Prayer shawl

[q27]

Shalom

I may be totally out of line here - so please correct me ...

When, If, How does one wear a prayer shawl? And where would one obtain a prayer shawl.

[Mark]

I'm a little embarrassed to admit that I've purchased a number of tallits (prayer shawls) and kippas (yamuhlkas) through e-bay. It is unquestionably the quickest and easiest resource available. I recommend doing some dialog with the seller before making the purchase. Most love to discuss with you why they are selling the particular product they have. Most important for me (on the tallit) is the strand of blue in the tzitzits (the fringe or tassel). Those sellers who are Messianic tend to be most adamantly in agreement with this.

Here's a website that is helpful for understanding the traditional method of wearing Tallit

www.akhlah.com/history_tradition/tallit.php

[cindi]

i have a question about prayer shawls, can a unmarried woman wear a prayer shawl, also she also wear a kippas. I ve been thinking of buy a pray shaw, but i want to make sure its ok?

shalom

cindi

[R' Y'hoshua Moshe]

Shalom Cindi,

I wouldn't reccommend it married, or not.

B'shem Yeshua,

Reuel

[messimom]

Shalom Reuel,
I guess I just don't understand what you have against women wearing prayer shawls. I understand your view on the traditionally slanted men's talits themselves, but a shawl, with womanly colors, no blue strings (therefore not even binding a woman to mitzvot the same as men--which I think she is regardless, but that's another subject) ? Where does say a woman shouldn't/can't wear one? We need coverings in everything else in our lives it seems...coverings by our husband, under leadership (covering) of a man in synagogue, we even marry under a cover...the was given under the cover of Mt. Sinai but you don't recommend a woman wear a prayer shawl to cover herself during her most intimate times with YHVH? Please explain.

Messimom

[Yitzchak]

messimom said:

Shalom Reuel,
I guess I just don't understand what you have against women wearing prayer shawls. I understand your view on the traditionally slanted men's talits themselves, but a shawl, with womanly colors, no blue strings (therefore not even binding a woman to mitzvot the same as men--which I think she is regardless, but that's another subject) ? Where does say a woman shouldn't/can't wear one? We need coverings in everything else in our lives it seems...coverings by our husband, under leadership (covering) of a man in synagogue, we even marry under a cover...the was given under the cover of Mt. Sinai but you don't recommend a woman wear a prayer shawl to cover herself during her most intimate times with YHVH? Please explain.

Messimom

I think the problem here is that no disctinction is made between the prayer shawl and the Tallit. When someone asks if it is OK to wear a prayer shawl, and Kippah, it is assumed they are speaking of a Tallit.

I have no problem with women covering their heads. My wife wears a shawl to cover her head in those intimate times that you speak of. It is, however, not a Tallit, has no fringes, and does not even look similar in it's coloring.

Keep in mind that the Tallit we have today is different than that which was worn in Our L-rd's time. It would have been part of the clothing, and not a separate garment. It was still specifically a male garment, and not worn by women. It was not a covering for the head.

This discussion is similar to the other one on "Women Being Rabbi's"

Some of the same things apply here. Remember that the seal of the covenant was made with the male child.

I would like to get an understanding from the women here, as to why they suddenly think that a G-d of order, a G-d who is perfect in all of His ways, now after 5000 years has to give us a new revelation on what is appropriate for women?

Shalom,

Yitzchak

[R' Y'hoshua Moshe]

Please explain.

Thank you Yitzchak, I concur.

Shalom b'Yeshua,

Reuel

[Chizuk Emunah]

I would agree with Yitzchak.

[messimom]

I would like to get an understanding from the women here, as to why they suddenly think that a G-d of order, a G-d who is perfect in all of His ways, now after 5000 years has to give us a new revelation on what is appropriate for women?

Let me first say, that I don't disagree with much of what you said. I understand that originally the commandment was to wear blue fringes on the corner of one's garment. I again say that YHVH was speaking to all the children of Israel. It was commanded to women to do this also. Or are only men commanded to follow ? I don't think there is a new revelation for women here, just the truth being rediscovered after corruption of the church for thousands of years. As all interpretations, any new "revelation" or truth must be filtered through the rest of the . If it doesn't fit, you must acquit!! oh, haha!

Also, concerning the sign of the covenant. Just because women can't be physically circumsized like a man, does that mean we aren't bound to the covenant? What about a circimcizion of the heart? The men in a similar discussion had stated that YHVH never changes and only men had the sign of the covenant. So when the sign became inward (spiritual circumcision versus physical circumcision) does that mean that women still are unable to have our hearts circumcized? Please clarify this issue for me will ya guys?

Shalom
Messimom

[Yitzchak]

Let me first say, that I don't disagree with much of what you said. I understand that originally the commandment was to wear blue fringes on the corner of one's garment. I again say that YHVH was speaking to all the children of Israel. It was commanded to women to do this also. Or are only men commanded to follow ?

I think you miss the point of my statement regarding the passing of over 5000 years. The preponderance of evidence presented in previous posts was to establish that there were significantly different roles for men and women.

Based on that information, one would think that HaShem would choose to reveal this sooner. Perhaps when our became Flesh and Tabernacled amongst us, The Living who came to teach the correct interpretations of the writtten .

