(Deuteronomy 24:1 - 24:4)
“If a man marries and is displeased with his wife when he discovers she is unchaste, he may draw up a bill of divorcement, present it to her, and banish her from his home. If, after leaving his house, the woman marries another man and the second husband also draws up a bill of divorcement, presents it to her, and banishes her from his home, the first husband may not remarry her, for she has been defiled -- to do so would be an abomination in the eyes of Jehovah. You should not tolerate such a sin in the land that Jehovah is giving you for an inheritance.”
Notes
1. The question of divorce is rarely addressed in the Old Testament. The conditions referenced here as a basis for divorce are ambiguous. There are two conditions stated: firstly, the husband has to be displeased with his wife and desirous of being rid of her and, secondly, there must be a fault with the bride. A lack of chastity seems to be suggested by the text, but it is possible that other faults might be included, ill health, physical deformity of some kind, perhaps even an inability to have children. The divorce would seem to be more akin to an annulment.
2. The husband draws up a bill of divorcement, that is, he prepares some sort of legal document, something down in writing. The society of Moses, the people listening to this sermon, would not have been literate. It seems a stretch that personal legal documents would have used until many centuries later, after the invention an alphabet and the Hebrew language. But most of Moses’ sermon is anachronistic in this regard, pertaining to social conditions that would only exist many centuries in the future.
3. It is perhaps surprising that the divorced woman is free to marry again. Would she, though, have been stigmatized, regarded as a dishonored woman?
4. There is no suggestion that a woman could ever divorce a man irrespective of cause. But this is hardly surprising considering the second-class status women had in Hebrew society. (Women didn’t fare much better in other ancient societies until the Romans, who, at least at a later period, granted women greater rights.)
5. Why a man remarrying a former wife constitutes a sin is hard to determine. The second husband does not sin by marrying a defiled woman that once belonged to another man, then why should the first husband remarry a woman that is already defiled? The rationale seems somewhat obscure.
6. Jehovah only seems concerned about what sins are perpetrated in the land he is giving the Israelites. He doesn’t want his land polluted. (It’s always all about him!) It seems he could care less about sins committed in foreign lands, even by Israelites. He is rather like a landlord who polices his property to ensure that behavior of which he disapproves does not occur, but he is unconcerned about what his tenants may do off the premises. The welfare and moral character of his people is only important in so far as it impinges upon Jehovah’s plans and impacts Jehovah’s pride.
Thursday, July 21, 2016
Thursday, June 30, 2016
Further Regulations
(Deuteronomy 23:15 - 23:25)
“If an escaped slave has taken refuge with you, do not return him to his master, but let him live with you without persecution in whatever town he may choose.
“Israelite women or men are forbidden to become temple prostitutes and the fees that such persons may earn may not be used as payment for any vow in the house of Jehovah your god, for both are abominations to him.
“You may not charge interest to fellow Israelites, whether on money, food, or anything that might be loaned on interest. You may charge interest to a foreigner, but not to a fellow Israelite, so that Jehovah your god may bless all your undertakings in the land you are entering to take possession of.
“If you make a vow to Jehovah your god, do not delay in fulfilling it, for he will require it of you and, failing to do so, you will be guilty a sin. However, if you make no vow, no sin is committed. But be careful to do what you say, if you have made a voluntary vow to Jehovah your god.
“When you pass through your neighbor’s vineyard, you may eat your fill of grapes, but you must not take any away in a basket. And when you pass through your neighbor’s field of standing grain, you may pick some kernels with your hand, but you must not reap the crop with a sickle.”
Notes
1. The provision to shelter runaway slaves is an interesting one, hardly conducive to the perpetuation of the institution of slavery, of which Jehovah has never expressed any disapproval. If there is no legal obligation for fugitive slaves to be returned, then the incentive for slaves to escape is great. Therefore, one would think this provision would result in considerable social disruption, however humane it may seem to us. It would be surprising if this passage was not cited when 19th century Americans were dealing with the problem of fugitive slaves.
2. One way in which Jehovah separates himself from his rival gods is his rejection of practices such as prostitution and “sacred” intercourse within the temple. Such practices may have been widespread in the ancient world, in Greece and Rome as well as Babylonia and other Middle Eastern countries, but there is no consensus among historians as to its extent. Prostitution was rarely condemned by ancient cultures or regarded as immoral per se. The biblical references are obviously to the religious practices of the neighboring Canaanites, but there is no real evidence for the existence of temple prostitution in early Palestine. The authors of the Bible had an interest in portraying their enemies in the worst possible light and using their immorality as a justification for Israel’s aggression against them.
