a covering.”
“it could have been” sounds like an assumption to me.”
Yes it does. An assumption on behalf of “POG”, not the Torah.
Apart from the Levitical priesthood, I cannot find any specific commandment for the ‘ordinary man’ to wear a headcovering. I am persuaded that it would be a matter of choice, of the free will we are all given.
As I commented above “I understand the wearing of the kippah was a practice unknown in Talmudic times viz:-
“Men sometimes cover their heads and sometimes not; but women’s hair is always covered, and children are always bareheaded.”
(source - Babylonian Talmud, Nedarim 30b)
So, if it was “a practice unknown in Talmudic times ” then it must have been added later.
I am not saying it is wrong to wear the ‘kippot’, simply that it is unnecessary and does not add anything to a man’s spiritual stature.
As an extreme, one could draw an analogy with “Lev 10:1 And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took each of them his censer, and put fire therein, and laid incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, WHICH HE HAD NOT COMMANDED THEM.
Lev 10:2 And there came forth fire from before the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD.”
(source: e-Sword Tanach - JPS)
The specific commandment exists for a man to remove his head covering. Not if he’s wearing one. But to actually remove his head covering. If a man is not wearing a head cover, what then will he remove?
You mention:
“Men sometimes cover their heads and sometimes not; but women’s hair is always covered, and children are always bareheaded.”
(source - Babylonian Talmud, Nedarim 30b)
This may certainly have been the case that some men covered their heads and others didn’t, but it was not a final ruling one way or the other as a matter of halacha, and it is certainly disputed to this very day. However, I and others, make the biblical case that it is required if not then, then certainly it is required today, since to associate with Judaism, one essentially takes on the name of HaShem upon themselves, and by refusing to wear a kippah, while also claiming to be Jewish, one causes HaShem’s name to be desecrated.
The Maharam Brisk agrees with an application of this concept in the practice of securing a job when it writes that one “cannot assent to be a Jew, purporting to be a G-d fearing man, removing his kippa in order to obtain a job. Rather he should take measures to find a job where wearing a kippa will not be an obstacle.” (Responsa 8 )
If you want a historical case from the Talmud showing that men did cover their head much like today, here is one you may have missed from the Talmud:
B. R. Huna b. R. Joshua wouldn’t walk four cubits bareheaded. He
said, “The Presence of God is above my head.” (Kidushin 31a)
These arguments can not be ignored when one leans toward not wearing a head covering:
- one would be unprepared to keep the commandment to remove one’s head covering (in violation of guarding the commandments of God)
- one would be profaning or desecrating his name (in violation of not taking HaShem’s name in vain)
- one would be ignoring the ruling of the judges in office today (in violation of the commandment to obey what they tell you to do)
- one would be following the statues of the Gentiles (in violation of the commandment to not walk in their ways)
- one would be seen as immodest, even in the holiest of events; giving the appearance of evil (in violation to the command to be holy as God is holy).
I hope for your sake, that you consider researching this matter more before judging the matter of wearing a head covering, and judging the matter of teaching others to wear a head covering, as being in violation of “do not add to” the Torah. Be sure when you do, that you aren’t taking away from the Torah.
Torah book, chapter and verse - where is the commandment for the ordinary man to wear some form of head covering?
Along the lines of:-
Exodus
chapter 20
verse 8
“Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.”
Tell me how you can “remember” the Sabbath day and keep it holy without preparing for it?
Tell me how a leaper can be told to remove a headcovering if he’s not wearing one.
You are looking for a specific “thou shalt” and I already gave it to you - an explicit commandment to remove a headcovering. How much more so one should wear a headcovering otherwise; or have you forgotten that “Torah” means “teaching and instruction” which means that everything in the Torah is instructive, not just the “thou shalts.” Thus often what is not written is just as important as what is written, if not more so. Are you familiar with the kol v’chomer, light from heavy argument?
Enough!
What you are trying to demonstrate is the fact that the law of head covering, regarding the high priest, it is a general law, applicable for all, and that this explains the Jewish custom of wearing kippa. But wearing kippa it is just a human law and not a God’s law. You can not create a God’s law from one word, founded somewhere. When God gives a law, He makes it in a very clear manner, in such a way that will be no confusion! That’s YHVH way of giving a Law! And such a law it is no were written in Bible! Also, you can not blame someone for not keeping an imaginary law! The reason for you must not do this is the one founded in this words:
Matthew 15
1. Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked,
2. “Why do Your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!”
3. Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition
4. For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’
5. But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,’
6. he is not to ‘honor his father’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.
7. You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
8. ‘These people honor Me with their lips, but their hearts are far from Me.
