I know this sounds like a stupid question, so bear with me while I explain the motivation.
Everybody “knows” that Muslims have a lot of bizarre laws, especially about women. Killing them for having pre-marital sex, for example. Many Christians point to these laws as proof that there is something “wrong” with Muslims.
A surprisingly large number of Christians have never read their own scriptures (except for selected highlights), and are unaware that many of these laws come straight from the Bible, from which Muhammad borrowed freely. When informed of it, and asked point-blank if they are in favor of executing homosexuals, or women who are raped within city limits, Christians often claim that Jesus made the Mosaic law obsolete. Jesus himself never said he did, and in fact he said that every jot and tittle of Mosaic Law should be obeyed until heaven and earth pass away, but that’s for another thread.
What I’m asking here is, since Jews do not believe that Jesus made Mosaic law obsolete, what is their opinion of these “barbaric” laws? How literally do they take them, and how eager are they to see them enforced?
I’m posting this in GQ rather than GD because I don’t want to debate whether the laws are actually barbaric or not. Anyone is welcome to debate them in another thread, but I am hoping for informed and objective answers to the following questions:
Do most observant Jews believe that all of the laws in the Pentateuch that demand execution for homosexuality, adultery, cursing your parents, doing work on the Sabbath, being raped in a city, etc., are good laws?
Have there been any Jewish communities after the 1st century where such laws were in force and followed to the letter?
Is there any significant movement for a two-state solution to the Palestinian conflict that would result in a truly Jewish state where these laws would be enforced?
Generally, the Orthodox do in theory, but not so much in practice. There aren’t any current religious courts that would have the authority to sentence somebody to death, and even when those courts existed, Jewish law is hinged with so many conditions about the imposition of capital punishment that it really didn’t happen much. (There had to have been two witnesses, the two witnesses had to have told the person who committed the crime he was about to commit a capital crime, the person about to commit the crime had to tell them that he knew it was a capital crime but were going to do it anyway, any discrepancies in the testimony of the witnesses would have made them invalid and left them subject to penalty, in a 23 man jury, at least 13 had to vote to give him the death penalty, but not the majority, and the jury had to then carry out the sentences themselves).
See the above.
No. Israel was founded by secularist, the laws, with the exception of family law, are secular, and Israel doesn’t have the death penalty, unless you’re somebody like Adolf Eichmann, and most people don’t want it introduced.
I’ll also add that you’re not given the death penalty for being raped in the city.
This came up some time recently in another thread - the critical bit is realizing that with the destruction of the Temple the Sadducees lost and the Pharisees won and sired what has been Judaism since. The Sadducees were the priestly elite and they believed that Torah was the only, the literal, and of course final, word; the Pharisees were often learned but not the elite, and they believed that there was an Oral Law given to Moses along with Torah, a Law passed on through generations, a Law that allowed Torah to be interpreted. The Pharisees gave rise to the great rabbis and they wrote down the Oral Law, the interpretations of the meaning of Torah and how it should be applied, as Talmud. Hence, no. Observant Jews defer to Talmud for interpretation of Torah.
The group that rejects Oral Law is the Karaites. They still interpret but in a manner that they believe reflects “the plain meaning of the text, as it would have been understood by the ancient Israelites when it was first given” and place responsibility for understanding that with the individual. I do not know if they ever had the power to enforce laws according to that belief system though.
Did he? In Matthew 12 he allows his disciples to pick corn on the Sabbath even though it’s in violation of Mosaic Law, saying, “I tell you that something greater than the temple is here” and “the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath”. Doesn’t sound like he’s enforcing every jot and tittle there.
An aside but important: Jews believe different things. Judaism isn’t a religion defined by belief. There is no creed, and the only belief Jews (who believe) have in common is “God is one” (whatever that means). Jews can also be agnostics and atheists.
I have heard at least one Jewish person describe the laws themselves as good, but that the punishments were optional for some reason (specifically death related ones). I’ve also heard some say that the punishments are valid, but can’t be performed while there is no temple and high priest.
I just bring these up to see if anyone can clarify.
Yes, he really did, in Matthew 5:18. I leave it to Christians to explain it away, but obviously they have found a way. Just as they have found a way to explain why Matthew 21:21-22 doesn’t mean what it plainly says – that believers will get whatever they pray for, even if it’s something mean, like killing a fig tree just for not having fruit out of season. If you want to debate either verse, feel free to start a thread in GD.
