No Compromise when you're Right!

Quoted from:KING JAMES VERSION,THE HOLY BIBLE…Romans 12:19-21 Dearly Beloved,avenge not yourselves,but rather give place unto wrath:for it is written,Venegeance is mine.I will repay,saith the lord.Therefore if thine enemy hunger,feed him;If he thirst,give him drink:for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.Be not overcome of evil,but overcome evil with good…. it takes me back to something my aunt told me a long time ago…”Pray For Thine Enemies”…”for the ones who lie,what is hidden will be revealed” she used to say.I believe what she said to be true through my expieriences in life so far.

All will be revealed with this woman…It is only a matter of time.I will pray for her reguardless,in that she tells of the lies she has told on others.She needs to come clean!!! not even her gods can help her until she does that we all know.

What a disgrace to her jewish people,her elders will know doesn`t she realize that? unless this is not her real religion that she believes and practices.We all know that GOD prevails.It is written and true.

Thank you for this amazing article. This has become quite a area of discussion in our family as we have began to study the Torah and you have definitely shed some light on the topic. Your points are well back with Scripture and your thought pattern logic and easy to follow. Thank you so much for your wonderful research!

First thing I can say is this is a clear example of poor exegesis… and a great example of eisegesis (reading into the text a preconceived bias). This is what Christians do.

I absolutely agree that there are distinct roles for both men and women… women should never grow beards. I’m joking of course… but both Adam and Chavah “covered themselves” and then were covered by Yahweh when he made coverings of animals skins. Did Yahweh kill rabbits for Chavah and goats for Adam? Both sinned and both men and women sin today. This is the reason for tzitzi’ot.

This commandment has nothing to do with the Priesthood, and was given to all the CHILDREN of Israel… I will prove this out. As far as commandments that are specific to the Priesthood… and things that ate distinctly male, I would absolute agree that women should not be involved in them. Likewise, you and I should not keep Torah that applies only to women.

The tzitzi’ot is not one of these specific commandments. The purpose of the tzitzi’ot is one… to remind Israel to keep all the commandments of Yahweh. So, are women excluded from this?

Tracy said:

Numbers 15: 38 – 41 “Speak to the children (b’nei) of Israel, and tell them that they should make themselves fringes in the borders of their garments throughout their generations, and that they put on the fringe of each border a cord of blue: and it shall be to you for a fringe, that you may look on it, and remember all the commandments of YHVH, and do them; and that you not follow after your own heart and your own eyes, after which you use to play the prostitute; that you may remember and do all my commandments, and be holy to your God. I am YHVH your Elohim, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, to be your Elohim: I am YHVH your Elohim.”

And again in,

Deuteronomy 22:12 – “You shall make yourselves fringes on the four borders of your cloak, with which you cover yourself.”

In this passage the word children is translated wrong. The proper word is b’nei (1121) which is translated son, male child, grandson, young men. The word for girl is the Hebrew word bath (1323) which is daughter, girl, adopted daughter, daughter-in-law, sister, granddaughters, female child. Son means son, and daughter means daughter.

This is what happens when believers either 1.) don’t understand how the Hebrew language works, and/or 2.) Do not consider context when focusing on the use of a word.

It is true that in Numbers 15:38 the Hebrew reads “Speak unto the בני” (Bet-nun-yud) or Benai which is plural for “ben” (bet-nun). The Hebrew word ben means “son”. So a literal interpretation would indeed read “Speak unto the SONS of Israel”. From this, the “rabbis” have taught that it is improper for a woman to wear the tzitzi’ot on their garments. There is only one problem with this teaching…(and here is where I give credit to English translators for correct interpretation).

Hebrew does not have “gender neutral” tense. What that means is that in Hebrew a word is either masculine or feminine. So what about when Yahweh is speaking to ALL Israel?

The thing to understand is that the Qal-stem or “simple” form of a Hebrew word (three letter root) begins in the masculine form (insert joke about the “simple” male mind here). In order to make a word feminine you take the “simple” form and add the appropriate suffix or postfix.

In other words… the word for sons (plural) is Benai… but so is the word for children! This is where understanding the context is essential. I will provide some examples in a moment.

