Leviticus 18:19

Ask the question you always wanted to ask, and were afraid to. There is no dumb question. Be courageous, for here you will find people ready to talk.<P>All Villagers may post here.

Moderators: jochanaan, MatthewNeal, jimmy, natman, Senior Moderator, Moderators

Leviticus 18:19

Postby MoNatureMan » Thu Jul 21, 2016 1:52 pm

I know, leave it to me to come up with a question from Scripture tha nobody has ever heard of.
In most of Leviticus 18, Scripture speaks of incestual sexual relations. However Leviticus 18:19 speaks of not having sex with a woman during the time of month that she is 'under the law', unclean.
I have seen this passage before and have wondered. I have asked multiple 'knowledgable people, including doctors. Nobody has any answers.
The only thing I can figure out on this is that sperm and egg could get together during that time, and then get flushed out. Sort of creation of life followed by termination of that life.
Any thoughts on this Scripture :?: :?: :?: :?: :?:

Ron
User avatar
MoNatureMan
Native Resident
 
Posts: 764
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2013 5:03 pm
Location: Central Florida

Re: Leviticus 18:19

Postby natman » Thu Jul 21, 2016 5:09 pm

I think it is more about coming into contact with blood. Whenever the Jews came into contact with blood or death, they were considered "ceremonially unclean", at least for a period of time, and needed to undergo ceremonial cleansing. A similar situation affects the man when he spills sperm in any manner.

If I am not mistaken, the egg that is being flushed from a woman's system is already dead at the time of menstruation, so I doubt that there is any connotation that the egg and sperm may come into contact.
SON-cerely,
Nathan Powers

Get exposed to the sun, and get exposed to the Son.
User avatar
natman
Mayor (Site Admin)
 
Posts: 7364
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 3:48 pm
Location: Houston, Texas

Re: Leviticus 18:19

Postby Petros » Thu Jul 21, 2016 7:21 pm

I should be inclined to concur.
The truth, the stark naked truth, the truth without so much as a loincloth on, should surely be the investigator's sole aim - Basil Chamberlain
User avatar
Petros
Native Resident
 
Posts: 5608
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 2:01 am
Location: Upper Michigan

Re: Leviticus 18:19

Postby MoNatureMan » Fri Jul 22, 2016 12:23 am

Sounds reasonable.
I figured somebody on this forum would have some answers.

Thanks
Ron
User avatar
MoNatureMan
Native Resident
 
Posts: 764
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2013 5:03 pm
Location: Central Florida

Re: Leviticus 18:19

Postby Bare_Truth » Sat Jul 23, 2016 3:09 pm

Allow me to enter another observation that would be relevant. At the time of a woman's period. The mucous plug that seals the entrance to the womb becomes soft and dissolves so that the menstrual flow can exit the uterus. At that time she is more vulnerable to invasion by bacterial infection. Additionally although it appears as blood the menstrual flow is made up of more than that as the cells that form the lining of the uterus have died and collapsed and are removed by menstruation so that a new layer of the very specialized cells can grow. However the material of the collapsed cells is an excellent medium for the growth of bacteria. The activity of sexual intercourse also has the potential of pushing infected material back through the cervix into the uterus. Once in the uterus there is an open pathway via the Fallopian tubes to the interior of the abdomen and all the abdominal organs and of course the very critical lining of the fallopian tubes themselves. That lining consists of cells with filaments that oscillate in a pattern that can move the egg to the uterus. Also the interior of these tubes is where the actual fertilization takes place. Any scaring of the interior of the tube can interfer with the fertilized egg making it to the uterus to implant, and may result in a tubal pregnancy which could kill both the mother and child.

The primary reason for no intercourse could arguably be based on the safety and fertility concerns for the mother and child.

As a related issue, it is perhaps worth noting the difference between the Oestrus Cycle (most mammals) and the the Menstrual Cycle Humans (and, I am told, at least one species of south american? monkey). The mating of mammals with the Oestrus Cycle requires some strong signal to attract a male. (particularly among the non-herd/pack animals). The Oestrus flow provides just such a scent. signal. In contrast, among humans, sexual activity serves more than just a reproductive activity and is part of the experience that contributes to the phenomenon of ".... and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."Gen 2:24. So in that respect the Menstrual cycle is beneficial to the marriage in a way that does not exist with the oestrus cycle.

The foregoing contains a good bit of speculation and I suppose we might want to ask about that after the resurrection, but it does serve as an hypothesis.
I never met anyone that I could not learn something from.
User avatar
Bare_Truth
Native Resident
 
Posts: 2518
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 10:07 pm
Location: Ozark Plateau, Southwest Missouri

Re: Leviticus 18:19

Postby Petros » Sat Jul 23, 2016 6:28 pm

at least one species of south american? monkey


Interesting - news to me.

