Email 3

If Jesus was being kissed and hugged, His feet and legs, that is, in front of the Pharisee, Simon, would Simon have declared Erusin, saying that these two appear to want to be together? Was there at least, a Civil Law Attachment of Jesus to Mary? I believe this to be true, only that Jesus knew she would finally give him up. That is why I believe she later broke the flask, to show Jesus that she understood He was going to be killed. And, I believe that He permitted this attachment, to fulfill Moses’ Law about the Lamb. Since this is a very deep subject, I will close and wait for your reply.

Jesus is my Lord, XXXX X XXXXXX

Dear Mr. XXX X XXXX:

My response to the hypothesis you postulate in your e-mail follows:

First we need to examine erusin:

Contemporary Jewish weddings are a combination of two ancient and separate ceremonies. In Talmudic times the erusin (similar to an engagement or betrothal) would take place up to a year in advance of the nisuin (the actual marriage). At the erusin (literally “forbidden,” as in (the bride and groom were forbidden to others) the couple signed a document of agreement; the bride accepted an item of value from the groom, usually a coin or a ring; and the blessing over the wine was recited. The couple was legally married but did not consummate the marriage and lived separately for up to a year, during which time the couple prepared a home for their new family. The nisuin was a festive ceremony when the groom escorted the bride to his home. Blessings were recited over wine and the couple was left alone together to consummate the marriage.

In the Shulchan Aruch the foremost authority regarding Jewish Law, Torah Sheb’al Peh (Oral Torah) every man is obligated to get married in order to fulfill the mitzvah of propagation and it is incumbent upon a man from his18th year, and he should not pass his 20th year without getting married. The exception to this law is only if the man is diligently studying Torah and marriage would disrupt him from learning Torah, and you are permitted to delay marriage if you are not overcome with lustful desire.

My thoughts on this as referenced to your E-mail is this:

1. Simon would not have the authority to declare erusin. Only the perspective groom usually by the authority of his father and with the consent of the perspective bride may do so after signing a ketubah (marriage contract).
2. Yahshua was pass the age of obligation but His life was consumed and dedicated to the Torah and He would have been excepted, therefore He committed no offense against the Torah Shebikhatav (Written Torah) or against the Torah Sheb’al Peh
3.There is no report in the Scriptures of any item of value being given by the groom to the perspective bride to consummate or legalize the betrothal.

I cannot presume from this evidence that there would have been any attachment to “Mary” via “civil law,” or otherwise. Israel was a theocracy and all civil law was deduced from G-d’s Torah. The facts are not in evidence.

Other Evidence to Consider:

You did not indicate any biblical citations so I am presuming you are referring to Luke 7:36 to Luke 7:40 regarding this incident. Luke 7:39 reveals Simon’s thoughts. He was concerned that Yahshua who He believed to be a prophet did not know that the woman bestowing her ministrations upon Him was a sinner (euphemism). From the Jewish point of view to be identified as a “sinner” required gross publicly known sin. His attitude might have been different if the woman were not categorized differently. Such a marriage would have been forbidden to Yahshua because He legitimately could claim He was a Priest by virtue of His Mary’s lineage, which included the royal line and the Levite priestly line.

I could render more argument for my position regarding the first premise of your e-mail, but I don’t think it necessary, so I will move on to your second conjecture.