Obviously I was talking about observant Jews, not atheists who happen to be of Jewish heritage. And I know that there are different types of observant Jews, some much stricter than others, but I would really appreciate a cite for your claim that they have nothing in common but “God is one.”
All very interesting. Are you saying that nobody was ever executed for adultery, since the conditions you describe (the adulteress tells two witnesses that she is aware she is committing a capital crime) are very unlikely to occur?
I was referring to Deut 22:23-24. It’s true that it applies only to betrothed virgins, but it pretty clearly says she must die because it’s her responsibility to scream loudly enough for help to come. She is not punished if the rape takes place in the country, because there may not be anybody around.
I can’t say that one way or another, but that’s what the requirements are. There’s a reason that the Talmud condemned a Sanhedrin that sentenced one person to death in 70 years as a “bloody Talmud.”
That’s not punishing her for being raped, though. That’s a way to prevent false accusations of rape from somebody caught in adultery. The idea behind it is, in the city, everyone is so close enough together, if somebody calls out, people will hear her, whereas, in the country, you can’t assume that.
I didn’t mean they have “nothing in common.” I said Judaism is not a religion of beliefs, i.e., a religious based on doctrine or dogma. There is no creed (like the Nicene Creed, for example) that lists a set of beliefs that Jews subscribe to in order to call themselves Jews. The only “belief” is “Hear, O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one.”
I said it was an aside, and I know you meant Jews who DO believe in something–my clarification was only that, a clarification.
I assume you mean “bloody Sanhedrin?” And are all of these conditions that make it so hard to execute someone specified in the Torah, or are they from rabbinic commentary?
Well, we agree on the reason for the distinction between city and field, but I don’t see how you can say it doesn’t punish a rape victim. A knife to the throat would give a victim the choice of silent submission, or death. And without getting too graphic or disgusting, even a woman who would rather die could be kept from making too much noise by a strong and ruthless man.
It’s hard to imagine that there were so many women who were committing adultery and then claiming rape that Moses had to deal with that specific situation. It seems much more consistent with the idea that the reason behind all of the laws regarding women’s sexuality was the preservation of the integrity of the male line. That’s why raping a virgin who was not betrothed was not a capital offense; you just paid her father and married her afterward. Not much of a “punishment” for some old goat who gets to marry a beautiful 16-year old.
Ok this may seem silly and it is close to off topic even, but I feel it is important. You can be a totally observant Jew and an atheist. Now, realistically this probably doesn’t happen because I don’t see why you would keep the Halakha if you didn’t believe, but belief isn’t necessary.
I mention it because it is a fundamentally different approach to religion than Christianity or Islam and a lot of gentiles don’t really get that. You follow the laws, you perform the rituals etc etc because they make the world, your life and the lives if those around you better. Even if you can’t see how or why, you believe that they do. You believe they do because God told you so, but ultimately that is less important than believing in the mitzvot. You perform the mitzvot even if you don’t believe in God, you are still an observant Jew.
I know. It seems like a side bar, but it’s important.
No need to apologize. I just didn’t want to assume it was a typo without checking, because I’m not familiar with either phrase, so I had no idea which was correct.
I don’t, and I’m sorry if I said or implied something to make you think I do. My last post was not about whether the law was barbaric, but what it actually said. IMO the words and context make it clear that it applies to actual rape victims as well as adulteresses pretending to be rape victims. However, if I am understanding your posts correctly, the Torah is not as absolute as I thought, since the rabbis apparently can and do add enough conditions to make conviction virtually impossible.
Well, you’re right, I don’t get it. I thought that rituals that you follow without any religious belief were just customs. And laws that you follow without religious belief are just laws, like civil laws.
Maybe we are crosstalking because “Jewish” has two distinct (but not necessarily mutually exclusive) meanings — someone who believes in the Jewish religion, and someone who is of Jewish descent. I can see that an atheist born into a Jewish family, who observes the rituals to please his parents or whatever, could be called observant, and a Jew, but he is not what I mean by “observant Jew.” And I think it’s a pretty clear distinction.
Honestly, I’m not trying to be a wiseass; I’m trying to understand what people are telling me in this thread. Sometimes I forget to phrase my confusion in the form of a question, as I did with Capt. Amazing, but please consider my responses as requests for clarification, and not as me trying to refute you.
But isn’t one of the laws to love God with all your heart, soul, and strength? So how can you do that without believing in him?