It will take some thought.
The truth, the stark naked truth, the truth without so much as a loincloth on, should surely be the investigator's sole aim - Basil Chamberlain
User avatar
Petros
Native Resident
 
Posts: 5608
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 2:01 am
Location: Upper Michigan

Re: Leviticus 18:19

Postby Bare_Truth » Sat Jul 23, 2016 7:57 pm

Petros wrote:
at least one species of south american? monkey


Interesting - news to me.

It will take some thought.

Circa 1989, I happened to ask a veterinarian friend I knew from church if there were any species that had a Menstrual cycle or if only Humans had that in stead of an oestrus cycle. and that was his answer as I remember it

A little extra searching on the internet turned up:http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/aboutp/anat/menstrual.html However, they are using a different definition of the Oestrus/estrus cycle than I have seen before. The previous definition I had seen for estrus cycle was used in the sense that the female was receptive and could be impregnated only at or closely about the time of the bloody flow as opposed to the Menstrual cycle in which impregnation was impossible at the time of the bloody flow as ovulation occurred at a different time (about 2 weeks away from the flow) and there was about a 4 day window of time in which the sperm had to arrive at the cervix due to the limited viable time for the egg and the sperm. The source cited above links the definition of Estrus to the time of heightened sexual interest on the part of the female.

In either case impregnation seems to occur only at or around ovulation time. According to the documentation I have seen, in humans, the one fixed time relationship that is fairly consistent is that menstrual flow occurs 2 weeks after ovulation, and for cycles of greater or lesser or irregular length of time the variation in the cycle length occurs between the end of the menstrual flow and ovulation. and not between ovulation and the onset of the menstrual flow.

From what I can see in the scripture the restriction on when a woman was not to have intercourse was.
-- Normally only the seven days at the time of menstrual flow
-- Or in the case of an abnormally long period (over 7 days), then seven additional days
-- Or in the case of anything abnormal about the flow also an additonal seven days after the flow.
HOWEVER:
-- The Jewish practice was to always include the 7 extra days (sounds like pharisaical hedging about the law once again) but the extra seven days has been cited as causing a slightly higher incidence of conceiving a male baby as Intercourse after a period of abstinence tends toward a higher sperm count and for women with the most common cycle length of 4 weeks this would put intercourse at or about the time of ovulation and male sperm tend to swim faster. Glands at the entrance of uterus can store sperm for a few days and the female sperm endure that storage better and are vital for longer. So the higher probability of conception plus fast male sperm when delivered at the time of ovulation gives the male sperm a better chance. but if the sperm are delivered early and stored a few days the female sperm are more prevalent. However the difference favoring male conception was alleged to be small.

Some women can actually feel when the ovum is released (phenomenon is called "ovulation ping") or others experience a distinct 1 degree rise in basal temperature measured immediately upon waking.

And since some one will ask how I happened to come by so much information on this topic. We had a bit of a hard time getting pregnant the first time and were trying every trick in the book. After the first one the next 3 were no problem!

If we have any MD,s or Gynaecologists in the group, please feel free to provide corrections or elaborations. I won't object to being corrected, it has been a few years since I have researched any of this and am having to work from memory.
I never met anyone that I could not learn something from.
User avatar
Bare_Truth
Native Resident
 
Posts: 2518
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 10:07 pm
Location: Ozark Plateau, Southwest Missouri

Re: Leviticus 18:19

Postby New_Adventurer » Sat Jul 23, 2016 9:35 pm

A few points:

A woman is unclean for a week and then needs another week to become clean again. That is two weeks off when her husband cannot touch her. When she is most fertile at about that same time, her guy is ready to go; they most likely get passionate that night.
User avatar
New_Adventurer
Native Resident
 
Posts: 674
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Fremont, California

Re: Leviticus 18:19

Postby Bare_Truth » Mon Jul 25, 2016 8:59 pm

New_Adventurer wrote:....... A woman is unclean for a week and then needs another week to become clean again. That is two weeks off when her husband cannot touch her. .....
New_Adventurer
What you say as quoted above is as I understand it the Rabbinical Teaching. However I do not believe that it is what is stated in the Pentateuch / Torah /

In Leviticus 18:19, Moses wrote: 19 Also thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is put apart for her uncleanness.
In Leviticus 15 19 Moses wrote: 19 ¶And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even.
So here we see that the prescribed time for a woman to be put apart would be seven days for her menstrual period regardless if it was 3, 5 or 7 days, Seven being the typical or most common length of a period,
Then in Leviticus15:25, right after specifying the standard time of separation for a woman's period, Moses wrote: 25 And if a woman have an issue of her blood
many days out of the time of her separation,
or
if it run beyond the time of her separation;
all the days of the issue of her uncleanness shall be as the days of her separation: she shall be unclean...........
28 But if she be cleansed of her issue, then she shall number to herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean.