Benai can be specific to a “son” or generally speaking of ALL the children of Israel. So, when the Hebrew term “Benai h’Y’sraEl” or “Sons of Israel” is used in the scripture, we must consider the context. This is a good habit to get into when interpreting any word from the text… Hebrew, Greek, even English. Not all “elohim” are Yahweh, “baptisms” are water baptism… not all “law” is Torah. Context determines the use of a word. This is particularly important when reading Paul’s letters… but that is another subject.

So, where else do we see this term “Benai h’Y’sraEl”? The first mention of the phrase is found in Genesis 32:32 which reads:

That is why the children of Yisra’ĕl to this day do not eat the sinew of the hip, which is on the socket of the thigh, because He touched the socket of the thigh of Yaʽaqoḇ, in the sinew of the hip.

This verse has been translated “Children of Israel” even though Hebrew word is Benai. So my question is: Did only the male (sons of Israel) not eat the sinew of the hip? That’s plain silly.

Actually, let’s take this word “ben” back a little further:

To the woman He said, “I greatly increase your sorrow and your conception – bring forth children (ben’im) in pain. And your desire is for your husband, and he does rule over you.” Genesis 3:16

So, in keeping with rabbinical tradition that the tzitzit was commanded only for men, then Chavah (Eve) only brought forth “sons”, no girls.

How then did the human race multiply? Or maybe this verse is saying that only “sons” cause pain during childbirth? My wife gave birth to a girl… and I promise you, there was great pain. See the issue here?

In the case of both Genesis 32:32 and Genesis 3:16, the JPS TaNaKh (Jewish Publication Society) renders them both as “children” not “sons”.

So, any time we see that the context is clearly referring to ALL of the Hebrew people, we know that “ben” “ben’im” or “benai” are referring to everyone – ALL OF THE CHILDREN, not just males. Or did The Almighty only bring the males out of Egypt?

And the children (benai) of Yisra’ĕl bore fruit and increased very much, multiplied and became very strong, and the land was filled with them. Exodus 1:7

In the context of Numbers 15:38-40 we see that the purpose of tying the tzitziot was to remind all of the CHILDREN of Israel to keep His Commandments. That is, unless only men were to keep from adultery, murder, idols, theft, lying. Of course not.

We all need the reminder and we all must obey…. Both male and female.

As a matter of fact, the JPS also translates this phrase “speak unto the CHILDREN of Israel”… and the JPS was translated by rabbinical Jews. Yes, the wearing of Tzitzi’ot is a command for ALL of His children, regardless of their gender. That is clear from the context:

“And Yahweh spoke unto Moshe, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and bid them that they make them tassels in the corners of their garments throughout their generations, and that they put upon the tassel of the corners a thread of blue: And it shall be unto you a tassel, that you may look upon it, and remember all the commandments of Yahweh, and do them; and that you seek not after your own heart and your own eyes, after which you use to follow harlotry: That you may remember, and do all my commandments, and be holy unto your God.

Again, the context is clear… this isn’t just a reminder fort men.

This is a reminder for ALL of the CHILDREN of Israel – it wasn’t just men who came out of Egypt, even though the word in Exodus 1:7 is also “benai”. CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT.

Tracy said:

Simply put, YHVH specifically called men, sons, and young men and boys, only, to wear the tzitzit.

False statement. Period.

Tracy said:
Apostle Shaul also reminded the Corinthian Assembly that men and women are not to wear that which pertaineth to the opposite sex. This Assembly was filled with ex-pagans. In this time period, it was quite common for effeminate pagan MEN to wear female head coverings as well as female clothing during pagan temple worship, and it was common for women to shave their heads bald in temple worship. We see a clear exchange of clothing and practices among men and women.

Shaul saw this pagan practice brought into the Assembly and firmly addressed it.

Fair enough… but there is not a mention of tzitzi’ot here… furthermore, one could make the argument that Paul is actually telling woman to pray with a prayer shawl… something that rabbinical Judaism has traditionally taught was for men only.

By the way, Paul is not condemning men praying with shawls, having nor is condemning the wearing of kippah. Paul is addressing the Corinthian practice among men to “vale their face and adorn their hair” as was the “worship” practice of male cult prostitutes. Again, nothing Paul says ever addresses tzitzi’ot… ever. I believe it is dishonest to extrapolate this from anything Paul says when addressing the confusion that comes from men wearing women’s clothing and vice versa.