3. The Old Testament prohibition on charging interest is curious, since the descendants of the Israelites would become notorious as moneylenders (one of the few professions the medieval Christians, conforming to this regulation, would allow the Jews to engage in). It highlights the hallmark of tribal mentality, two different set of rules, one governing relationships within the tribe and another governing relationships with those outside it. While foreigners dwelling among the Israelites are, in many ways, treated with equality, here we see an example of disparate treatment and of how foreigners might be exploited by Israelites.
4. It is made clear that not to fulfill a vow made to Jehovah is a sin, but that to renege on some promise not made explicit, a mere statement of intention, or some vow made perhaps to someone other than Jehovah, would not qualify as a sin.
5. Taking a few samples from a neighbor’s vineyard or field is held as permissible, not stealing, while collecting grapes in a basket or actually harvesting the grain is not. This is quite in line with tradition and indeed, English common law.
“If an escaped slave has taken refuge with you, do not return him to his master, but let him live with you without persecution in whatever town he may choose.
“Israelite women or men are forbidden to become temple prostitutes and the fees that such persons may earn may not be used as payment for any vow in the house of Jehovah your god, for both are abominations to him.
“You may not charge interest to fellow Israelites, whether on money, food, or anything that might be loaned on interest. You may charge interest to a foreigner, but not to a fellow Israelite, so that Jehovah your god may bless all your undertakings in the land you are entering to take possession of.
“If you make a vow to Jehovah your god, do not delay in fulfilling it, for he will require it of you and, failing to do so, you will be guilty a sin. However, if you make no vow, no sin is committed. But be careful to do what you say, if you have made a voluntary vow to Jehovah your god.
“When you pass through your neighbor’s vineyard, you may eat your fill of grapes, but you must not take any away in a basket. And when you pass through your neighbor’s field of standing grain, you may pick some kernels with your hand, but you must not reap the crop with a sickle.”
Notes
1. The provision to shelter runaway slaves is an interesting one, hardly conducive to the perpetuation of the institution of slavery, of which Jehovah has never expressed any disapproval. If there is no legal obligation for fugitive slaves to be returned, then the incentive for slaves to escape is great. Therefore, one would think this provision would result in considerable social disruption, however humane it may seem to us. It would be surprising if this passage was not cited when 19th century Americans were dealing with the problem of fugitive slaves.
2. One way in which Jehovah separates himself from his rival gods is his rejection of practices such as prostitution and “sacred” intercourse within the temple. Such practices may have been widespread in the ancient world, in Greece and Rome as well as Babylonia and other Middle Eastern countries, but there is no consensus among historians as to its extent. Prostitution was rarely condemned by ancient cultures or regarded as immoral per se. The biblical references are obviously to the religious practices of the neighboring Canaanites, but there is no real evidence for the existence of temple prostitution in early Palestine. The authors of the Bible had an interest in portraying their enemies in the worst possible light and using their immorality as a justification for Israel’s aggression against them.
3. The Old Testament prohibition on charging interest is curious, since the descendants of the Israelites would become notorious as moneylenders (one of the few professions the medieval Christians, conforming to this regulation, would allow the Jews to engage in). It highlights the hallmark of tribal mentality, two different set of rules, one governing relationships within the tribe and another governing relationships with those outside it. While foreigners dwelling among the Israelites are, in many ways, treated with equality, here we see an example of disparate treatment and of how foreigners might be exploited by Israelites.
4. It is made clear that not to fulfill a vow made to Jehovah is a sin, but that to renege on some promise not made explicit, a mere statement of intention, or some vow made perhaps to someone other than Jehovah, would not qualify as a sin.
5. Taking a few samples from a neighbor’s vineyard or field is held as permissible, not stealing, while collecting grapes in a basket or actually harvesting the grain is not. This is quite in line with tradition and indeed, English common law.
Cleanliness in Camp
(Deuteronomy 23:9 - 23:14)
“When you set up camp while waging war against your enemies, avoid anything that is ritually impure. If one of your men is ritually impure because of a nocturnal emission, he must remove himself from camp for the day. He should stay away from camp until evening when he is to bathe himself, returning to camp at sunset.
