Why did the ancient Hebrews not allow guys with mangled/missing privates into temple?

[Revtim]

Deuteronomy 23 (English Standard Version)
23 “No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord.
==================================================

Why not? Was it just maliciously adding insult to injury, or what?

[FinnAgain]

A Bronze Age religion based on superstition, an angry warrior God and ritual purity had a thing about deformed folks. This isn't really surprising.

[Shodan]

Because priests are dedicated to the Lord, and it was disrespectful to dedicate something maimed or second class to the Lord. Likewise you couldn't sacrifice a deformed lamb to the Lord - He deserves the best you got, not what you just want to get rid of anyway.

It may also be a reaction against castrated priests, as occurred in some other religions.

Regards,
Shodan

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Shodan

It may also be a reaction against castrated priests, as occurred in some other religions.

It might've prevented a lotta problems down the road, if the RCC had gone Origen's way . . .

[Alessan]

Also, "bastard" doesn't mean the same thing in Hebrew (and in Judaism) as it does elsewhere. Illegitimate children aren't bastards. Illegitimate children one or both of whose parents were married to someone other than the other parent are bastards - meaning that they have to be the product of adultery, not just unmarried sex.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Alessan

Also, "bastard" doesn't mean the same thing in Hebrew (and in Judaism) as it does elsewhere. Illegitimate children aren't bastards. Illegitimate children one or both of whose parents were married to someone other than the other parent are bastards - meaning that they have to be the product of adultery, not just unmarried sex.

Oh, well, then it's just another word for "Jew."

:d&r:

[carnivorousplant]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Oh, well, then it's just another word for "Jew."

:d&r:

Do I need to ask you out into the alley to meet my Louisville slugger?

[Captain Amazing]

Originally Posted by Alessan

Also, "bastard" doesn't mean the same thing in Hebrew (and in Judaism) as it does elsewhere. Illegitimate children aren't bastards. Illegitimate children one or both of whose parents were married to someone other than the other parent are bastards - meaning that they have to be the product of adultery, not just unmarried sex.

Well, it's more that a child is halachacly a bastard if their parents are unable to legally marry....if he's the product of incest or if the mother is married to someone else (the father being married to somebody else was ok, because Judaism used to allow polygamy).

[Sampiro]

So what is a child whose parents could marry but choose not to, or whose mother refused to reveal the father?

Sidenote: I heard a televangelist addressing this one time and saying that "It doesn't mean a child born to unmarried parents" because, you know, it would be wrong and unreasonable to ban a child AND his descendants to the tenth generation from entering the temple because he was illegitimate. It meant "a child whose parents were a religiously mixed marriage".

Well, that's alright then. Banning the great-great-great-great-grandsons of those kinds of people just makes good sense.

Similar argument here.

[Latro]

Originally Posted by Revtim

Deuteronomy 23 (English Standard Version)

Why did the ancient Hebrews not allow guys with mangled/missing privates into temple?

Because the temple is officers only?
Besides how could missing privates come to the temple anyway? and..

23 “No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord.

Oh..

[Anne Neville]

A theory I've heard is that castration was a rite practiced by members or priests of other religions at the time. We have historical evidence of it being practiced as a religious rite in other times and places, so that's not as implausible as it might sound to us. The idea behind this theory is, it's something that idol worshipers did, and they didn't want them in the temple.

[Malthus]

Originally Posted by Anne Neville

A theory I've heard is that castration was a rite practiced by members or priests of other religions at the time. We have historical evidence of it being practiced as a religious rite in other times and places, so that's not as implausible as it might sound to us. The idea behind this theory is, it's something that idol worshipers did, and they didn't want them in the temple.

That, and the fact that ritual purity was a very important thing to the priestly cult. Lots of otherwise inexplicable stuff in Leviticus and Dueteronomy is explained by that.

[Simplicio]

Originally Posted by Anne Neville

A theory I've heard is that castration was a rite practiced by members or priests of other religions at the time. We have historical evidence of it being practiced as a religious rite in other times and places, so that's not as implausible as it might sound to us. The idea behind this theory is, it's something that idol worshipers did, and they didn't want them in the temple.