Tracy quotes Talmud and other sources:

“By medieval times conventions surrounding tzitzit had begun to change. The strand of blue had disappeared. They were worn attached to undergarments and shawls worn only during prayer, not tied to everyday outer garments as these clothes were no longer constructed with four corners. Rabbis prohibited women from wearing tzitzit, or, if they wore them, from saying the blessing over them.* In this way tallitot became a male item forbidden to women.”

Tracy is upholding the “mitzvoth d’rabannan” (commandments of the rabbis). These are the “traditions of the elders” that Yahshua said are a violation of Torah (see Deuteronomy 4:2, 12:32).

“Why do Your taught ones transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.” But He answering, said to them, “Why do you transgress the command of Elohim by your tradition? Matt 15:2-3
‘But in vain do they worship Me, teaching as teachings the commands of men” Matt 15:9
“And in vain do they worship Me, teaching as teachings the commands of men. “Forsaking the command of Elohim, you hold fast the tradition of men.” And He said to them, “Well do you set aside the command of Elohim, in order to guard your tradition” Mar 7:7-9

Tracey quotes Talmud:

“Rabbis prohibited women from wearing tzitzit.” This is heresy as it was YHVH who forbade women from wearing the tzitzit, not rabbis. Secondly, did you catch that? “ . . . begun to change.”

Another quote:

“Our Rabbis taught: All must observe the law of Tzizith, priests, Levites, and Israelites, proselytes, women and slaves.” Talmud – Mas. Menachoth 43a

And another quote:

“According to the Halakhah [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.

Please show me FROM TORAH where Yahweh specified that tzitzi’ot was only for daytime.

The quote continues;

Thus women have no obligation to wear the tallit, and UNTIL RECENT YEARS (my emphasis) it was extremely unusual for women to wear it for prayer. NOWADAYS, (my emphasis) even among some Orthodox women there has been A STRONG DESIRE (my emphasis) to wear the tallit for prayer, and many women now do so, often having a special colored or decorated tallit in the latest fashion. Orthodox Rabbis generally disapprove of women wearing the tallit, chiefly because it is untraditional for women to do so, but others see no objection to it. A Message from Rabbi Tilsen”

The above quote is interesting to me because if things have changed then who are they to tell women NOT to wear the tzitzit? However, in this quote, the writer gives an excuse as to why women weren’t commanded to wear tzizit. Where do we see this excuse in Scripture? This is a man made reason and has nothing to do with what YHVH commanded or WHY He commanded it so. Having said that a woman recently told me she wears her tzitzit to bed because it makes her “feel” closer to YHVH. Now, are these additions or subtractions to the Word of Yah?

I can’t help but point out the hypocrisy in Tracy’s statement here:
‘Now, are these additions or subtractions to the Word of Yah?”

That is all she has done… she has engaged in eisegesis as she ignored the context of the use of the word “benai”. She is guilty of the very thing that we accuse the Church of. If we ignore context we can make the text say anything we want to, can’t we?

She has extrapolated from Paul something that isn’t even implied… she has gone to the very “commandments of the rabbis” that Yahshua condemned, in order to make her point. I love Talmud – when we read from it we can understand a lot of what our Mashiyach was railing against. But to build any doctrine from Talmud is dangerous. In the Toldot Yeshu, the rabbis refer to Our Messiah as a mamser (bastard), and a sorcerer. They teach that He was the product of rape by a Roman soldier,. Even the Name they chose for Him was YESHU, not Yahshua or Yahushua ( יְהוֹשֻׁעַ). They intentionally skewed His Name for many reasons. Most Scholars agree that the Messiah’s name is the same as Joshua of the TaNaKh. This is why the names were confused by Greek translators and subsequent Latin, German and English translators confusing “Jesus” with “Joshua” of the TaNaKh:

“Acts 7:45 (KJV) “Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David;”

Hebrews 4:8 (KJV) “For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.”