“Establish a designated area outside of camp to be used as a latrine. Each man should have as part of his equipment a shovel so that when he urinates or defecates he can dig a hole for that purpose, then cover it up with dirt. The camp must be kept holy because Jehovah your god moves about in it as he protects you and defeats your enemies. He does not want to be exposed to anything indecent -- or else he may turn away from you!”
Notes
1. Jehovah continues his micromanagement of Israelite affairs, apparently thinking that his Chosen People are too stupid to figure out it needs to make a place where soldiers can relieve themselves. The reason for it, though, seems less for the sake of the Israelites than for Jehovah, who wants to make sure he will not offended by any unsanitary conditions. The Victorian dictum “cleanliness is next to godliness,” has its corollary here, “cleanliness (in the sense of maintaining ritual purity) is part of godliness.” And there is the threat that if Jehovah does not find everything squared away in camp, he will abandon the Israelites -- a rather petty threat for a presumed god to make.
2. Surely there is a certain impracticality in the rule that a soldier must absent himself from camp for a day if he has a nocturnal emission (colloquially, a wet dream, literally, an involuntary ejaculation occurring during sleep). One can imagine the scenarios. “Where is Captain Nehemiah? Why isn’t he attending our meeting of officers to discuss our strategy to defeat the Canaanites? Oh, he had a wet dream last night and won’t be able to come back to camp till after sunset.” or “Why can’t Benjamin perform guard duty today? He got out of it by saying he’s ritually impure because he supposedly had a nocturnal emission last night.” and “We don’t see much of our sergeant in camp these days. He keeps having wet dreams!” The situation seems patently ludicrous and one unlikely to further troop morale or personal dignity, being, at least to modern sensibilities, an embarrassing intrusion upon one’s privacy.
“When you set up camp while waging war against your enemies, avoid anything that is ritually impure. If one of your men is ritually impure because of a nocturnal emission, he must remove himself from camp for the day. He should stay away from camp until evening when he is to bathe himself, returning to camp at sunset.
“Establish a designated area outside of camp to be used as a latrine. Each man should have as part of his equipment a shovel so that when he urinates or defecates he can dig a hole for that purpose, then cover it up with dirt. The camp must be kept holy because Jehovah your god moves about in it as he protects you and defeats your enemies. He does not want to be exposed to anything indecent -- or else he may turn away from you!”
Notes
1. Jehovah continues his micromanagement of Israelite affairs, apparently thinking that his Chosen People are too stupid to figure out it needs to make a place where soldiers can relieve themselves. The reason for it, though, seems less for the sake of the Israelites than for Jehovah, who wants to make sure he will not offended by any unsanitary conditions. The Victorian dictum “cleanliness is next to godliness,” has its corollary here, “cleanliness (in the sense of maintaining ritual purity) is part of godliness.” And there is the threat that if Jehovah does not find everything squared away in camp, he will abandon the Israelites -- a rather petty threat for a presumed god to make.
2. Surely there is a certain impracticality in the rule that a soldier must absent himself from camp for a day if he has a nocturnal emission (colloquially, a wet dream, literally, an involuntary ejaculation occurring during sleep). One can imagine the scenarios. “Where is Captain Nehemiah? Why isn’t he attending our meeting of officers to discuss our strategy to defeat the Canaanites? Oh, he had a wet dream last night and won’t be able to come back to camp till after sunset.” or “Why can’t Benjamin perform guard duty today? He got out of it by saying he’s ritually impure because he supposedly had a nocturnal emission last night.” and “We don’t see much of our sergeant in camp these days. He keeps having wet dreams!” The situation seems patently ludicrous and one unlikely to further troop morale or personal dignity, being, at least to modern sensibilities, an embarrassing intrusion upon one’s privacy.
Thursday, June 2, 2016
Those Excluded from Jehovah's Congregation
(Deuteronomy 23:1 - 23:8)
“No one whose genitals have been crushed or cut off may join the congregation of Jehovah. No one born illegitimately may ever became a member of Jehovah’s congregation nor may his descendants even for ten generations. No one who is an Ammonite or a Moabite or their descendants even to the tenth generation may join Jehovah’s congregation, for their nations did not welcome you with food and water when you came out of Egypt. Instead they hired Balsam son of Beor from Pethor in Aram to curse you. (Jehovah your god did not heed Balaam, but turned his curse into a blessing, because Jehovah your god loves you.) Throughout your history, you must never promote their prosperity or make a treaty with them. But you should not abhor the Edomite, for he is your relation, or the Egyptian, for you were resident aliens in their land. Children from the third generation of them may become members of Jehovah’s congregation.”
