semiopen

I don't know if I got this from Denise (who sounds like a Christian Mingles girl) from the OP, but the idea is that this (soap making) would be something in the bible that they couldn't possibly have known about without there being some sort of God.

Of course, there doesn't seem to be anything like that. Otherwise we'd all have to modify our Weltanschauungs

I've seen the same thing from an older Jewish woman who was discussing creation on a Chabad forum. She accepted the big bang, the age of the earth, etc but said there were still things in the creation myth that the ancients shouldn't have known. Again one would be hard pressed to find a single thing in the myth that is correct, much less something they shouldn't have known.

The thing is that Jews shouldn't really believe shit like that, it being sort of heretical as has been mentioned in the faith in God thing in the Gen 15:6 thread. However it is a pretty common phenomena.

Sheshbazzar

The 'Water of Separation' מי נדה 'mey niddah' was not soap, and no one ever washed with it or bathed with it.

It was -only- used as a ritual sprinkle in every instance. (Num 19:18-22)
It should be noted that the person so sprinkled -remained- ritually unclean. (physically also, as the following will illustrate)

In Numbers 19:12 a person who has touched a dead body is to be sprinkled with this 'Water of Separation' on the third day and seventh day following his contact with a dead body, but it is not until after bathing on the seventh day that he is accounted as being clean.

In Numbers 19:19 "And the clean [person] shall sprinkle upon the unclean on the third day, and on the seventh day:
And on the seventh day he shall purify himself, and wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and shall be clean at even.

The implication of these verses being that this person is NOT to bathe until the seventh day after contact with a dead body,
although he is to be sprinkled with The 'Water of Separation' on the third day and on the seventh day.

The 'Water of Separation' ritual here is definitely not about any 'soap' being use to bathe with, or with the 'Water of Separation' being used as a soap for bathing.

Note also that there is no mention of using any 'Water of Separation' when bathing on that seventh day to achieve ritual cleanness.
If it had been 'soap', the instructions would have indicated to use it as soap to bathe with. They do not.

And with six days of abstaining from bathing following contact with the dead, this ritual 'Water of Seperation' observance certainly was NOT any 'health measure' intended to prevent the spread of disease.

(although the 'unclean' status would have kept the person out of social contact which may have had some minor public health benefits)

sotto voce

So this ritual was not about hygiene. What was it intended to achieve?

Sheshbazzar

Separation.

Just like every other 'speak not, touch not, handle not, taste not' injunction of The Law of Moses.

The purpose of the Mosaic Covenant was to by the observances of peculiar and distinctive practices create a -separate- people, from all the other peoples of the earth; The Nation of Israel.
The means of this -separation- is The Law, with all of its peculiar and often inexplicable injunctions.
A Law specially intended to be unlike that of any other nation on earth. Its observances -Separating- the people of Israel from all other peoples.

Jewish sages have long struggled to comprehend, and to come up with reasons and explanations for these various ritual rules and restrictions, but whether they have ever understood the -why- of each of these mitzvah that they were to keep and do, was entirely secondary to that they were to keep and do these mitzvah regardless of whether they understood why or not.
HaShem commanded these Laws, and it was, and it still is the sacred duty of every Jew born to keep, obey, and to do them in the best manner that is within reach of their hand.

The very identity of the Jewish people, and of the Nation of Israel hinges upon their maintaining of The Law and the separation from all other peoples provided by the strictures of the Torah.
If Jews should turn from The Law, and no longer at all heed those purity laws of placing a difference between clean and unclean, and between the sacred and the profane, even the laws of speak not, touch not, handle not, taste not, they will cease to be a people.

This is why the Prophets in writing of the future House of Judah and House of Israel, envisioned Jews still keeping the 'Jewish' Feasts and performing distinctively 'Jewish' rituals in that age to come, even under the rule of The Messiah.

According to Scripture, the Twelve Tribes of Israel are to be gathered from amonst the nations where they have been scattered, fully restored and distinctively Jewish.
And in that time all the (other) nations of the earth that remain, will go to Jerusalem to keep the Feast of Sukkoth with Israel
And Israel will be a 'set apart' (Holy) separate people, ministering to all of the nations.