Maybe, though the same chapter also bans bastards and various undesirable ethnic groups. Deuteronomy in general is pretty rough on anyone with any sort of "defect" and pretty fixated on sexual matters, so I suspect its just an extension of those themes.

[Simplicio]

Also, I'm not sure "Congregation of the Lord" means either the priesthood, as Shodan suggests or the Temple, as the OP suggests. The Congregation is a name for the tent where the holy tabernacle is kept, but searching the KJV "Congregation of the Lord" seems to just mean the Israeli community in general.

Which is kind of rough. Bastards and people that hurt their nads get kicked out of the community in general.

[carnivorousplant]

Originally Posted by Simplicio

Which is kind of rough. Bastards and people that hurt their nads get kicked out of the community in general.

I never told the Rabbi about my vasectomy...

[Mangetout]

Originally Posted by Anne Neville

A theory I've heard is that castration was a rite practiced by members or priests of other religions at the time. We have historical evidence of it being practiced as a religious rite in other times and places, so that's not as implausible as it might sound to us. The idea behind this theory is, it's something that idol worshipers did, and they didn't want them in the temple.

So your genitals need to be mutilated in just the right way...

[FinnAgain]

I wouldn't use the KJB as an authoritative source for the Tanakh. Just sayin'

[Sampiro]

I wonder how the castrati were fit into the prohibition in order to sing in churches. I know they were forbidden to take holy orders after their singing careers. (Not true in Byzantium: they did not have castrato choirs but they did have lots of eunuchs and some became high ranking churchmen.)

[Simplicio]

Originally Posted by Sampiro

I wonder how the castrati were fit into the prohibition in order to sing in churches. I know they were forbidden to take holy orders after their singing careers. (Not true in Byzantium: they did not have castrato choirs but they did have lots of eunuchs and some became high ranking churchmen.)

Its pretty clear the Catholic Church didn't obey that part of Deuteronomy. It also excludes Bastards (and Egyptians, though their grandkids are OK), while the Church didn't have any problem with communicating bastards.

I imagine they just took those passages as requirements to be a member of the ancient Israeli community, not a general statement about any Judeo-Christian religious community.

[t-bonham@scc.net]

Originally Posted by Simplicio

Its pretty clear the Catholic Church didn't obey that part of Deuteronomy. It also excludes Bastards (and Egyptians, though their grandkids are OK), while the Church didn't have any problem with communicating bastards.

At least a trace of this continued in the Catholic Church: people with deformed hands were not permitted to become priests and say Mass. This even applied to already ordained priests who were injured. Even if the injury happened in the service of the church.

Father (eventually martyr & saint) Saint Isaac Jogues, a French missionary in North America, was captured and tortured by a Mohawk tribe, including cutting off his right thumb. After that, he recieved a special dispensation from the Pope to allow him to continue to say Mass with a deformed hand.

[Simplicio]

Originally Posted by FinnAgain

I wouldn't use the KJB as an authoritative source for the Tanakh. Just sayin'

Fair enough. But I get the same results with the English Standard Version. It uses "Assembly of the Lord" and that phrase is used in the same way as KJV uses "Congregation of the Lord". Assembly of the Lord seems to be an Israeli in good standing, like a "communicant" in the Catholic Church. So the ban seems to be on participation in the religious life of the community in general, not just becoming a priest or entering the temple.

[Malthus]

Originally Posted by Simplicio

Fair enough. But I get the same results with the English Standard Version. It uses "Assembly of the Lord" and that phrase is used in the same way as KJV uses "Congregation of the Lord". Assembly of the Lord seems to be an Israeli in good standing, like a "communicant" in the Catholic Church. So the ban seems to be on participation in the religious life of the community in general, not just becoming a priest or entering the temple.

Looking around, the term seems variously interpreted as meaning "the ruling counsel of the Hebrew people" (a meaning of "congregation" similar to the Catholic "Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith") or "all of the Hebrew people".

The former makes more sense - there are, for example, famous Jewish converts from the Moabites (another group along with crushed nads and bastards not eligible for the congregation), which would make no sense if Moabites were excluded "from the people", but would be perfectly possible if they were excluded from "the ruling council".

Similarly, excluding those with crushed nads or the illegitimate from the governing counsel would be nasty, but a lot less nasty than booting them into exile.

