“If two men, a man and his countryman, are struggling together, and the wife of one comes near to deliver her husband from the hand of the one who is striking him, and puts out her hand and seizes his genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; you shall not show pity.
I mean, first off:
A) God takes a moment from designing galaxies, balancing the universe and facilitating the plasticity required for biological evolution... to write this drivel instructing some funny upright monkeys when genitals may/may not be included as targets in fights?
B) This is the ONLY time you have to worry about that? One guy fighting, maybe, two other guys...then genital grabbing by the wife is okay? What if she just wants to kick a guy in the nuts for no reason? Also okay? What if it's just two strangers fighting and she swoops in and smashes one of their balls? Good, there? ONLY when one guy is fighting another guy, and one is her husband, THEN this is a big no-no?
I can see how that fight must have gone..."WTF HAX! Owww...OWWWW. Owww, I was totally going to win! Owwww, oh, this one is going into The Book"
C) God, the almighty creator of life, the universe, and everything, is apparently not a fan of Ow my balls! (Or, wait, since it's not specifically two guys fighting with a wife of one of them intervening with a ball grab...maybe He *is* a fan?)
“If two men, a man and his countryman, are struggling together, and the wife of one comes near to deliver her husband from the hand of the one who is striking him, and puts out her hand and seizes his genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; you shall not show pity.
I mean, first off:
A) God takes a moment from designing galaxies, balancing the universe and facilitating the plasticity required for biological evolution... to write this drivel instructing some funny upright monkeys when genitals may/may not be included as targets in fights?
B) This is the ONLY time you have to worry about that? One guy fighting, maybe, two other guys...then genital grabbing by the wife is okay? What if she just wants to kick a guy in the nuts for no reason? Also okay? What if it's just two strangers fighting and she swoops in and smashes one of their balls? Good, there? ONLY when one guy is fighting another guy, and one is her husband, THEN this is a big no-no?
I can see how that fight must have gone..."WTF HAX! Owww...OWWWW. Owww, I was totally going to win! Owwww, oh, this one is going into The Book"
C) God, the almighty creator of life, the universe, and everything, is apparently not a fan of Ow my balls! (Or, wait, since it's not specifically two guys fighting with a wife of one of them intervening with a ball grab...maybe He *is* a fan?)
I don't think it shuld be taken litteraly, I think it refers to all forms of genital grabing in comabt.
A) God takes a moment from designing galaxies, balancing the universe and facilitating the plasticity required for biological evolution... to write this drivel instructing some funny upright monkeys when genitals may/may not be included as targets in fights?
Your point A is way off base, as you forgot "cheering for Tim Tebow."
Maybe Moses slipped this one in for personal reasons. One of his wives broke up one fight too many by yanking him back to his tent by his tentpole. "Let's see her try to pull that crap after I add this to the Law."
“If two men, a man and his countryman, are struggling together, and the wife of one comes near to deliver her husband from the hand of the one who is striking him, and puts out her hand and seizes his genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; you shall not show pity.
I mean, first off:
A) God takes a moment from designing galaxies, balancing the universe and facilitating the plasticity required for biological evolution... to write this drivel instructing some funny upright monkeys when genitals may/may not be included as targets in fights?
B) This is the ONLY time you have to worry about that? One guy fighting, maybe, two other guys...then genital grabbing by the wife is okay? What if she just wants to kick a guy in the nuts for no reason? Also okay? What if it's just two strangers fighting and she swoops in and smashes one of their balls? Good, there? ONLY when one guy is fighting another guy, and one is her husband, THEN this is a big no-no?
I can see how that fight must have gone..."WTF HAX! Owww...OWWWW. Owww, I was totally going to win! Owwww, oh, this one is going into The Book"
C) God, the almighty creator of life, the universe, and everything, is apparently not a fan of Ow my balls! (Or, wait, since it's not specifically two guys fighting with a wife of one of them intervening with a ball grab...maybe He *is* a fan?)
“If two men, a man and his countryman, are struggling together, and the wife of one comes near to deliver her husband from the hand of the one who is striking him, and puts out her hand and seizes his genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; you shall not show pity.