In both of these verses from the King James the context clearly points to JOSHUA son of Nun (not Jesus). The reason for this confusion was due to the fact that our Messiah has the same name as Joshua which is spelled (right to left) yud-hey-wav-shin-ayin. This is just more evidence of a Semitic original. The Messiah’s name is actually pronounced Yahushua. The Literal translation being YAHu (yud-hey-wav) and Shua (Hoshua) Shin-ayin. The rabbinical “sages” understood what this name means and intentionally skewed it in their writings. Opting instead for YESHU which is actually the acronym:

“Y’mach Sh’mo W’Zichrono” – which means “may his name be blotted out”.

The “rabbis” knew His name was Yahushua, but they changed it in order to denigrate Him.

These men were also responsible for the teaching of “Lo Bashamayim Hi” – translated “It is not in heaven”. The rabbis came up with this doctrine in order to teach that they don’t have to listen to Yahweh and that only they are allowed to interpret Torah (meaning add to and take away from – in direct violation of Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32). This teaching can be found in Talmud tractate Sanhedrin. This “law” was result of a debate with Rabbi Elazar over the ritual purity of an oven. It’s a long (silly) story but Elazar proved that “Hashem” agreed with him by invoking several miracles and the rest of the rabbinical council dismissed each of these miracles saying “we don’t listen to rivers, trees ect”… at the end of this story, God speaks with an audible voice and says that Rabbi Elazar is correct. The rest of the rabbinical council then says sorry Rabbi Elazar, but “we don’t listen to heaven”. The reason they were able to say this was because in the Torah itself it says that the Torah “is not in heaven”… meaning the rabbis can change it manipulate it, add to it, take away from it. And where does it say this?

For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not too hard for thee, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it, that we may do it? Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it, that we may do it? But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it. Deuteronomy 30:11-14

The Rabbis of the Talmud stripped this phrase from the meaning and the context of the verse in order to teach this wicked doctrine. I believe this was merely “damage control” and came as a result of something we see in the New Testament:

“And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” Matt 3:17

Well, according to the rabbis, they don’t listen to heaven. So they can ignore this one. Right?

In Talmud tractate Sanhedrin 2b we also find the they also taught a doctrine called “Incline after a majority” (Rambam). Meaning, the majority can be wrong, but you must still follow the majority. This is why they were able to disagree with the fictional “Rabbi Elazar”. The rabbis take this doctrine from the Torah to:

You shall not incline after a majority to do evil; neither shall you testify in a dispute to follow after a crowd to pervert judgment: Exodus 23:2

These wicked men once again stripped this phrase out of a Torah, removed the “not” in order teach the EXACT OPPOSITE of what it actually says “You shall not incline after a majority…”

My point? Just that I am not going to trust the rabbis of the Talmud who not only blasphemed and defamed Our Messiah. These “rabbis” intentionally create “mitzvoth” that our Mashiyach condemns… and Tracy uses Talmud to support her errant conclusions. Bad idea.

Tracy then drones on about women wearing the things that pertain to a man… I agree that we must remain distinct. I have the feminist movement, reconstructionist Judaism is an abomination. There is way too much confusion already… men looking like women, women looking like men. It’s perverted… we both agree on that. This is one reason I am an advocate for beards…. You won’t have to wonder if you are looking at a man if he has a full beard. Right?

But is Tracy then supposing that men must were tunics, and woman only dresses? We must not make Torah where there is none. This is a violation of Deuteronomy 4:2, and 12:32

Paul isn’t saying women can’t wear pants… There is no such Torah. But a woman should not wear MEN’s pants… that’s confusion. Likewise, I don’t wear my wife’s Capri pants.

Pay close attention to the fact that Paul never once mentions tzitzi’ot in any of the verses Tracy sites. Interesting.

I would not don a woman’s prayer shawl… but there is no commandment against prayers shawls for men or women. There is also no commandment that we pray with one, either. Both men and women are however, required to wear clothes to cover their bodies… that isn’t a man thing, nor a woman thing.

Likewise, the tzitzi’ot is for all the children of Israel. The sole purpose of the commandment is so that we look upon it to do all the commandments… this is not gender specific.

“Our Rabbis taught: All must observe the law of Tzizith, priests, Levites, and Israelites, proselytes, women and slaves.” Talmud – Mas. Menachoth 43a

“Mikhal the daughter of King Saul used to wear tefillin, and the sages did not protest”
(Eruvin 96a).