From this we see the repeated use of the word separation

So we see that the separation interval for menstruation is seven days.
But if blood is still flowing such as if she has a period lasting 10 days, the "unclean" status continues as long as the flow continues, and once it stops an additional 7 days.

This not only applies to a menstrual flow but any other passing of blood (presumably referring only to vaginal bleeding based on the context).

Accordingly a woman whose menstrual flow lasted 10 days would be deemed "unclean" (i.e. not available for sexual intercourse) for those 10 days plus an additional 7 after that. Or if at a time when no menstrual flow was expected, if she started to have a vaginal flow of blood, then she would be "unclean" for the days of the flow plus 7 additional days, (e.g. some sort of vaginal/uterine/Fallopian infection perhaps or an undetected pregnancy )

Leviticus 18:19 says nothing about an additional 7 days,
Leviticus 15 says the additional 7 days are required only in two cases.
1. -- An abnormally long period
2.-- A flow of blood (presumably vaginal) that occurs when no period was expected.
However for a menstural period that lasts 7 days or less there is no scriptural requirement for the additional 7 days.

I am presuming that Leviticus 15:25 when the phrase "many days out of the time of her separation" is used to designate a vaginal bleeding that occurs when a period was not expected.

I conclude then that the normal time for a woman's status due to menstruation is only 7 days and no more unless the period is an exceptionally long one or the flow of vaginal blood is due to something other than menstruation, in which case the status applies for seven days after the cessation of the flow, but not otherwise. I am of course open to other scriptural instruction on the matter. if anyone can cite any.
I never met anyone that I could not learn something from.
User avatar
Bare_Truth
Native Resident
 
Posts: 2518
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 10:07 pm
Location: Ozark Plateau, Southwest Missouri

Re: Leviticus 18:19

Postby jochanaan » Thu Jul 28, 2016 1:21 pm

And from this Levitical law, we get a new understanding of Jesus' grace and mercy. The "woman, which had an issue of blood" (Mark 5:25ff.) would have been off-limits for any man to touch. (Although "touch" in this context probably only meant to touch sexually, I can imagine the scribes and teachers expanding its meaning to include any touch, even random touch.) Yet Jesus spoke words of grace and comfort to her, affirming that her issue was healed and that she was now "clean" by His standards. :D
You can live your life in fear--or you can live your life.
User avatar
jochanaan
Councillor
 
Posts: 6342
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 11:58 pm
Location: Denver

Re: Leviticus 18:19

Postby Bare_Truth » Thu Jul 28, 2016 3:37 pm

jochanaan wrote:...... (Although "touch" in this context probably only meant to touch sexually, I can imagine the scribes and teachers expanding its meaning to include any touch, even random touch.)
Actually if you will review the immediately adjacent verses which specify uncleaness for any man who should have contact with her bed or anything she sat upon, I do not think the scribes and teachers would have to do any expanding in order to proscribe any sort of touch whatsoever. The same sort of prohibition appears to exist among the Arabs yet today.

My expectation is that what was intended as only a consideration about health and possible transmission of infection got expanded into something "mystical/magical/spiritual" which may have been driven by a cultural concept of low status for women which did not get displaced until the time of Christ including women in the group that traveled with him and statements such as:
In Galatians 3:28 Paul wrote:] 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.


Somehow the actual differences between men and women and the differences in their needs and roles in a low technological society got parleyed into a general low status in the ancient world and the unnecessary baggage of that has been brought forth culturally even into modern times. For some reason we see among some Bible Believing Christians today, that Eve is considered poorly because after sinning in the matter of the forbidden fruit she then went and enticed Adam to sin also. It escapes notice of some that it required a powerful spirit being to persuade the woman to sin, but only a mere human being to persuade Adam. The conclusion of "who is stronger" comes out different when it is cast that way. Paul even makes an interesting comparison in:
In 1st Timothy 2: Paul wrote: 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
which seems to imply that Eve was tricked but Adam knew better and sinned anyway. One should perhaps ask which is the lesser evil, to be too trusting and hence gullible and tricked into sinning, or knowing better and doing it anyway. Which human then is the more culpable?
I never met anyone that I could not learn something from.
User avatar
Bare_Truth
Native Resident
 
Posts: 2518
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 10:07 pm
Location: Ozark Plateau, Southwest Missouri

Re: Leviticus 18:19

Postby Petros » Thu Jul 28, 2016 6:06 pm

I rather suspect the issue was not merely one of status [which varies greatly with culture and individual. From the standpoint of the male, if you check out world folklores, there is a mystical side to the woman, in psychology and in the mystery of gestation and birth, and of course in the periodic flow - power in the blood. She has a power which is not the strength and ability of manly combat, but the magical psychological power to fascinate / persuade / seduce.