Both Old and New covenants are explict. There will be the nation of Israel, the progeny of the Fathers. And there will be the Nations. Two seperate yet accepted peoples. Jews and Gentiles alike partaking of the Promises.
No Jew ever needs to cease being distinctively Jewish. And no Gentile ever needs to become a Jew, or eat or to walk the walk of a Jew to get to that place.
Each have their own promised place in that Kingdom to come, if they believe and call upon HaShem.

והיה כל אשר־יקרא בשם יהוה ימלט

Joel 2:32, Acts 2:21, Romans 10:13

sotto voce

So separation was required because the Children of Israel were superior to all others? Or inferior to others?

'Two seperate yet accepted peoples.'

Why is there a distinction, if both are to be accepted?

Separation for its own sake does not seem to have a purpose. There must be a rationale, unless the mind behind it is arbitrary and idiosyncratic.

Sheshbazzar

Neither. According to Scripture the Children of Israel were chosen, and were 'set apart' by HaShem יהוה for an example to all that should come after, or as worded in the NT;

'Now these things were our examples...'

'our' meaning to all whom whose ears and eyes these matters should thereafter ever come.
If you will hear indeed, if you will see indeed.

Because HaShem יהוה made specific promises in The Torah, and in The Prophets of what He would perform and do for the sake of His Holy Name יהוה and for His chosen people Israel, and what he would perform and do for the sake of all those of the Nations that also honored Him, and called upon His Holy Name יהוה

By Scripture, 'the mind behind it' IS the mind and the will of Ha'Shem יהוה The Holy One of Israel, Who alone set all these things in order, and according to His plan and according to His Word;

As He said;
Two seperate yet accepted peoples, Israel and those of the nations that survive.
Dwelling at last in peace in One Kingdom praising One יהוה the Elohim of Abraham, of Issac, of Israel, of Moshe, and of יהושע

There are many more that testify of these things. But if you would not believe these you would not believe in ten thousand more. Nor even the Word of One.

sotto voce

Agreed. The Israelites surely realised this when Moses spoke to them about the commandments:

'"Observe them carefully, because this will show your wisdom and understanding to the nations, who will hear about all these decrees and say, 'Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.' What other nation is so great as to have their gods near them the way the Lord our God is near us whenever we pray to him? And what other nation is so great as to have such righteous decrees and laws as this body of laws I am setting before you today?" Dt 4:6-8

So those commandments were not intended for Israelites only, to separate human from human, to create separate castes of people. On the contrary, they were intended to bring unity to all people, because of their peerless example, and because sin is universal. There is no one solution to sin for Israelites, and another for Gentiles. So surely, these commandments were, and are, to be understood, regardless of applicability. And imv, they were understood, by some of the people, at least. And, we should remember, there were no rabbis, no sages, no kings to lay down particular interpretations; and priests and Levites had no more say than anyone else. So what people thought, we do not know, though we can use current knowledge and, like all good historians, a measure of empathy to deduce what at least some of them, Israelite and Gentile, must have thought.

The commandments concerning the red heifer were therefore of at least as much interest as any other, to all people, regardless of ancestry. While I agree that the ritual was not a 'health measure' intended to prevent the spread of disease, I don't agree that these laws, or any other of the 600+ laws given, were to be accepted without understanding, and complied with just because Yahweh said they must be. Rather:

'"These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up."' Dt 6:6-7 NIV

The red heifer ritual sacrifice was different in several ways. It was not to be the concern of the High Priest, but that of his son. It was not to be an altar sacrifice, but was to be carried out actually outside the camp. So the difference here was there was no 'legal' aspect to the sacrifice, as applied for atonement, but the benefit was purification; the water was 'for purification from sin'. I agree that separation was involved in the ritual, but imv the appropriate meaning for נדה is not 'separation' but 'impurity', the operative principle being that like overcomes like, as with the bronze snake on the pole, that just two chapters later cured actual snake bites. So here, ashes of a dead animal 'cured' a person who had been in contact with a dead person.