Notes
1. It seems rather cruel and unfair that if a man suffers an accident adversely affecting his private parts then he’s no longer allowed to be a part of Jehovah’s congregation, or, in modern terms, to worship in church. This provision may have been directed toward religious devotees who willfully emasculated themselves, such as the worshipers of the ancient Phrygian god Attis. But this would seem to condemn castration for any reason. (Hebrew society had no place for eunuchs, who, nevertheless, were a part of many Asian cultures.) The early Christian church, though, expressly accepted as members men who had been emasculated. Jesus himself, in Matthew, ambivalently suggests castration to avoid submitting to carnal desires that might lead to sinful sexual behavior. Some Christian zealots have put this into practice. (An interesting example is the American Civil War soldier Boston Corbett, the killer of Lincoln assassin John Wilkes Booth. Perhaps unbalanced by inhaling poisonous fumes while working as a hatter, he became a religious fanatic. One night in 1858, while walking home from church, he was propositioned by a couple prostitutes. Disturbed by the encounter, he sought guidance from the Bible and found a solution by severing his private parts with a pair of scissors.) --- The castration of boys to maintain a high singing voice was practiced in Europe from the 16th Century. It was only condemned by the Catholic Church in the 19th Century; Italy did not make this abominable custom illegal until 1870!
2. The exclusion of those of illegitimate birth from Jehovah’s congregation is consistent with the policy of keeping only those who are “impure” from worshiping Jehovah. Just as animals sacrificed to Jehovah must be without blemish so must the worshipers be without physical imperfections. That no one has no control over the circumstances of his birth or the morals of his parents is not considered. Children paying for the sins the fathers is well established in Jehovan law. Punishment creates a deterrent to bad behavior; however, in this case, it is not the guilty but the innocent upon whom the weight of punishment falls.
3. Moabites and Ammonites are also excluded from worshiping Jehovah because they, or their ancestors did not treat the Israelites with hospitality during the Exodus. Moreover, they hired the prophet Balaam to curse them. The Moabites and Ammonites are apparently to be regarded as permanent enemies. Jehovah eschews the modern notion of “permanent interests, but no permanent enemies.” The United States of America, for instance, has never held historic grudges; it has a habit of establishing friendship with almost every country it has fought a war against, England, Mexico, Spain, Germany, Japan, even Vietnam. Jehovah, though, if anything, is a vindictive god who has no desire to make friends of enemies.
4. Egypt, surprisingly, is given something of a pass. The grandchild of an Egyptian could become a full-fledged Jehovah worshiper. This, because the Israelites lived in their country. Indeed, but they were slaves there -- what favors were owed the Egyptians? The Edomites were also granted some leniency since they were relatives. (The Edomites were descended from Esau, Jacob’s elder twin brother.) It should be pointed out that the Moabites and Ammonites were fellow Hebrews as well, being descended from Lot, Abraham’s nephew.
5. Aram, here Aram Haharaim, “of the two rivers”, is usually placed in an area including northern Mesopotamia and Syria and what is now southeastern Turkey. This area would have been the kingdom of Mitanni during Moses’ time. However, it is more likely that the Aram of the Bible, the home of the Aramaeans, was a much smaller area in southern Syria north of the Golan Heights, not in Mesopotamia, where Arameans may have later settled.
“No one whose genitals have been crushed or cut off may join the congregation of Jehovah. No one born illegitimately may ever became a member of Jehovah’s congregation nor may his descendants even for ten generations. No one who is an Ammonite or a Moabite or their descendants even to the tenth generation may join Jehovah’s congregation, for their nations did not welcome you with food and water when you came out of Egypt. Instead they hired Balsam son of Beor from Pethor in Aram to curse you. (Jehovah your god did not heed Balaam, but turned his curse into a blessing, because Jehovah your god loves you.) Throughout your history, you must never promote their prosperity or make a treaty with them. But you should not abhor the Edomite, for he is your relation, or the Egyptian, for you were resident aliens in their land. Children from the third generation of them may become members of Jehovah’s congregation.”