[BrainGlutton]

Probably for the same reason that an ancient Hebrew man, swearing an oath to another, would "put his hand under his thigh," i.e., swear on his testicles. Because fatherhood and the power of fatherhood was sacred.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Damn! Not only does it hurt like a sumbitch that I dropped this anvil on my nuts, and probably messed up my sex life for a good long time, but now I can't go to temple this week! Man, oh, man! When it rains, it pours!

[chizzuk]

For another perspective, I just checked an Artscroll (major Orthodox Jewish publishing company) chumash and their English version is "A man with crushed testicles or a severed organ shall not enter the congregation of Hashem." The commentary explains, "Any man whose reproductive organs have been severely damaged, so that he is impotent, may not marry. If, however, the disability came about through natural means, such as a birth defect or illness, this prohibition does not apply (Rambam, Hilchos Issurei Biah 15)." The entire section is under Parsha Ki Seitzei and is titled "Forbidden and restricted marriages."

[DocCathode]

Originally Posted by chizzuk

For another perspective, I just checked an Artscroll (major Orthodox Jewish publishing company) chumash and their English version is "A man with crushed testicles or a severed organ shall not enter the congregation of Hashem." The commentary explains, "Any man whose reproductive organs have been severely damaged, so that he is impotent, may not marry. If, however, the disability came about through natural means, such as a birth defect or illness, this prohibition does not apply (Rambam, Hilchos Issurei Biah 15)." The entire section is under Parsha Ki Seitzei and is titled "Forbidden and restricted marriages."

This agrees with what I've heard. The ban isn't on entering a physical space. It's a ban on marriage. And the ban only applies to those who have willingly mutilated themselves. A few other religions have required castration or emasculation.

An interesting note, IIRC one of the apostles says in the NT "Some have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. . . . He that can receive it, let him receive it."

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by DocCathode

An interesting note, IIRC one of the apostles says in the NT "Some have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. . . . He that can receive it, let him receive it."

That was Jesus, not an apostle. But He was talking about marriage (and divorce). Matthew 19:12.

Regards,
Shodan

[DocCathode]

Originally Posted by Shodan

That was Jesus, not an apostle. But He was talking about marriage (and divorce). Matthew 19:12.

Regards,
Shodan

Hmh, judging by the page you linked to whether he's discussing marriage, celibacy or castration is debatable.

[t-bonham@scc.net]

Originally Posted by DocCathode

And the ban only applies to those who have willingly mutilated themselves.

I suppose then the Jewish circumcision doesn't count, since it's done at 7 days old, so the baby can hardly be said to have 'willingly' consented.

[DocCathode]

I should have clarified the word mutilation. I meant 'alteration in such a way as to leave the man without testes and/or penis'. Circumcision clearly leaves the patient with a penis (except in exceedingly rare cases when something goes terribly wrong).

[panache45]

What I want to know is: Who had the job of examining all the guys' genitals at the entrance of the temple? (Imagine putting that on your resume.)

[Kearsen]

Originally Posted by panache45

What I want to know is: Who had the job of examining all the guys' genitals at the entrance of the temple? (Imagine putting that on your resume.)

Catholic priests all over are scrambling to have that job reinstated.

[Jamicat]

Originally Posted by Revtim

Deuteronomy 23 (English Standard Version)
23 “No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord.
==================================================

Why not? Was it just maliciously adding insult to injury, or what?

Does this include "Wiffleball Bats" on Deuteronomy's Funniest Home Videos.

[gamerunknown]

while the Church didn't have any problem with communicating bastards.

Especially not good old Joe Goebbels.

[Mdcastle]

If they still had that restriction that could be another use of the nude body scanners they have in airports to check everyone entering the temple.

[DocCathode]

Originally Posted by Mdcastleman

If they still had that restriction that could be another use of the nude body scanners they have in airports to check everyone entering the temple.

Several things

#1 Have you read the thread? The ban was not on entrance to the physical Temple but on marriage.

#2 What do you mean 'if they still had it'? While I'm not sure of the percentage of rabbis who still would not allow such a marriage, I guarantee I can find a bunch.

#3 As the Temple is not supposed to be rebuilt until the messiah comes and brings world peace, scanners would be unnecessary.