“Rab Judah attached fringes to the aprons of [the women of] his
household;”
14
(Mas. Menachoth 43a)

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), R. Yomtob ben Yisrael Alghazi (1726-1802)), but with a gradual movement towards prohibition mainly initiated by the Medieval Ashkenazi Rabbi Meir von Rothenburg (the Maharam).

Deuteronomy 31: 12 Assemble the people-the men, the women, the little ones and the foreigners you have in your towns – so that they can hear, learn, fear Yahweh your Elohim and take care to obey all the words of this Torah.

And yet, Abba calls the children of Israel by the word “sons” (benai) where the context is clearly speaking of ALL Israel. You don’t understand the language, and yet you teach. This is dangerous. Context is everything. The simple form of a Hebrew word is masculin (it is also used as the gender neut when speaking to mixed company). Please pray for wisdom before you post misleading essays. You will be held to account for what you teach… as we all will. Its much more serious than you seem to understand. I was simply using Talmud to dispute the Talmud you sited.. there is definitely no agreement among the rabbis.

And be teachable or you will remain in ignorance.

That is hypocrisy.. you can use Talmud to make your (supposed) case, but you won’t allow people to use Talmud to dispute it. Amazing.

I don’t need Talmud, I know the language, and I have clearly shown that “benai” must be understood in context. Your eisegisis is Greco-Christian practice. You may know how to look up a Hebrew word in a Strong’s, but you have no clue how to understand the use of the language. I tell you what, what don’t you contact Benner (Ancient Hebrew Research Center), Brad Scott, Or even better… I see that you have a link for AENT on your blog (a treasure)… why don’t you contact Andrew Gabriel Roth (A Semitic Language Scholar) and ask him if your interpretation of benai as it relates to tzitzi’ot is accurate. Or, you could contact one of his editors for AENT… Carmen Welker – a Hebrew woman who is Netzari… and has authored several books… ask any of them if you are correct (in your error) that every time you read “benai” it is referring to men… They will all tell you that you are wrong.

But then I doubt you will listen. Judging by the name of your blog, you have all the answers. you have arrived… you have no need that anyone teach you anything. Your arrogance and your pride will keep you from truth.

YES- when talking about circumcision… the context dictates that these are men… that’s a no brainer. But the commandment to tie tzitzit is in no way connected with circumcision, the priesthood… or anything else that is distinctly male. They are never mentioned together. It’s sad when Greek minded people try to interpret Hebrew scriptures.

Gender neutral use of the word “benai’:

“And the children (benai) of Israel were fruitful, and increased abundantly, and multiplied, and waxed exceeding mighty; and the land was filled with them. Now there arose a new king over Egypt, who knew not Joseph.
And he said unto his people: ‘Behold, the people of the children (benai) of Israel are too many and too mighty for us” Exodus 1:7-9

‘But the more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied and the more they spread abroad. And they were adread because of the children (benai) of Israel” Exodus 1:12

“That is why the children (benai) of Yisra’ĕl to this day do not eat the sinew of the hip, which is on the socket of the thigh, because He touched the socket of the thigh of Yaʽaqoḇ, in the sinew of the hip” Genesis 32:32

“To the woman He said, “I greatly increase your sorrow and your conception – bring forth children (ben’im) in pain. And your desire is for your husband, and he does rule over you.” Genesis 3:16

“And the people believed; and when they heard that YHWH had remembered the children (benai) of Israel, and that He had seen their affliction, then they bowed their heads and worshipped” Exodus 4:31

So did chavah only bring forth “sons” in pain as seen Gen 3:16? Did Yahweh only REMEMBER the “sons” in Exodus 4:31… He just disregarded the women?

And YHWH spoke unto Moshe, saying: “Go in, speak unto Pharaoh king of Egypt, that he let the children (benai) of Israel go out of his land.” Genesis 6:11

I guess Yahweh only wanted Pharaoh to let the “sons” go… right? That’s a bad deal for the women who Yahweh just abandoned in Egypt (yes, I am being sarcastic to prove a point).