9. They worship Me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.’
So if someone want to keep this law as a tradition, it can do it as long he does not breaks one of God’s law! Blaming someone else for not wearing a kippa for me is a breaking of God’s laws, because no man must be wrongly accused.
But wearing kippa it is just a human law and not a God’s law.<<<<<
Wearing a kippa is a tradition that meets a commandment, as wearing a head covering is a commandment. A commandment of God need not be stated absolutely in the positive, to be a commandment. In fact, what is often taught as a negative is also taken to mean that there is a positive commandment that is more important. For example, there is no absolute positive commandment for a man to be faithful to his wife. Yet there is a clear negative commandment for a man to not commit adultery.
If for a negative commandment that there is a positive commandment to be kept, then how much more so for a positive commandment should one keep it!
Thus in the case concerning the headcovering we see two related positive commandments: remove one’s head covering if determined a leper, and guard God’s commandments. Thus we are absolutely positively commanded to guard God’s commandment to remove our head covering if we are declared a leper. Tell me now, how can one keep the positive, clear, absolute commandment to “guard God’s commandment” concerning “remove your head covering if you are declared a leper” if one is in fact not wearing a head covering at all? You can’t! By not wearing a head covering then, you transgress the commandment to “guard” God’s commandments concerning removing your head covering during certain times.
So therefore the Torah teaches that there is a clear positive commandment to be wearing a head covering at all other times. The Torah gives other times where one is to remove their head covering, so if one is not wearing one, then how can one guard to do those commandments too?
Your “explanation” as to why I teach this, as somehow being applicable with the Pharisees you posted about, completely misses what in fact they did. The Pharisees in that passage were holding to some traditions that nullified the written Torah. Those who keep the Church’s tradition to remove one’s head covering does the same thing, since that tradition nullifies God’s clearly written commandment that one should guard his commandment to remove one’s head covering during certain times. So let me turn this around and ask you: do you prefer the tradition of men to keep one’s head uncovered over the clearly written Torah that instructs to be guarding God’s commandments to remove one’s head covering at Torah-specified times? Now tell me, who’s adding or subtracting from the Torah when one holds to such a position as some of those going around saying one shouldn’t wear a head covering in church?
Israel ben Betzalel, you are wrong because you are supposing! In many countries is this tradition of uncovering the head when found in a situation, as a sign of respect and it is said: “You must uncover your head if you are in next situation ….! “. This does not mean that everybody wears a head cover! Eider is said “if your head is covered”, this is an obvious thing, and no one bothers to mention it! Therefore it is somehow funny the way you are building an entire law “of God” based on a suggestion. As I have mentioned God have a clear way of giving commandments (!) , and what you are saying to be “His Low” does not fit to God’s way of doing that. If He would give such a law, then He would have said it in a clear manner, just as He does with the law for the high priest:
”The high priest, the one among his brothers who has had the anointing oil poured on his head and who has been ordained to wear the priestly garments, must not let his hair become unkempt or tear his clothes.”
You must notice that it is mentioned in the same place to not tear his clothes, thing permitted to ordinary people.
Such a law it is not given in Bible! Therefore this law it remains just a supposition of yours, and of others, and nothing more!
(And even more then that, kippa does not even meet God’s requirements, because it is to small to prevent someone’s hair “become unkempt”!)
Since when is:
“As for the leper who has the infection, his clothes shall be torn, and the hair of his head shall be uncovered” “Leviticus 13:45
just a suggestion?
Do you even know that the word “Torah” does not mean “law” but means “teaching and instruction? Therefore if the first five books of Moses are called by God “Torah,” then there is nothing in the Torah that isn’t instructive. After all it is written
Genesis 26:5
because Abraham obeyed me and kept my requirements, my commands, my decrees and my laws.
So to say that the standard for right or wrong is only the laws of God expressed by whatever formula you propose, then you have truly missed what the Torah is all about.
I have not missed anything from God’s words, you did:
“Do you even know that the word “Torah” does not mean “law” but means “teaching and instruction” - “Teaching and instruction” from God’s mouth it is Law! Because we must keep them! And if we do not we are guilty! “Teaching and instruction” in God’s way, not in your way!
You are just trying to go away from the line of proofs that I have presented, because you are not able to deny them any way. But it just doesn’t work!
What proofs have you presented?
So far all you’ve come up with is:
- only the priests had their heads covered when serving in the Temple.
- this law is a tradition.
- this law is not God’s law because he didn’t say “thou shall wear a head covering.”
