Dragline: First of all, it bears reiterating that this verse does not refer to participation in a minyan - see IzzyR’s and my posts above. A castrated Jewish man can be counted towards a minyan and has just as much of an opportunity to get into heaven as does anyone else.
In any case, though, what would one have to do with the other anyway? A boy under 13 years of age can’t be counted towards a minyan either (hence the Bar Mitzvah celebration, marking his entry into the community of adult Jews); yet if a child of that age dies, G-d forbid, then he certainly isn’t denied admission to heaven. For that matter, Judaism posits that a non-Jew who lives a virtuous life - in particular, following the 7 Noahide Laws - is guaranteed a place in heaven, yet he can’t be counted as part of a minyan, which by definition consists of adult Jews.
OK, let’s put those on a two ton rock and see if we can get the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court to drag it into the state courts building in dark of night.
I must admit that I have some question about the injunction from eating an animal’s limb before it is dead. This was a practice so wide spread that it required a religious/priestly prohibition?
“I must admit that I have some question about the injunction from eating an animal’s limb before it is dead. This was a practice so wide spread that it required a religious/priestly prohibition?”
I should have seen that one coming. Do you suppose that joke is that old.
I’m not at all sure it is a good idea to be telling pig jokes in a discussion of Mosaic Law–that might be a better way to go to Hell, or be excluded from the congregation, than wandering around with damaged stones.
From looking at the Irish Penitentials, I get the impression that some religious prohibitions were put together as a laundry list of “Well, what if somebody somewhere decided to do this? Better prohibit it.”
*13 and thou shalt have a paddle upon thy weapon; and it shall be, when thou wilt ease thyself abroad, thou shalt dig therewith, and shalt turn back and cover that which cometh from thee:*In other words “Bury thine poop, ya’ll”.
BTW, at the risk of belaboring the obvious, I’d like to point out that John Bobbitt did not “have his privy member cut off.” He didn’t exactly consent to the act, remember?
You know, I’ve heard so many conflicting explanations and interpretations of this law, I think I have to withhold judgment on which one is actually correct.
TVAA, you might have a point there if the law was that a castrated man is completely forbidden to marry (and is also not allowed to have sex outside of marriage). But in fact, the same law that prohibits him from marrying into the “congregation of the L-rd” allows him to marry a mamzeret (the offspring of an adulterous or incestuous union, or the descendant of such a person) or a woman who converted to Judaism; how does this “disregard human wants and needs,” then?
Since most marriages of the time were arranged, and since Jewish males are halachicly required to provide sexual satisfaction to their wives (as well as children), I’d say that the law is also here to prevent fathers from marrying their daughters off into unhappy unions. Not neccesarily a bad idea.
Ah, that’s precisely the point. The same culture which places such an emphasis on being in the community uses must necessarily regard being cast out of the community as a terrible punishment.
Nor am I particularly pleased by the concept of forever setting apart those who had the misfortune to be conceived out of wedlock.
And although I realize things were different once, in a variety of ways, forbidding an infertile person from marrying whoever he or she wishes to marry… well.
Actually, not everyone born out of wedlock is a mamzer, only children born from a married woman by way of a man who is not her husband. If both parents are unmarried then, well, it’s frowned upon, but it’s not illegal.
So severely limiting someone’s marriage possibilities, and ensuring that all their children will be so limited, is okay?
And isn’t the “L-rd” thing taking it a bit far? Isn’t the word “Lord” used so that the name of God doesn’t have to be used? Do you refer to Him as “H-m”?
Please show, then, where the Torah laws that we are talking about here require, or even suggest, that the person be “cast out of the community.”
A clarification: as Alessan correctly notes, we’re not talking about children born out of wedlock (but whose parents are otherwise permitted to marry), but rather children born from forbidden unions.
Consider the following analogy: if a pregnant woman takes medications that have teratogenic effects, or is exposed to radiation, etc., her child may be (G-d forbid) deformed, and such mutations may even be hereditary, passed down to generations yet unborn. No one would blame the child (or the mother, if this exposure was involuntary or unwitting), yet facts are facts, and it would be useless - and indeed harmful to the child’s health - to pretend that these effects don’t exist.
Torah law restricts all Jews in their choice of mates too: non-Jews are off-limits (unless they convert), as are mamzerim and several other subgroups of Jews. Kohanim - descendants of Aaron in the male line - are further restricted in that they may not marry converts. So it’s hardly the case that castrated men are victims of discrimination in this regard.
OTOH, if your viewpoint is that all such laws are unjust per se, then I’m afraid we lack any common ground on which to stand for further discussion of this issue (although it would make a fine GD topic in itself).
Not as far as I know. English translations of the Bible, prayerbooks, etc., use these two words interchangeably as personal titles for the Divinity (corresponding to the two most commonly used names for Him in Hebrew, the Tetragrammaton and Elokim), and I’ve never heard of anyone using one as a circumlocution for the other. So the same rules would apply to both.
** Becoming a second-class person seems pretty close.
** Birth defects are objective problems. A child may have had ancestors who violated a social prohibition – that’s a fact. Creating a special social category for such a child, and limiting his or her rights and social options, is not in any way objectively necessary or appropriate.
** They’re still victims of discrimination. Merely pointing out that the law discriminates against other people doesn’t cut it.
I find the implied “tribal purity” disturbing and sickening. A religious law that makes such distinctions should be abolished.
** To be perfectly blunt, I find the historic Judaic tradition to be disgusting. It enshrines gender discrimination and distinction, genelogical prejudice, genocide, mindless adherence to tradition, and a host of other distinctly undesirable practices.
It also includes a lot of good things. But the bathwater is being kept in with the baby.
The Jewish view of castrated men (leaving aside, for the moment, the marital prohibitions): “So says G-d regarding the eunuchs who… uphold My covenant: I shall give them a monument and a memorial in My house and in My walls… an everlasting name that shall not be cut off” (Isaiah 56:4-5).
The Jewish view of mamzerim: “A mamzer who is a Torah scholar takes precedence over a High Priest who is an ignoramus” (Talmud, Horiyot 13a).
My point about marital restrictions, then, is that these don’t per se imply second-class status; to the contrary, in the case of kohanim, the extra restrictions are due to their exalted status. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that this is true of castrati and mamzerim, but neither are these rules necessarily evidence that the Torah looks down on them.
The Torah’s point of view is that spiritual distinctions are equally objective realities: they may not be subject to scientific observation and verification, but they do exist and have effects. (I’ll grant that this is hardly an easy viewpoint to accept, so we will probably have to agree to disagree on this one.)
If you’ll allow me to stretch the analogy a little, that “bathwater” is more like the amniotic fluid that cushions the baby in the womb, which one tampers with at the “baby’s” peril. It may seem easy enough to discard individual laws that one doesn’t agree with, but at the end there’ll be very little left that can be called Judaism.