Now, here in Exodus we will see that Moshe uses a “male specific” word;

“But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men-children (Yeled) alive. And the king of Egypt called for the midwives, and said unto them: ‘Why have ye done this thing, and have saved the men-children (Yeled) alive?” Exodus 1:17-18

And yet another “male specific” word:
“This is My covenant, which ye shall keep, between Me and you and thy seed after thee: every male (zakar) among you shall be circumcised” Genesis 17:10

This is not to say that ben/benai/ben’im never means “son/sons”.. certainly it can and does. But you can see that it is also a gender neutral term in the Scripture (this isn’t Talmud). So, you HAVE to understand the context.. you can’t just say it ALWAYS means “sons’.. that is simply untrue.

JPS TaNahK is translated by rabbinical Jews. And they translate 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.

Why would they do this.. it is these “Talmudists” (your verbiage) that are the men who established the “law” that women are not to wear tzitzit’ot … so you would think they would have translated this as “sons” here in order to support their man-made commandment. And yet they don’t because they know the context requires this to be the gender neutral use of the word “benai”.

So it is YOU Tracy who is upholding a Talmudic command… The Scripture clearly instructs ALL the children to tie tzitzi’ot because they were ALL to look upon them to do all of His commandments.

Tracy, you know better than Jeff Benner, Brad Scott, Carmen Welker, Andrew Gabriel Roth, Baruch Ben Daniel, and the translators of the JPS. Wow!

Set aside your pride and your need to be “right” .. and instead try be teachable.. otherwise you will remain ignorant. And once again, I didn’t use Talmud to prove that you are wrong… I used Scripture.

According to Am Shalom:

“The term “B’nai” is the gender-neutral term for the plural of “Bar” and “Bat.” It refers to a person who has reached the age when s/he can be held responsible for observing and fulfilling the mitzvot, the commandments, that God expects that we observe and honour as Jews. ”

But let me guess.. you know better than these Jews too.

It must be tough to live in a world where everyone else is wrong but you. I suggest you seek the guidance of a Netzari who is learned in the language and linguistic structure before you teach on it. You would do well to contact Roth or Welker on this subject. You are embarrassing yourself. You have only convinced those more unlearned than yourself.

Your pride and your stubbornness is blinding you.

Obeying Him is abonimation… what planet are you from?

Yes – Talmud is vanity… I have been saying that over and over.

None of what I just quoted was Talmud… it’s Torah IN CONTEXT.

You can see it with your own eyes. Go back and read what is posted.

Are you unstable? Go back and look at all the SCRIPTURAL proofs that benai is a gender neutral term when speaking generically to Ysra’El. These are all passage from Scripture… not Talmud.. or do you not understand the diiference?

Here is a hint… if it states Genesis, Exodus, Leviticusl, Numbers or Deuteronomy… THATS TORAH sister… not Talmud.

I can only assume you haven’t read any of the posts (being “right” all the time) or.. you simply don’t get it. You can’t make the distiction between Talmud and Torah. And you are teaching? Really?

Sad.

@nocompromise
True… Talmud teaches women are forbidden.. not TORAH.

And tzitzit’ot was for ALL Israel… just like clothing is for ALL people. Unless women are not called to obey Torah… then yes, they should not wear the reminder. your study has no merit.

Gender neutral use of the word “benai’ – all from TORAH ONLY:

“And the children (benai) of Israel were fruitful, and increased abundantly, and multiplied, and waxed exceeding mighty; and the land was filled with them. Now there arose a new king over Egypt, who knew not Joseph.And he said unto his people: ‘Behold, the people of the children (benai) of Israel are too many and too mighty for us” Exodus 1:7-9

‘But the more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied and the more they spread abroad. And they were adread because of the children (benai) of Israel” Exodus 1:12

“That is why the children (benai) of Yisra’ĕl to this day do not eat the sinew of the hip, which is on the socket of the thigh, because He touched the socket of the thigh of Yaʽaqob, in the sinew of the hip” Genesis 32:32

“To the woman He said, “I greatly increase your sorrow and your conception – bring forth children (ben’im) in pain. And your desire is for your husband, and he does rule over you.” Genesis 3:16

“And the people believed; and when they heard that YHWH had remembered the children (benai) of Israel, and that He had seen their affliction, then they bowed their heads and worshipped” Exodus 4:31

So did chavah only bring forth “sons” in pain as seen Gen 3:16? Did Yahweh only REMEMBER the “sons” in Exodus 4:31… He just disregarded the women?