Neither of these statements have you backed up with any proof as to why they are valid arguments. They have absolutely no bearing on the argument that God commands us to be ready to keep his commandments, including the one of removing our head covering at certain times. So I am not sure by what means you think I am in denial. If you have scripture that contradicts “be prepared to keep the commandment to remove your head covering,” then I’m waiting. As such you have not presented anything that even remotely deals with the argument I am presenting now.
If there is anyone ignoring the other, it’s certainly not me. You have not answered any of my questions. At all. If you are not ignoring me, please then answer these questions:
1. Is the phrase “guard God’s commandments,” a commandment of men?
2. Does one of God’s commandments say “if one is wearing a head covering, then shall his head be uncovered”?
3. If you answered no to both questions, then why are you arguing with me? If you answered yes to either one of those two questions, then do our readers a favor and prove your answer so we can all see the light as you do.
And if you fail to answer these three questions, then I shall be happy to cease this fruitless discussion with you for your sake, and ask that you find some other blog to troll, as I am sure we both have better things to do with our time than to go in circles, never answering the questions being asked.
I was looking for the answer to the question, did HE ever command us to wear head coverings. I would have to say that Paul & Ralph answered that question. HaShem did not at any time write into Law the command to wear a head covering. I think it truly is an assumption that we(non-priest) have to. The verse regarding lepers is most likely referring to them covering themselves up. They were a nasty sight. This sounds to me, that someone is taking the ideas of the Pharisees and running with it. Didn’t they mash laws together to make their own, saying that rabbinical law was higher then the Law of OUR CREATOR??? “Avoid foolish disputes” His LAW is His LAW don’t try to bend it to fit your needs.
If assumptions can be proven by scripture to be held, then the assumptions are just a valid part of scripture as any other. Likewise, you must certainly agree that the commandments in Torah are not limited to just the expressed commandments themselves. After all if that were the case, then one could say that they are not obligated to help their neighbors broken down car on the side of the highway since the Torah only says “if your see your neighbor’s donkey overburdened on the side of the road…” and since a car is not a donkey, then there is no obligation. Or better yet, one could say the king can have as many wives as they want until the king “goes astray” since that is what the Torah writes as the reason for the limit on the number of wives a king has. When we start to reason away the Torah with logic like that, we do ourselves, our neighbor, and God a disservice to the separation from the world’s ways that we were meant to walk into.
I have proven clearly that the Torah assumes we are wearing a head covering so that we are ready to keep the commandment to remove it. The Torah does not say “if” you are wearing a head covering, but that it “shall be removed” during certain circumstances. I have no need to wear a head covering, so I am not bending the Torah to fit it to my need. I see clearly that the Torah commands us to guard the commandments, which means to make a fence around the Torah so that we are always ready to keep its commands. Anyone failing to wear a head covering is not guarding God’s commandment to remove it - it’s really as simple as that.
Likewise, if we say we are of the Messiah, and do not wear a head covering, then who are we truly submitted to? What do we communicate by our clothing or lack thereof? Our witness is tarnished, and we profane his Name if we don’t do what He does. Since we claim to identify with Him, yet do not do as he does: guard the Torah, what then is the result? The only result of rebellion to the King, is Torahlessness - even though we’ve justify our rebellion with our “superior” logic. We carry HaShem’s name upon us, and as people of HaShem we have the responsibility to guard his commandments.
@”If you have scripture that contradicts “be prepared to keep the commandment to remove your head covering,” then I’m waiting.”
You should read this:
I Corint.11:
“4. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head.
5. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved.”
And more then that, it is said:
“6. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head.
7. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God;”
-Therefore it is not proper for a common man to have his head covered in any situation, in his vision. And if this is Paul vision about covering a man’s head, he ho was a (very!) conservator Jew:
Acts 22:
3. ”Under Gamaliel I was thoroughly trained in the law of our fathers and was just as zealous for God as any of you are today.”
then this shows with no doubts, that in our Lord’s times, and between He’s followers, wearing a head cover for a common man was not seen as a normal thing! If would have been such a Law from God, then our Rabbi Yahushua would have told them, in case they didn’t kept it, as He did with so many other Laws!
The phrase Paul uses is κατα κεφαλης which the literal rendering is “down over.”
If we keep in mind that Paul is speaking to the well-known licentious Corinthian congregation, we can see then that Paul is referring to wearing something down over your head, as in obscuring the face from the top down. The best description in context for this is none other than a veil. Cross dressing. Men wearing womens clothing - and for the Corinthians this was certainly an issue, and certainly is prohibited by Torah.
After all, we know also that Paul can not be referring to simply having one’s head covered, since the Priests all must wear a covering over their head when they minister in the Temple especially when they pray and prophesy; and since it was the norm in any synagogue of his day - when we find Paul there on the Sabbath it would have been abnormal for him not to wear a head covering, especially when claiming to be a Pharisee.