I mean, first off:
A) God takes a moment from designing galaxies, balancing the universe and facilitating the plasticity required for biological evolution... to write this drivel instructing some funny upright monkeys when genitals may/may not be included as targets in fights?
B) This is the ONLY time you have to worry about that? One guy fighting, maybe, two other guys...then genital grabbing by the wife is okay? What if she just wants to kick a guy in the nuts for no reason? Also okay? What if it's just two strangers fighting and she swoops in and smashes one of their balls? Good, there? ONLY when one guy is fighting another guy, and one is her husband, THEN this is a big no-no?
I can see how that fight must have gone..."WTF HAX! Owww...OWWWW. Owww, I was totally going to win! Owwww, oh, this one is going into The Book"
C) God, the almighty creator of life, the universe, and everything, is apparently not a fan of Ow my balls! (Or, wait, since it's not specifically two guys fighting with a wife of one of them intervening with a ball grab...maybe He *is* a fan?)
“If two men, a man and his countryman, are struggling together, and the wife of one comes near to deliver her husband from the hand of the one who is striking him, and puts out her hand and seizes his genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; you shall not show pity.
I mean, first off:
A) God takes a moment from designing galaxies, balancing the universe and facilitating the plasticity required for biological evolution... to write this drivel instructing some funny upright monkeys when genitals may/may not be included as targets in fights?
B) This is the ONLY time you have to worry about that? One guy fighting, maybe, two other guys...then genital grabbing by the wife is okay? What if she just wants to kick a guy in the nuts for no reason? Also okay? What if it's just two strangers fighting and she swoops in and smashes one of their balls? Good, there? ONLY when one guy is fighting another guy, and one is her husband, THEN this is a big no-no?
I can see how that fight must have gone..."WTF HAX! Owww...OWWWW. Owww, I was totally going to win! Owwww, oh, this one is going into The Book"
C) God, the almighty creator of life, the universe, and everything, is apparently not a fan of Ow my balls! (Or, wait, since it's not specifically two guys fighting with a wife of one of them intervening with a ball grab...maybe He *is* a fan?)
What part of that were you particularly interested in pointing out?
It's an interesting discussion on whether or not this verse and the "eye for an eye" verse (which is much more stressed) should imply that capital punishment should be carried out, or whether the monetary punishments/restitution laws should be used.
But that seems to me to not really be connected to the things Xander finds so funny.
This for example:
Quote:
The Rambam and Ramban formulate their explanations here as proof for the plain interpretation of the expression "tachat" as referring to money. However, based on our discussion above, we may use their words to explain the discrepancy between the plain meaning of the verses and the halakha as a synthesis. The verses of "An eye for an eye," "A wound for a wound," and "You shall cut off her hand," all set forth the punishment that is appropriate for the transgressor in accordance with the severity of his actions, but they do not take into consideration the needs of the injured party. The verse, "He shall pay only for his incapacitation, and he shall surely be healed," on the other hand, addresses compensation to the victim for the actual monetary losses incurred, but fails to take into account the need to punish the perpetrator in accordance with the severity of his actions. The Oral Law mediates this contradiction by exchanging the prescribed corporal punishment for monetary compensation for damage and shame, in addition to the compensation for incapacitation and medical expenses.
It seeks to combine the two types of law, but seems to inherently agree that "the punishment that is appropriate for the transgressor in accordance with the severity of his actions", which seems to me to be the source of the hilarity.
It seeks to combine the two types of law, but seems to inherently agree that "the punishment that is appropriate for the transgressor in accordance with the severity of his actions", which seems to me to be the source of the hilarity.
This.
It is, first off, so ludicrously (and needlessly) specific...I mean, if "grabbing a guy in the nuts = hand chop" was the intent, why not just say that? Why work out this lengthy scenario, needlessly?
And, secondly...seriously, cutting off a hand for grabbing balls? Really? I like my balls and all, but...c'mon...
And, of course, why is God (the creator of the universe, all fancy biological and physical processes needed for life, environmental cycles, gravity, etc) getting involved in petty fistfight rules?
I will never get into religious discussions unless I know my audience very well. However, I will say...I do "love" that quote.