And YHWH spoke unto Moshe, saying: “Go in, speak unto Pharaoh king of Egypt, that he let the children (benai) of Israel go out of his land.” Genesis 6:11

I guess Yahweh only wanted Pharaoh to let the “sons” go… right? That’s a bad deal for the women who Yahweh just abandoned in Egypt.

@nocompromise

Contact Andrew Roth and ask him… or do you understand the language better than a Semitic Language Scholar?

Ok, Tracy Please read my reply carefully. you will see that you and I are in agreement on many issues.

1.) Sister, you and I are in agreement regarding the feminist movement… trust me, I see it is an abomination too. But tzitzi’ot has absolutely nothing to do with feminism. But I am curious about something… you are against the feminist movement (rightfully so). You site Paul where he instructs the Corinthians not to confuse gender roles or clothing. Perfect. So why do you ignore Paul’s instruction against a woman teaching, preaching, speaking or leading?

2.) We both agree – Talmud is vanity. So why do you use Talmud to make your case in the essay? I only sited Talmud to show you the rabbis can’t agree on this issue. It is only Talmud the prohibits a woman wearing tzitzit’ot.. not Torah.

I just showed you 6 examples of benai being applied to ALL if Israel… all totally unrelated to tzitzi’ot.

I showed you where there are 2 specific words for a “male child”… Do you REALLY want me to include every instance of benai in the gender neuter tense? It would eat up 20 pages.

You have it backwards. In Hebrew, the simple qal stem root is always masculine… this is the usage when almost every Hebrew word is used in the general (all inclusive) tense. So, you say “remove the men”.. that is backwards. Yes, benai when used regarding issues that pertain only to men is clear men.. IN CONTEXT.

Example… Yahweh is “Elohim”… but elohim is a word that isn’t always speaking of Yahweh, correct? Moshe is called elohim, and Yahweh says we are to have no other elohim, don’t go after other elohim.

“I have said, Ye are elohim; and all of you are children of the most High” Psalm 82:6

Arte you really going to argue that this is referring to Yahweh?

Context dictates the word usage. And you cannot use English linguistic rules when reading Hebrew.

Even in the Greek (though I believe the NT was originally in Hebrew and Aramaic)…

Paul speaks of Torah (nomia/nomos)… but Paul also speaks of “another law” and “the law of sin”. clearly he isn’t speaking of Torah in these instances… but the same Greek word is used.

CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT.

So too with benai. If Yahweh is speaking to ALL Israel… then benai is indeed gender neutral. But if He is speaking of male only distinctions and roles.. then it’s clear that it becomes gender specific. There is no indication of “male specific’ usaghe as it relates to the fringes. It’s just not there… and you should not add it.

It became “male only’ via rabbinical tradition… and Mashiyach hated the traditions of the rabbis!

Look, I am no fan of English translations… including JPS. But they got it right in Numbers 15:38 because Yahweh is giving a command to ALL Israel… because ALL Israel was to look upon the tzitzi’ot and remember to do all the commandment.

As far as women wearing that which pertains to a man… WE AGREEE!

But tzitzi’ot is not designated as a male, nor female. It was given to ALL.

Do you wear watch? Some women do? But some men do… is that wrong? Do you wear glasses? So do men? Do you wear socks? So do men?

But none of these things are gender specific… (and they are not garments). By the way, a tallit (prayer shawl) is not a garment either.

Now, I want you for a moment step back and consider something. Consider just for a moment that you are wrong about your Greek, Western perspective – and your English grammar understanding, as it relates to the word “benai”…. if you are wrong (which I not only proved, but you can verify with anyone who understand Hebrew linguistic structure)… if you are wrong, then you are actually telling women NOT to obey Yahweh. Do you understand the ramifications? This is serious sister!

So… don’t believe me… and if you don’t believe all the Scripture proof I have provided.. then I suggest you get ahold of someone who has more understanding than you do (if you believe such a person exists)… before you put out your “studies”. Doesn’t Scripture say that we should not all be teaches because we will be held to account?