Some of the blood was used for sprinkling towards the Tent of Meeting, indicating that actual purity was required for fellowship with Yahweh, not just the legal righteousness acquired by atonement. But most of the heifer's blood was destroyed, along with the rest of its body, by the flames. The witnesses knew that 'the life is in the blood,' of course. Into the fire also went 'non-guilty' cedar wood, hyssop and red wool, the wool possibly binding the herb to the wood; so the ashes figuratively contained the principles that these materials represented. The wood and the wool were both expensive. Cedar wood represented strength and durability; hyssop meant healing and purification; scarlet wool reminded of blood, considered to contain life force, overcoming the power of death. So all of these beneficial characteristics were the reward of those who had come into contact with physical death. It must surely be supposed that some Israelites, sitting quietly at home on Sabbath days, considered that they could have implications for a spiritual death, also.

Sheshbazzar

Sorry sotto but the very commandments of Torah, and the words of the Prophets indicate that that was exactly what the Laws of Moshe were intended to do.

They were deliberately exclusionary and separationist, with the clear intent of by their restrictions -separating- the people of the Twelve Tribes of Israel from any other people or nation on earth.

An outsider could join them, but only at the price of becoming one with them, subject to ALL of these strictures, and submitting to the absolute authority of the Levitical Priesthood in the deciding of all matters. (read, and try to understand Deut 17:8-13 -which Law become extremely important in understanding the NT, when the Authorized Mosaic established Priesthood of the Temple commanded that the Apostles should not teach nor preach in this Name. -Acts 4:14-18, 5:27-28, 5:40-42)

There are many things in The Law of Moses that the 'stranger within thy gates' and the 'foreigner' are absolutely barred from participating in.
They were (and are) permitted to live with the people of Israel, (The Jews) but are not permitted to live as the people Israel (Jews) unless they circumcise and become Jews. The distinction is always there. The lines on this are extremely strict in strong Jewish communities, and always have been.
Every observant and practicing Jewish person knows that there are boundaries and what those boundaries are.
One is either a 'Jew', or is a gentile 'stranger'. And within Jewish community will be treated accordingly in all matters of business, and matters of acceptable personal conduct.

On the contrary sotto, The Scriptures tell us over and over and over of how they failed to be peerless people in their conduct. They were made a shameful example of a disobediend and rebellious people, a chosen Priesthood that served their Elohim with ther lips and not their hearts. That it might be known to all the earth why they were plucked up and scattered amongst the Gentiles, to long live in oppression and in the contempt of the nations. All part of יהוה great plan to draw all men to Him, and to show His great mercy to the Gentiles.
True sotto. There is only ONE solution for sin for all men; החסד יהוה which is מעולם ועד־עולם

Best wishes.

But you don't know what it was they understood. -If they did ever understand.- So it really makes not much difference.

Do you recall The Law of Deut 17:8-13 sotto?

And so wise men have, for thousands of years, and though they have talked and reasoned long and hard, over various arcane rules and rituals, and have written countless thousands of books there has never been any significant consensus among any on the reasons and meanings of all of these various sacrifices, strictures, and detailed instructions.
When Elohim commanded; "And thou shalt make forty sockets of silver under the twenty boards; two sockets under one board for his two tenons, and two sockets under another board for his two tenons."
Bezaleel and Aholiab, and every wise hearted man, in whose heart יהוה had put wisdom, by faith and by obedience set to and made these 'forty sockets of silver under the twenty boards; two sockets under one board for his two tenons, and two sockets under another board for his two tenons.' According to the pattern they were shown.

They did not need to know the -why- of these details, only to DO the work in obedience and faith that for all things יהוה their Elohim has a pattern and purpose, a time to conceal, and a time in which to reveal that which He has concealed.

Will you pretend to tell us the reasons -why- of there being 'forty sockets of silver' rather than being of brass? or of gold? Or the -why- of not 'forty two sockets' instead of forty?

And yet the person sprinkled with The Water of Separation on the third day remained 'unclean'.
And when sprinkled with The Water of Separation yet again on the seventh day still remained 'unclean'.