You identify the first “Mary” with the woman in Mark 14:3, whereas a woman in Simon the leper’s house “broke” a flask. There is no biblical evidence to connect the two as the same woman. In fact the citations seem to suggest otherwise. The woman in Bethany is not shouldered with the epithet of a “sinner,” which if she were would have not escaped such a condemnation. Secondly, you are taking your conclusion from the English translated Greek scriptures. Scholarship today, has by and large admitted that the NT was initially written in Hebrew and Aramaic based on evidence found in the “Early Church Fathers’” documents. Many Aramaic sources that predate the Greek Scriptures are extant and I believe give a more precise rendering of the intent and content of the Scriptures. In the case of Mark 14:3 and Matthew 26:9, “And when Yahshua was in Bethany at the house of Simon the leper,” we should examine these citations as found in the English texts. One no leper was allowed to live in a city (Lev. 13:46). This would have precluded Simon from being a leper. Two, ancient Aramaic and Hebrew were written without vowel points, so there is no distinction between the Aramaic (the common language of Yahshua and of that time) words Gar’ba (leper) and Garaba (jar maker or jar merchant.) The translators responsible for our contemporary Scriptures did not perceive the nuances of the language because their translations were made from Greek exemplars that originally had not understood the Hebrew words without vowel points. There are many examples now recognized within mainstream scholarship pertaining to the Tanakh (OT) that was originally translated from the Greek Septuagint. Hebrew writers sometimes found no equivalent word to express the full meaning in the Greek. Sha’ul (Paul) had this difficulty with trying to distinguish between the word Torah Shebikhatav (Written Torah) and Torah Sheb’al Peh (Oral Torah) translated law in our English translations, which has resulted in Christian’s confusion about the “Law.” In Greek there is no word to express the meaning of Torah as understood in the Hebrew. The word the translators used was “Law” (nomous) a very unfortunate rendering that fails to distinguish between G-d’s instructions and man’s law. Since this is a story of a woman that pours oil from a jar it suggests that Simon was a jar merchant-maker and not a leper.

Now the rendering in an ancient manuscript of this passage:

v.3 And while he (Yahshua) was in Beit-Anyah in the house of Shim’on the jar merchant while eating, a woman came who had with her an alabaster jar of pistachio, the best, very costly, and she opened it and poured it on the head of Yahshua. Unlike the Greek-English version there is no mention that she broke the flask. This makes more since in the Aramaic version than in the Greek-English. Your supposition is that she broke the flask to show she understood Yahshua was going to be killed. I think when appropriate we should take the text literally.


You seem to have postulated that the woman at Bethany is the same woman in Luke. I cannot see an evidence for this conclusion. There have been many such theories about the identities of these women, but in my opinion there is no evidence to back up those claim or presume they are this Mary or that Mary.

For instant there is a tradition, especially prevalent in western Christianity from about A.D. 500 onward, identified Mary Magdalene with the sinful woman of Luke 7:36-50. The text gives no reason for such an association, as the introduction of Mary in Luke 8 is quite removed topically from Luke 7:36. To confuse the interpretative tradition further, the sinful woman in the anointing scene of Luke 7:36-50 is often identified incorrectly with another Mary, the sister of Martha and Lazrus. On all accounts, no evidence exists that the sinful woman of Luke 7 should be identified as Mary.

Yahshua’s permitted Action:

When you speak of Moshe’s law about the lamb I need more specific information. The citation that you base your conclusion upon.

Exo 12:3 Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, saying, In the tenth day of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb, according to the house of their fathers, a lamb for an house:

Exo 12:4 And if the household be too little for the lamb, let him and his neighbour next unto his house take it according to the number of the souls; every man according to his eating shall make your count for the lamb.

Exo 12:5 Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year: ye shall take it out from the sheep, or from the goats:

Exo 12:6 And ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same month: and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening.

Exo 12:7 And they shall take of the blood, and strike it on the two side posts and on the upper door post of the houses, wherein they shall eat it.

Exo 12:21 Then Moses called for all the elders of Israel, and said unto them, Draw out and take you a lamb according to your families, and kill the passover.

The antitype of the Passover (mo’adim-meaning rehearsal) was fulfilled in the execution of Yahshua who is our Paschal Lamb. It is plain, uncomplicated to understand, and a perfect picture of what Passover represents. Trying to connect an attachment to Moshe’ “law” about the lamb in tandem with the above is confusing for most people and perhaps injurious to promote a valid understanding of the Passover.

Shalom and Brachas, Rabbi Milchama ben David