Look, you have some good stuff on your blog. I read your article on Chanukah and national holidays (non-pagan holidays)… Its great! Very balanced and objective. But this essay on tzitzi’ot (and tallit) is simply wrong. Be humble enough to do the research.. contact a few experts.. then repent… admit you’re were wrong. There is no shame in that.

I hope you read my previous post completely. but since you asked for even more proof…

Read Leviticus 12:

This is the Torah regarding when a WOMAN gives birth and the purification process… but yahwerh once again tell Moshe to “Speak to the CHILDREN (benai) of Israel”… now, are REALLY going to argue that Yahweh isn’t speaking to women here? these commandments are SPECIFICALLY to women.. and what THEY must do, themselves. So they must be included in the benai (children) of Israel – right?:

And YHWH spoke unto Moshe, saying: Speak unto the children (benai) of Israel, saying: If a woman be delivered, and bear a man-child (zakar), then she shall be unclean seven days; as in the days of the impurity of her sickness shall she be unclean. And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. And she shall continue in the blood of purification three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purification be fulfilled. But if she bear a maid-child (zakar), then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her impurity; and she shall continue in the blood of purification threescore and six days. And when the days of her purification are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt-offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtle-dove, for a sin-offering, unto the door of the tent of meeting, unto the priest. And he shall offer it before YHWH, and make atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed from the fountain of her blood. This is the law for her that beareth, whether a male or a female. And if her means suffice not for a lamb, then she shall take two turtle-doves, or two young pigeons: the one for a burnt-offering, and the other for a sin-offering; and the priest shall make atonement for her, and she shall be clean”

I hope I have at least caused you to consider that you are wrong in telling women not to obey Yahweh.

@nocompromise
You said:

“You have insulted my intelligence, my faith and now my gender and calling”.. offense is only “taken” not given. You are letting your pride cause you to be insulted.

I am not at all offended by your lack of understanding.

Hopefully you see from Leviticus 12 above that CHILDREN (benai) includes women here… these command are clearly not for me, sister.

Stubborn.

In Leviticus 12 Moses is commanded to speak to the SONs of Israel concerning mitzvot concerning childbirth to women. In this case, the women that the commandment refers to is necessarily in the plural 3rd person, and not the plural 2nd person, as it is in every case where the men are directly being addressed by Moses.

In this passage, the MEN are being directly spoken to, but the commandment is in reference to things pertaining to the women. This is a very different thing than the WOMEN being directly addressed and commanded by YHWH. The commandment comes from YHWH to Moshe, then from Moshe to the MEN in the mixed gender congregation, and then from the MEN to the WOMEN in their households. This is the proper headship chain of authority. The MAN (father or husband, or nearest male relative) is the covering (and teacher of YHWH’s commandments) for the WOMAN, and receives all commandments directly from YHWH, and are also commanded to teach to their WOMEN to whom the commandment pertains.

This chain of authority model comes from Genesis 2, where the MAN receives the commandment not to partake of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, as well as the commandment to be fruitful and multiply. In both cases the WOMAN was absent when the commandment was given to the MAN, but even if the WOMAN was present at that moment, it would have been irrelevant. The MAN was and IS and always WILL BE responsible to hear YHWH and to teach the received commandments of YHWH to the WOMAN at all times, and this is an eternal decree.

The presence or absence of women in the group of MEN being addressed and commanded by YHWH has absolutely NO bearing upon whether these commandments that are given to the MEN happen to also or exclusively apply to the women or not. We have to look elsewhere to make that determination.

Indeed, the only way to determine this IS by CONTEXT alone. Most commandments it is obvious to know which gender they apply to, but some commandments it is not as easy to determine without a careful examination of the grammar of the Hebrew text and the universal properties of the context usage of a word. In this case, the word Bene’i ALWAYS implies the presence of MALES, without exception. The opposite is not true, in that this word IS NEVER used for an exclusively female congregation. This is why this word IS NOT a gender neutral term, since it ALWAYS requires the presence of MALES for its usage, and is never used without the presence of MEN. Otherwise, we would have the unseemly spectacle of the women teaching and having authority over their husbands concerning that commandments of Elohim.