You have little knowledge about Greek and Roman customs, at that time Greek and Roman man was commonly wearing a mantle over their heads. That’s why it is used κατα κεφαλης . It was no such custom in Roman or Greek culture of wearing a veil over face by women. From the context it self it can be see that this is covering the HAIR of those persons, and not their FACE, he does not speak about their faces being covered!
The term for “down over” is quite explicit.
I don’t suppose it was Corinthian custom to engage in cross dressing?
You must explain from the Torah how then that Paul can claim that it is a dishonor for man to have his head covered “down over.”
At that time Corinth had a population formed mostly by Romans and Greeks. The Greek and Roman women, as I have said, did not wear veil. This was a Hebrew, and an oriental custom. There for the Greek and Roman men, that lived at that time in Corinth, and whom Paul speak to, could not practice cross-dressing with a piece of clothing that was not used by women. The term κατα κεφαλης , down over, does not mean “down over the face”, you are making a regrettable error of logic! See the meaning of the words: “down” and “over”, there is nothing to suggest “over the face” !
Please prove that it was a Hebrew custom for a man to wear a veil. There is proof of women wearing veils: http://truthinheart.com/Veils1.gif and http://truthinheart.com/Veils2.gif and http://truthinheart.com/Veils3.gif Notice the length. It’s not a tallit, a man’s covering, and it’s not a kippah, or hat. It’s a shoulder-length covering of the face. The idea of “veil” to understand “down over” is not anachronistic.
There is a serious flaw with your reasoning since your conclusion would have Paul calling the priesthood dishonorable for ministering in the Temple with their heads covered which the Torah absolutely requires in their service.
“Over the face” is assumed in the “down” of that which is “over.” Please prove that it means down over something else.
In the meantime please refute:
Some object to katakalupto being translated veil in I Corinthians 11: 4-13. They contend that since
@ “You must explain from the Torah how then that Paul can claim that it is a dishonor for man to have his head covered “down over.”
The explanation is very simple, in Hebrew and Paul’s view, only women wear scarf, and seeing Greek and Roman men wearing something that looked like a scarf it made him disapprove this thing.
@ “Keep in mind that the Greeks had a word for hat (pilos), however, katakalupto (covered and hanging down) is used by Paul.”
It does not uses the word “pilos” (hat), because was not a hat, but a cloak that they used to cover them selves. Bill Cavender it simply makes the same mistakes in understanding Greek and Roman customs as you do.
A tallit is not a scarf by any stretch of the imagination. Nor a kippah.
The pictures are quite clear showing what a veil is. Very feminine, shoulder length, and covering down over the face. Plus you haven’t addressed the contradiction with your understanding of Paul calling it a “dishonor” to wear a head covering for men, when the priests in the Temple are commanded in the Torah to do so.
They wear a turban, not a tallit:
Exodus 29:
@”The pictures are quite clear showing what a veil is. Very feminine, shoulder length, and covering down over the face. 6. Put the turban on his head and attach the sacred diadem to the turban.”
You are wrong, it is nothing to show that it is something like a veil, this is only what you would like to see in it, don’t make confusions!
Error: Exodus 29:
“6.Put the turban on his head and attach the sacred diadem to the turban.”
Let’s examine this from a contrast 1st Century perspective. Do women wear talliyot or kippot, or veils?
What women you are talking, Greek and Roman women? They did not wear veils, kippot, or talliyot . Paul speak to Greeks and Romans!
Yes, Paul speaks to Romans and Greeks, who would not have even been familiar with kippot, or talliyot.
The talliyot was NOT a common garment of that time (wide use of the talliyot of today began around the 13th century, including the tallit katan as an undergarment). The nearest garment description would have been a abaya, or cloak. Commonly worn by semetic peoples. Which the Greeks and Hebrews both were. The Romans wore the Pallium, which was in their cultures a unisex piece of clothing.
Scholars and aristocrats would have worn some thing that resembled a Roman Pallium, a silken or Fine cloth worn. This has been known to be adopted by the Pharisees and Sadducee and adapted by the adding of the tzitziot.
Yo! OG the Original Gentile’s back in da house to sort you confused Jews out.
Check this: you all became off, discussing this Corinthian stuff. Let’s return to Lev 13:45. Israel ben Betzalel has removed this verse out of context. Let’s read the entire chapter. Verses 1-44 deal with the symptoms of different kinds of leprosy and how the priest can recognise them. Verses 45-46 specify how the leper shall behave AFTER the priest has deemed he’s a leper. These 2 verses are no more about the encounter of the priest and the leper, they are about the behaviour of an official leper.