Notes
1. It seems rather cruel and unfair that if a man suffers an accident adversely affecting his private parts then he’s no longer allowed to be a part of Jehovah’s congregation, or, in modern terms, to worship in church. This provision may have been directed toward religious devotees who willfully emasculated themselves, such as the worshipers of the ancient Phrygian god Attis. But this would seem to condemn castration for any reason. (Hebrew society had no place for eunuchs, who, nevertheless, were a part of many Asian cultures.) The early Christian church, though, expressly accepted as members men who had been emasculated. Jesus himself, in Matthew, ambivalently suggests castration to avoid submitting to carnal desires that might lead to sinful sexual behavior. Some Christian zealots have put this into practice. (An interesting example is the American Civil War soldier Boston Corbett, the killer of Lincoln assassin John Wilkes Booth. Perhaps unbalanced by inhaling poisonous fumes while working as a hatter, he became a religious fanatic. One night in 1858, while walking home from church, he was propositioned by a couple prostitutes. Disturbed by the encounter, he sought guidance from the Bible and found a solution by severing his private parts with a pair of scissors.) --- The castration of boys to maintain a high singing voice was practiced in Europe from the 16th Century. It was only condemned by the Catholic Church in the 19th Century; Italy did not make this abominable custom illegal until 1870!
2. The exclusion of those of illegitimate birth from Jehovah’s congregation is consistent with the policy of keeping only those who are “impure” from worshiping Jehovah. Just as animals sacrificed to Jehovah must be without blemish so must the worshipers be without physical imperfections. That no one has no control over the circumstances of his birth or the morals of his parents is not considered. Children paying for the sins the fathers is well established in Jehovan law. Punishment creates a deterrent to bad behavior; however, in this case, it is not the guilty but the innocent upon whom the weight of punishment falls.
3. Moabites and Ammonites are also excluded from worshiping Jehovah because they, or their ancestors did not treat the Israelites with hospitality during the Exodus. Moreover, they hired the prophet Balaam to curse them. The Moabites and Ammonites are apparently to be regarded as permanent enemies. Jehovah eschews the modern notion of “permanent interests, but no permanent enemies.” The United States of America, for instance, has never held historic grudges; it has a habit of establishing friendship with almost every country it has fought a war against, England, Mexico, Spain, Germany, Japan, even Vietnam. Jehovah, though, if anything, is a vindictive god who has no desire to make friends of enemies.
4. Egypt, surprisingly, is given something of a pass. The grandchild of an Egyptian could become a full-fledged Jehovah worshiper. This, because the Israelites lived in their country. Indeed, but they were slaves there -- what favors were owed the Egyptians? The Edomites were also granted some leniency since they were relatives. (The Edomites were descended from Esau, Jacob’s elder twin brother.) It should be pointed out that the Moabites and Ammonites were fellow Hebrews as well, being descended from Lot, Abraham’s nephew.
5. Aram, here Aram Haharaim, “of the two rivers”, is usually placed in an area including northern Mesopotamia and Syria and what is now southeastern Turkey. This area would have been the kingdom of Mitanni during Moses’ time. However, it is more likely that the Aram of the Bible, the home of the Aramaeans, was a much smaller area in southern Syria north of the Golan Heights, not in Mesopotamia, where Arameans may have later settled.
Sunday, May 22, 2016
Sexual Regulations
(Deuteronomy 22:13 - 22:30)
“Consider the case of a man who takes a wife and has intercourse with her, then spurns and publicly defames her, claiming, ‘When I married this woman, I found she wasn’t a virgin.’ The parents of the wife should then bring proof of her virginity to the elders when they hold court at the city gate. The woman’s father should address the elders and say, ‘I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he spurns her. Now he defames her by falsely claiming he did not find my daughter to be a virgin. But I present evidence of my daughter’s virginity.’ The parents should then produce the sheets from the bridal bed and spread them before the elders. Because he has publicly defamed an Israelite virgin, the elders of the town should arrest the husband, flog him, and fine him 100 shekels of silver, which should be given to the wife’s father. The woman will remain the man’s wife and he may never divorce her as long as he lives. But if the husband’s accusation is true and there is no evidence that the wife was a virgin at the time of the marriage, then the woman should be brought to the door of her father’s house and there stoned to death by the men of the town -- for she has committed an egregious sin by acting promiscuously while still living in the house of her father. In this way you must purge such evil from Israel!
“If a man is caught in the act of committing adultery, then both he and the woman involved are to be put to death, in this way purging Israel of such evil.