Some day, when I am brave I am going to make a tee-shirt with the verse: And the bible states in Lee 5:11-12
And the woman shall bow down before her man and meet his every need. Her time will be spent in the kitchen making sandwiches and bringing beer so her beloved never hungers or thirsts.
Of course, I would make it customized to the husbands name....See what I did there??
“If two men, a man and his countryman, are struggling together, and the wife of one comes near to deliver her husband from the hand of the one who is striking him, and puts out her hand and seizes his genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; you shall not show pity.
This sounds more like "men are manly motherfathers and a wife that tries to come between a fight is basically saying that her husband isn't strong enough to take care of himself and is emasculating him." She's "grabbing her husband's balls" not the other dude's. No idea about the hand chopping part though, maybe it's a metaphor for... cutting off her hand. Oh yeah, I see the issue.
It is, first off, so ludicrously (and needlessly) specific...I mean, if "grabbing a guy in the nuts = hand chop" was the intent, why not just say that? Why work out this lengthy scenario, needlessly?
That's my basic objection to most of the apologetics that Moshe puts forward. The sheer amount of mental strain neccessary to warp these verses into something that can even APPROACH rational explanation is almost as funny as the original drivel.
And Moshe, I'll save you the trouble of a response: yes I know, I'm not Jewish and therefore can't possibly understand why this makes perfect sense. It's a problem with the translation and the western non-understanding of oral blahblahmoogedymoogedyyaddayaddahorseshityaketyshmakety.
“If two men, a man and his countryman, are struggling together, and the wife of one comes near to deliver her husband from the hand of the one who is striking him, and puts out her hand and seizes his genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; you shall not show pity.
I mean, first off:
A) God takes a moment from designing galaxies, balancing the universe and facilitating the plasticity required for biological evolution... to write this drivel instructing some funny upright monkeys when genitals may/may not be included as targets in fights?
B) This is the ONLY time you have to worry about that? One guy fighting, maybe, two other guys...then genital grabbing by the wife is okay? What if she just wants to kick a guy in the nuts for no reason? Also okay? What if it's just two strangers fighting and she swoops in and smashes one of their balls? Good, there? ONLY when one guy is fighting another guy, and one is her husband, THEN this is a big no-no?
I can see how that fight must have gone..."WTF HAX! Owww...OWWWW. Owww, I was totally going to win! Owwww, oh, this one is going into The Book"
C) God, the almighty creator of life, the universe, and everything, is apparently not a fan of Ow my balls! (Or, wait, since it's not specifically two guys fighting with a wife of one of them intervening with a ball grab...maybe He *is* a fan?)
I have nothing but great respect for your Oral Law, I think that it is a very reasonable legal tradition developed over many centuries by a multitude of extraordinary scholars. I do think, however, that the written text these scholars are ostensibly basing their reasoning on is at best neutral and at worst a hindrance in producing the end product which is a relatively universal and morally sound (as opposed to bronze age) legal codex.
It seems to me that with same ingenuity and devotion, generations of smart people could make a legal code based on Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. In fact analogy is almost obvious to me to Anglo-Saxon "common law" which is ostensibly fundamentally based on ancient and universal customs and is "discovered" rather then written, but is in fact a self-supported structure of opinions and decisions of legal scholars constructed over centuries of practice in adjudicating actual problems.
To a neutral observer a link you posted reads much more like "how do we make these writings fit into the legal structure we have developed" then "how do we develop legal structure based on these writings".
Of course, this still leaves Jews miles ahead of Christians (Protestant in particular) insofar as they put the thick layer of (mostly reasonable) Oral Law interpretation between their actual practice and the bronze age text which ostensibly inspires them rather then taking it literally.
It does not change viciousness, (and occasional ridiculousness) of the base text though.
Like water spilled on the ground, which cannot be recovered, so we must die. But God does not take away life; instead, he devises ways so that a banished person may not remain estranged from him. 2 Sam 14:14
Geosphere wrote:
MWChapel wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
I don't think it should be taken literally, I think it refers to all forms of genital grabbing in combat.
I agree. Not punching one in the balls should have been included in the 11 Commandments.