The Water of Separation in itself never did make the person 'clean', not even ritually 'clean'. Or 'purified' from 'sin'.
'Sin' is not even mentioned in these verses, and no 'sin' was ever removed from anyone by this Water of Separation ritual.

As far as 'legal', the red heifer ritual had to be followed To The Letter of The Law to be legal, so there most certainly was a 'legal' aspect to it.
Without The Law there would be no account of the ritual or its requirements.

It must also be supposed that some spiritual Israelites, sitting quietly at home at their PC, on any day of the week, might consider that there are things they do not yet have all of the answers for. And that their Elohim has perhaps held some of His mysteries in reserve against His appointed time.

sotto voce

That is not acceptable comment. If people cannot take proper note of properly rational and factual statements that they disagree with, this place is no better than a brawl, a shouting match.

However, there are serious errors that need to be corrected here.

Indeed, the Israelite Law was exceedingly clear that anyone who made claim to follow Yahweh had to keep the Law. As I'm sure we have already read here, "you joined, you kept the rules." That applied to everyone, High Priests and Levites included, and some of them died for failure to observe the Law. We read that deity 'raised' a succession of judges who helped to settle legal disputes, civil or criminal, but they too were entirely subject to the Law, and were not monarchs in any sense. We do not say that, because a country has a legal system, it is not democratic. We do not say that court magistrates act as leaders in society, but as only putting society's laws into effect, where relevant and necessary. Anyone who even imagines that there was any hierarchy of mentorship in pre-monarchy Israel beyond the family just hasn't got the point of Israel, that was itself as a nation to be 'a royal priesthood'. Or has got it ok, but is so terrified of Christianity that he has to invent a violent 'solution' for them, and wilfully ignores the command of deity to all Israelites to discuss all of the laws. Israel, the unique exception with respect to priesthood, likely gave the concept of ekklesia to democratic Greece, amongst other ideas. The Bible should not be supposed to contradict itself. It indicated that the Law should be constantly in the minds of everyone, applied by everyone. It is simply fatuous to suppose that people told, 'Do not let them [the laws] slip from your heart,' should need mentoring. What Moses said is what Moses said, and if we try to make the Bible contradict him we would be better off going fishing than discussing Israel.

Of course, as is very well known to historians, anyone could become an Israelite, and many did, around the known world. That was the point of Moses' declaration that the Law and its obedient following were advertisements for the deity of the Israelites. In the biblical perspective, had all done as they should have done, all would have been Israelites, all treating each other as brothers, living in peace and concord, with the same, hermeneutic interpretation of Scripture agreed by all, anyone daring to call himself 'rabbi' being stoned to death upon the instant.

But let's get back to a more relevant if not sensible subject, the purification sacrifice and ritual, and the impression it must have made on its contemporaries, even those who were not direct witnesses. Why a heifer, and why red? Why without defect? For atonement, perfection was necessary, but for purification, it was seemingly no less necessary. Male animals were required for atonement, but female for purification. The Israelites must have noticed this. Heifers are inherently more docile than bulls; so here was a young, docile animal, that must have given witnesses a sense of pity for a harmless, 'innocent' victim of a human misfortune. Red is the colour of blood, which was significant for Israelites, but it's hardly likely that the colour was actually red, but a red-brown. But note that the Hebrew word for 'red' sounds quite like the word for 'man', indeed they are semantically related. So the call for a red heifer may have sounded like a call for a meek, innocent man, 'without stain or blemish'. There must have been some Israelites who wondered if the ritual for purification was presage of the promised messiah. Perhaps the fact that more tribes gave up the Law of Moses than kept it shows that this spiritual meaning, amongst others, was not entirely welcome.

semiopen

This is discussed in most competent commentaries on Leviticus and Numbers.

Clean, Unclean

There are basically two things that you don't want contaminated, the Sanctuary and the Land.

This crap probably developed over time. The concept of the parallels fascinates me and is critical in Christian exegesis for what the point of Yoshke was.

Red_heifer

I've mentioned elsewhere that this seems to be adding bullshit to bullshit.

Anyway, it was not about hygiene.