Just finished reading a typical folktale - woman tricks the hero out of all his magical treasures. Yes, he wins in the end, but only by using wiles against her. Menstriuation is a constant reminder of woman's subtle power.
The truth, the stark naked truth, the truth without so much as a loincloth on, should surely be the investigator's sole aim - Basil Chamberlain
User avatar
Petros
Native Resident
 
Posts: 5608
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 2:01 am
Location: Upper Michigan

Re: Leviticus 18:19

Postby Maverick » Fri Jul 29, 2016 8:38 am

Bare_Truth wrote:Somehow the actual differences between men and women and the differences in their needs and roles in a low technological society got parleyed into a general low status in the ancient world and the unnecessary baggage of that has been brought forth culturally even into modern times. For some reason we see among some Bible Believing Christians today, that Eve is considered poorly because after sinning in the matter of the forbidden fruit she then went and enticed Adam to sin also. It escapes notice of some that it required a powerful spirit being to persuade the woman to sin, but only a mere human being to persuade Adam. The conclusion of "who is stronger" comes out different when it is cast that way. Paul even makes an interesting comparison in:
In 1st Timothy 2: Paul wrote: 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
which seems to imply that Eve was tricked but Adam knew better and sinned anyway. One should perhaps ask which is the lesser evil, to be too trusting and hence gullible and tricked into sinning, or knowing better and doing it anyway. Which human then is the more culpable?


That is a very interesting insight, Bare_Truth. Thanks!

Petros wrote:Just finished reading a typical folktale - woman tricks the hero out of all his magical treasures. Yes, he wins in the end, but only by using wiles against her.


Sounds a little bit like Samson and Delilah.

I read somewhere (I think it was on MyChainsAreGone.org) that women have the power with just a look or a small action to communicate "I want you" to a man. We might call that seduction in some cases, but it's hard to resist because men by nature want to feel wanted by women. That's partly why the "honey pot" technique used by spies and secret agents is so effective!

Off topic, I know. I don't have much to add to the menstruation conversation. :lol:
In nuditate veritas.
User avatar
Maverick
Native Resident
 
Posts: 840
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2015 11:14 am
Location: DFW, TX

Re: Leviticus 18:19

Postby Petros » Fri Jul 29, 2016 11:56 am

Delilah I think is vdery much a case in point.

I think it is likely the "sex sells"dage works motre for m than for f
The truth, the stark naked truth, the truth without so much as a loincloth on, should surely be the investigator's sole aim - Basil Chamberlain
User avatar
Petros
Native Resident
 
Posts: 5608
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 2:01 am
Location: Upper Michigan

Re: Leviticus 18:19

Postby Bare_Truth » Sat Jul 30, 2016 7:59 am

Back to the original menstruation issue. I have gotten feedback from my usually reliable source on Jewish practice, Chabad.org, ask the rabbi. Usually they are pretty good, but frankly I think the explanation is pretty lame.
The seven days referred to in the Torah are understood to be days completely clean of any blood. So regardless of how long the woman menstruates for, she will always have to wait an additional seven "clean" days before being permitted to her husband.

I hope this helps.
All the best,
Rabbi Eliezer Zalmanov, for Chabad.org

Actually it is not very helpful at all, as it does not reconcile Leviticus 18:19 with the more detailed presentation In Leviticus 15:19-25. It would seem that the answer from the Rabbi is a bit of eisegesis ("... in the Torah are understood to be...") and lacks any attempt to reconcile the two presentations of Leviticus 15: and 18:
It seems that this an example of what was meant when in Chapter 28, Isaiah wrote: 9 ¶Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
Which is part of a general admonition about the necessity to have a full and broad knowledge of the scriptures to really understand them as well as being open to God and his leading and not stubbornly adhering to ones own preferred understanding.
I never met anyone that I could not learn something from.
User avatar
Bare_Truth
Native Resident
 
Posts: 2518
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 10:07 pm
Location: Ozark Plateau, Southwest Missouri

Next

Return to Unanswered questions about Christianity

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests