...and hardly any fun at all.

I doubt that a betulah could give birth, however, no matter how clever the participants in any sexual act might be, because both anal sex and frottage eliminate that status, our Rabbis being, as a general rule, not fools. Hymens and vaginal intercourse have *nothing* to do with the halachic status of virginity.

Virginity affects the bride price written into the marriage contract, and a woman's ability to contract a legal marriage with a kohen gadol, but has no bearing after marriage.

Assuming that the *story* is true, that a woman named Mary (Miriam) was married to a man named Joseph (Yosef) and gave birth whilst still a virgin (in Jewish terms, and assuming that the word betulah is meant), we're left with two problems, why the marriage was never consumated (not terribly difficult --- these things happen), and how Mary fell pregnant.

The story explores the notion, however unlikely, that natural processes *could* be involved without recourse to supernatural intervention or an adulterous union elsewhere, and suggests that it's certainly possible.

From the viewpoint of Mary, who probably, if the article's assumptions are true, never had a period, the affair might well have seemed miraculous, especially if she knew, or had suspicions, that she might be a tumtum, a category of the intersexed fully explored in halacha, if not well understood.

Puddin'

P.S. I notice that the supposed prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 uses the world "almah" which means only young woman, so assume there must be some *other* prophesy laying about which uses "betulah." This is not my field, but if Isaiah is it, the young woman mentioned in the passage already gave birth in the time of King Ahaz and Isaiah and presumably *that* child was the Moshiach, seven hundred years previous.

As for "almah" meaning "virgin," it seems unlikely, since Proverbs 30:18-20 says, “There are three things which are too wonderful for me, four which I do not understand: the way of an eagle in the sky, the way of a serpent on a rock, the way of a ship in the middle of the sea, and the way of a man with a young woman (almah). This is the way of an adulterous woman: she eats and wipes her mouth, and says ‘I have done no wrong.”

This passage clearly shows that a young woman (an almah) can easily claim virginity, even if not true, since there is no outward mark, just as birds flying through the sky, serpents on rock, and ships passing through the sea leave no trace behind. It also shows that hymens, touted by the ignorant as "proof" of virginity, have no status whatsoever in Jewish law.

And there's *another* story.

No wonder Jesus never married...

Puddin'

Oh, most of it, probably, but it seems fairly clear that someone of that name was around at the time, since the name itself was and is as common as dirt, was probably associated with well-attested religious movements of the times, and may well have claimed, or had the claim made for him, that he was the Moshiach.

There've been lots of claimants, after all, and the traditional period is one of sturm and drang, with war, and rumours of war, tinpot leaders, conspirators, traitors, patriots, murderous religious fanatics, and scheming rabble-rousers as thick as fleas on the ground. Why not a Moshiach or two? Why not Jesus? We know of many others from around that time, if Israel at the time had been a butcher shop, they'd all have had to take a paper number to manage the queue, Judas son of Hezekiah (Ezekias), Simon son of Joseph, Athronges, Theudas (a purported former follower of Paul of Tarsus, evidently unimpressed with his former spiritual guide), Menahem ben Judah, Simon bar Kokhba, Judas of Galilee (Gamala?), and probably more, few of whom (other than Simon bar Kokhba) rate more than a footnote in contemporary histories. Again, what's so special about Jesus that he's *particularly* unbelievable as a claimant to the rôle, however ill-advised?

It's quite clear that he wasn't a moshiach in Jewish terms, since none of the required conditions were met, but what the heck, the others weren't either, and the majority of Jews these days think the whole Moshiach thing has been a little overblown, is probably some sort of metaphor, and isn't likely something to look forward to in the immediate future, if ever.

We may doubt the legends around Zoroaster, but there's no particular reason to believe that he, or someone very much like him, didn't exist. Likewise Moses, or someone very much like him, was undoubtedly "real," although we can legitimately doubt that he stood on the shore of the Red Sea and made it "part." Charlton Heston probably overplayed the part, and it's likely that partisan "histories" do too. Histories always do.

But oral histories are surprisingly accurate in small details like names, as a general rule, and may take poetic liberties with the exact lineaments of truth, but there are always sticking points where one can pin them to the ground.

Homer gave us, however vaguely, the general appearance of Troy, and its location, and there it was, eventually. The Hawaiian "stories" of their migration from Tahiti, long scoffed at by scholars, turn out to have been literal truth, although Maui dredging up the islands from the sea with his taro hoe is probably something less than that.

One has to pick and choose.

Religions are typically belligerent, usually spoiling for a fight, and their competing boasts no more reliable than the claims of drunkards in bars, likewise fractious and competitive. It goes with the territory, and tall tales are common, sugar to help stuff the medicine down the throats of the unwary.

Zoroaster, Mohammed, Jesus, and the like, are less impressive without their angels, so angels they must have, and the human mind is predisposed to create them, but religions don't start themselves, but grow, quite often from humble beginnings, and flourish or perish according to the spectacular claims of their adherents. Less bang, less followers. Less followers, less power. The economics of advertising are quite clear, but that doesn't mean that there was never a product to sell.

Cheers,

Puddin'

...the religious mythos, but rather the fact that there was a transgendered and transformative *story* going on, which seems fairly compelling. Forget about Mary, that was just the hook for a quasi-chrismas story, call her Rivka. Rivka's not like the other girls, doesn't have periods, despairs of marriage and children, the only status symbols a Jewish woman could reasonably posses withot scandal in that era. What to do? How to resolve this dynamic tension?

In the halachic resolution of the "tumtum," the intersexed, the Rabbis thought (at length, in the Babylonian Talmud) that the story should almost always be resolved by "assigning" the child as male, because that gave "him" the most opportunity to perform mitzvot, but what if the child didn't *feel* male?

At a rough guess, nine in ten stories on this site involve magic, miracle, fictive "science," or wildly improbable situations, with a minuscule contribution of realistic stories about *real* transgenedered people and the lives they actually lead.

To be fair, nine in ten stories at one's local bookstore are exactly the same. Ordinary lives don't sell stories, whether the author is paid or not. People crave the miracle, the implausible, the magic wand that promises happiness, even if things don't turn out the way one planned, the heroic figure indomitable and triumphant, the woman who finds true love after a lifetime of longing.

Does anyone think that there are *real* James Bonds in the world? *real* vampires? real superintelligent private detectives who are fawned upon by all and sundry whilst investigating murders? "Always a pleasure to work with you, Mr Sherlock Holmes."

Does anyone think that there are *real* heroines, captured by a Pirate Captain, who win his affection through plucky courage and winds up as his True Love, just before the saucy rascal is pardoned by the Crown and retires to a country estate in Devonshire?

Thinking of this as a situation, there are dozens of treatments possible, I think, that have good dramatic value and human interest. Just my opinion, of course.

Cheers,

Puddin'