However, He did not. He wore the fringes, as did His Talmidim, and there is no place where we read that any woman, and there were many that were part of His ministry, ever questioned Him on this particular mitzvot, or any other for that matter.

Yeshua honored the same male roles when He walked in His earthly ministry, and yet, at the same time he highly honored women who walked in their proper roles.

I am not accusing you, or any of the other women on this forum, but I have to say that this has only seemed to have become an issue in an age when women in secular society seem to be taking over the male role. Single parents, men staying home, career women, etc.

I would caution us not to fall into the trap of believing that things change with the times. Remember that Yeshua is the Living . If the Living is the same yesterday, today, and forever, than His Word is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

I don't think there is a new revelation for women here, just the truth being rediscovered after corruption of the church for thousands of years. As all interpretations, any new "revelation" or truth must be filtered through the rest of the . If it doesn't fit, you must acquit!! oh, haha!

has never been corrupted by the church, as they have never accepted it. The truth of the has always been uncorrupted, and it is the only reason the church even has scripture today.

What is being rediscovered today is the eternal truths of the , which have always stood the test of time.

I agree with your estimation that everything should be filtered through the . If this is the case, and you do believe this, then how is it that you believe that all of the mitzvot that have been attributed to men, and all of the scripture relating to the women in Brit Chadasha have somehow been misinterpreted for over 5000 years?

Also, concerning the sign of the covenant. Just because women can't be physically circumsized like a man, does that mean we aren't bound to the covenant?

Women were brought into the covenant through the male leadership, which was established by HaShem from the beginning.

Nobody is saying that women are less, or somehow looked down upon, or that they do not have all of the promises.

What about a circimcizion of the heart? The men in a similar discussion had stated that YHVH never changes and only men had the sign of the covenant. So when the sign became inward (spiritual circumcision versus physical circumcision) does that mean that women still are unable to have our hearts circumcized? Please clarify this issue for me will ya guys?

We have to remember that the most important of the commandments, and the foundation of our faith is the Shema.

We are all called to "love the L-rd our G-d with all our hearts, souls, and might"

There is a big difference between an entire nation made up of men, women, and children being set apart for HaShem and receiving the Covenant, with the individual mitzvot which were required.

In closing, I certainly do not think it is a sin for a woman to wear a tallit, or to perform other mitzvot, which she thinks HaShem is calling her to do. However, I think women have to be extra careful, as I stated earlier, that they are not succumbing to the popular opinion of a secular society, or the feminist movement.

We are all equal in HaShem's eyes, and all stand on equal ground at the foot of the execution stake, but we all still have different roles, and callings.

Shalom,

Yitzchak

[messimom]

Yitzchak,

I just wanted to get back to your last post and say that I did not ignore your thoughts. In fact, you raised some excellent points and questions to which I do not have ready answers and I have been praying and mulling them over a lot lately. Thank you for your thoughts.

Shalom,

Messimom

[Firestorm]

;D I'm female, some people on this site say I should pray with a shawl (one that's different in design from a man's , I know) some say women shouldn't use them at all. Firstly, I don't understand enough about it yet to do anything, and the last thing I want to do is get into meaningless ritual. If I never feel the prompting of the Holy Spirit to wear one, I won't. If He does urge me to wear one I will. I don't want to cause offence on purpose, but if I really believed God wanted me to do something it would be just too bad if some people didn't approve. In recent months "Shut up and listen to the Holy Spirit." has become my tag line.

[messimom]

Firstly, I don't understand enough about it yet to do anything,

Franz Rosenzweig, a disciple of Herman Cohen and "one of the most significant influences on contemporary Jewish theology... did not observe any Mitzvah that he did not understand, but strove to understand it in order to observe it."(Judiasm Development and Life, by Leo Trepp) As we all should strive to understand every mitzvot so that it is not meaningless ritual, as Firestorm put it. But I also need to say within that- that no mitzvot is meaningless to YHVH. There is a reason for every rule in the house. Sometimes, we are better off simply following the rules until we are old enough to understand why they are there. YHVH bless you Firestorm on your journey of coming to understand our creator and savior!!

Messimom

[Chizuk Emunah]

But I also need to say within that- that no mitzvot is meaningless to YHVH.

Absolutely. Just because we don't understand it doesn't mean that we shouldn't do it. For every mitzvah observed here on Earth there is a reaction in the heavens.

How many times as children did our parents ask us to do things we didn't understand? The same is true of HaShem Avinu (G-d our Father). There are certain things he asks of us that we may not understand.

[Firestorm]

;D Me again. What I was trying to say was, as a newbie to the whole Messianic thing, I don't want to just be a bandwagon jumper. I want my every act of worship to come from the heart with full understanding.

I don't have the hang of the "quote" gadget but there have been a few things said here that I've found curious and disturbing. One of them is assertion that women were brought into the covenant through male leadership. If this applies to the Old Covenant, what about the New? If my husband fouls up and I follow him does this then absolve me from any responsibility? This line of reasoning, to my mind, suggests that my status is similar to that of a minor child not fully responsible as a free moral agent.
By the way, I don't believe this, but I do see some unsettling inconsistencies here. This is probably a topic that needs a separate thread!