Let’s read Lev 13:45 again, this time no more out of context.
“As to the leper in whom is the plague, his garments are rent, and his head is uncovered, and he covereth over the upper lip, and `Unclean! unclean!’ he calleth;” Young’s Literal Version
“And the leper in whom the plague is, his clothes shall be rent, and the hair of his head shall go loose, and he shall cover his upper lip, and shall cry, Unclean, unclean.” American Standard Version
“And the leper in whom the plague is, his clothes shall be rent, and his head bare, and he shall put a covering upon his upper lip, and shall cry, Unclean, unclean.” Webster’s Bible
As you can see there is some confusion among translators whether his head shall be just uncovered or shaved as well. But one thing is very clear: This verse does not refer to an action of uncovering. It refers to a state of not being covered (hair or other covering). Therefore it does not assume a previous head covering.
Nuff said.
Why bring up translations when one is Jewish and can read Hebrew for themselves? The word is paroah is from the Hebrew root para which means to let loose - and you can’t let loose something if it’s not first bound. Yet we know that paroah does not mean loosing but uncovering, because in Lev 13:45, the word paroah is unique in all the Torah in that it adds a vav to the word para to make paroah. This teaches us that paroah refers to the uncovering of the hair (first) before being let loose (vav). This is also seen in the Hebrew with the word “rosh” as in head, or first, when it says v’rosho iyeh paroah - first, head he loose. Hair is not mentioned. Only rosh - head. In context, it is removing the head covering, and any rabbi or Hebrew scholar will tell you this, as well as any historian on the Second Temple and its practices concerning leapers. Head coverings were worn otherwise. Nuff said.
One is Jewish, and others are not. So the poor Goy has to rely on translations, while he is working hard to make his Hebrew better. You also may have noticed that your blog is in the English language, this may be another reason to use English translations. And, last but not least, you seem to address this blog to Gentile Christians among others, that may be a third reason.
Thanks for the Hebrew lesson anyway. But why is it that non of these translators noticed this? Stupid Goyim again, I guess.
“why is it that non of these translators noticed this?”<<<
Um, it appears to me the translators you refer, do actually notice it:
his head is uncovered
hair of his head shall go loose
and his head bare
No one is talking about shaving one’s hair as you assert. These all clearly show that the translators understood the context and Hebrew to indicate that someone afflicted with tzaraat (it’s a common misunderstanding to believe it’s leprosy) was required to remove their head covering, so that their hair would be loose, and thus be bared. “Para” does mean to let loose, as in to let loose from a restraint, and “paroah” does mean to uncover. Taken together, the idea is still communicated very clearly: what existed prior to the loosing of the hair, baring one’s head, being uncovered, is one whose hair was kept, unbared, covered.
This isn’t difficult. Perhaps accepting a fence, for you, is. Perhaps it should be communicated to you that one does this as an act of love of God, clearly taught in the Torah - and that by not doing this, you deprive yourself of the opportunity to love God in this very special way, loving others as well who would ask you questions otherwise, as well as depriving yourself of the very blessing which too would come as a result of your obedience to the Torah’s instruction on this matter, no matter how minute.
But since you don’t see the Torah and its instructions as God’s perfect standard of right living for a believer, then you have bigger issues in your relationship with God and others, than simply wearing a head covering. If you truly want to love God as He desires, and love others as He desires, and choose not to follow your own way but His, then come learn the Torah and learn to keep and do it as He himself modeled it for us and showed us how. If you really want to be a disciple, and totally give your all to Him, then start with something as simple as keeping kosher - and view that as the act of worship of God that it truly is. Give up Christmas, Easter, and Halloween, and all other manner of eating at the table of demons, and worshiping God in the ways of the pagans - and embrace God’s holidays, and God’s ways of worship. Return to the Sabbath day (the same 7th day Sabbath celebrated as such since Messiah’s days and well before) as a day one is commanded to not only keep, but to also remember, serve/do, not profane, holy/glory/weight, pleasure/enjoy, and holy/sanctify the Sabbath! Learn to read the Torah and recognize that the New Covenant is from Gen 3:15 onwards - and read Jeremiah and realize that “gentiles” have no share in the New Covenant as gentiles - which means if you are a believer from the nations, and claim to have a part of the New Covenant, that you are no longer a gentile but now part of Israel. So go and live, do, serve, honor, keep, and love God’s instruction manual in how to love God and others perfectly: the Torah, the Living Torah, the Messiah who lives in and through you - and recognize that you are now His with a responsibility to love His own in the same way.
Shalom