Unfortunately, this would put all MMA out of business.
Chicken Caesar, a Game of Plots, Politics, and Poultry for 3-6 players -- no luck, just revenge!
This is NOT a Chihuahua. It is a Sphynx cat. A bald, grouchy Sphynx cat who will bite you if you mistake him for a Chihuahua.
My personal favorite has always been the story of Elisha being teased about his baldness, in 2 Kings 2:
23 Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up the road, some youths came from the city and mocked him, and said to him, "Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!" 24 So he turned around and looked at them, and pronounced a curse on them in the name of the Lord. And two female bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths.
I did get a chuckle out of some of the comments here...and the "5 on 2" comment made me laugh out loud.
Then I pulled out my bible and read Deuteronomy 25. It is actually a pretty interesting chapter that mainly teaches about being fair (a topic that should be of some interest on a board game site):
It speaks of being generous/fair to the ox by letting him eat while he drives the grinder (don't muzzle the ox).
It speaks of the ancient Jewish custom of having a brother marry the wife of his dead brother (so that she would be taken care of). In those days it was dangerous for a woman to be on her own....so it wouldn't be fair to just let a widow be at risk if there was a brother who could step in to help.
It speaks of not having different weights (a heavy set and a light set) so that you can rip people off.....but to weigh/measure everything fairly.
I suspect verses 11 & 12 are saying that it may be the wife's inclination to 'save' her husband....but if it's a fair fight, then let them settle it fairly. Don't step in and hit the opponent where it hurts. I can't speak to the harshness of the punishment, but it could be a mistranslation. Also, whenever discussing the Old Testament, we need to remember that Christ fulfilled the Mosaic law (eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth)....and introduced his law (love and forgiveness).
So while taking a bizzare verse out of context may be good for a laugh, the overall message of 'be fair to each other' withstands the test of time as a good basis for any society....and something that may have harsh consequences if not followed.
So while taking a bizzare verse out of context may be good for a laugh, the overall message of 'be fair to each other' withstands the test of time as a good basis for any society....and something that may have harsh consequences if not followed.
But that's not what is says, is it?
It doesn't say "only fight fair". Or "wives shouldn't interfere with a fair fight".
That's all just you putting your own interpretation on the meaning of it so that the source script is less offensive. But you are changing the wording to do so, because those verses don't SAY anything like that at all.
What it says is - if two men are fighting, and the wife of one of them grabs someones balls in the fight, you chop her hand off.
I did get a chuckle out of some of the comments here...and the "5 on 2" comment made me laugh out loud.
Then I pulled out my bible and read Deuteronomy 25. It is actually a pretty interesting chapter that mainly teaches about being fair (a topic that should be of some interest on a board game site):
It speaks of being generous/fair to the ox by letting him eat while he drives the grinder (don't muzzle the ox).
It speaks of the ancient Jewish custom of having a brother marry the wife of his dead brother (so that she would be taken care of). In those days it was dangerous for a woman to be on her own....so it wouldn't be fair to just let a widow be at risk if there was a brother who could step in to help.
It speaks of not having different weights (a heavy set and a light set) so that you can rip people off.....but to weigh/measure everything fairly.
I suspect verses 11 & 12 are saying that it may be the wife's inclination to 'save' her husband....but if it's a fair fight, then let them settle it fairly. Don't step in and hit the opponent where it hurts. I can't speak to the harshness of the punishment, but it could be a mistranslation. Also, whenever discussing the Old Testament, we need to remember that Christ fulfilled the Mosaic law (eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth)....and introduced his law (love and forgiveness).
So while taking a bizzare verse out of context may be good for a laugh, the overall message of 'be fair to each other' withstands the test of time as a good basis for any society....and something that may have harsh consequences if not followed.
What part of mutilating a woman for trying to save her husband from a violent conflict is fair again?
My personal favorite has always been the story of Elisha being teased about his baldness, in 2 Kings 2:
23 Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up the road, some youths came from the city and mocked him, and said to him, "Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!" 24 So he turned around and looked at them, and pronounced a curse on them in the name of the Lord. And two female bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths.
Nice!
You read my mind! I was thinking of this quote... What an awesome and wise prophet