“Consider the case of a man who meets a virgin who is betrothed and has sexual relations with her. If this happens in a city, they should both be taken to the city gate and stoned to death, she, because she did not cry out even though it was in the city, and he, because he violated his neighbor’s wife. And so you will purge such evil from among you. But if it is in the country that a man meets a virgin who is betrothed and rapes her, then only the man who has done this must be put to death. Do nothing to the young woman, though, for she has committed no crime worthy of death. This is like the case of a man being attacked and murdered away from town, because the woman was attacked in open country, even if she had cried out, there would have been no one to hear and rescue her.
“If a man encounters a woman who is not betrothed, rapes her, and they are found out, then he must pay the father of the girl 50 shekels of silver. He must also marry the girl, because he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
“A man must not have sexual relations with his father’s wife, for this would dishonor his father’s manhood.”
Notes
1. It has only been in recent times that the virginity of the bride has not been of crucial importance. Since wives were not unlike a commodity that is bought or sold, the husband is being cheated if he receives used or damaged goods. And there is the certainty the husband must have that his children are, in fact, his, and not those of another man. The accusation that a bride has been unchaste is so damning that one who makes it falsely must suffer legal punishment, while the non-virgin bride is to suffer death, if the accusation is true. There is a general death penalty for adulterers, male and female -- death as well for the man who has sexual relations with a betrothed woman and for the betrothed woman if it is determined that she could have successfully cried out for help. (The woman, whether actually raped or not, is given a pass if she is ravished in the countryside where no one would hear her cries for help -- an interesting, but not unreasonable loophole.) These draconian punishments would, one might think, reduce the incidence of adultery and premarital sex in Hebrew society to next to nothing, but subsequent history will reveal that this, sadly, would not be the case.
2. The father of the bride accused of being non-virginal is apparently expected to prove his daughter’s virginity with physical evidence, no less than the sullied sheets of the bridal bed (or possibly the bride’s clothes). Apparently the father-in-law is supposed to call at his son-in-law’s house the morning after the wedding and collect the properly stained bed clothes, in order to preserve them in case of challenges to his daughter’s prenuptial virginity. Really? Was this a custom fastidiously pursued? It seems preposterous, if not disgusting.
3. That the non-virginal bride is stoned at the door of her father’s house suggests that a measure of guilt must be shared by the father, who failed to control his daughter. One can imagine the sadness of the parents not only loosing a daughter in so dishonorable a way, but washing her blood from the door of their house. One would think that such “honor” killings would be unknown in the modern world, but in some conservative societies, mostly Islamic, they still occur and if not legally sanctioned, they are often tolerated.
4. A shekel is worth about half an ounce. Therefore, 50 shekels of silver would be equal to 100 ounces, or about $1700 in today’s money. 100 shekels of silver would be worth about $3400. Although these fines seem minimal today, they were probably significant to the average Israelite. As is the case with all legal fines, the punishment weighs heavily on the poor, lightly upon the rich.
5. The punishment for a rapist is merely a fine and an obligation to marry his victim, desirable or undesirable as that may be for him. This does not seem like a good deal for the girl who must not only suffer being raped, but has to spend the rest of her life married to the man who raped her. Of course this outcome is not surprising in a society that is totally male-centric, with women generally regarded as property.
“Consider the case of a man who takes a wife and has intercourse with her, then spurns and publicly defames her, claiming, ‘When I married this woman, I found she wasn’t a virgin.’ The parents of the wife should then bring proof of her virginity to the elders when they hold court at the city gate. The woman’s father should address the elders and say, ‘I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he spurns her. Now he defames her by falsely claiming he did not find my daughter to be a virgin. But I present evidence of my daughter’s virginity.’ The parents should then produce the sheets from the bridal bed and spread them before the elders. Because he has publicly defamed an Israelite virgin, the elders of the town should arrest the husband, flog him, and fine him 100 shekels of silver, which should be given to the wife’s father. The woman will remain the man’s wife and he may never divorce her as long as he lives. But if the husband’s accusation is true and there is no evidence that the wife was a virgin at the time of the marriage, then the woman should be brought to the door of her father’s house and there stoned to death by the men of the town -- for she has committed an egregious sin by acting promiscuously while still living in the house of her father. In this way you must purge such evil from Israel!
“If a man is caught in the act of committing adultery, then both he and the woman involved are to be put to death, in this way purging Israel of such evil.
“Consider the case of a man who meets a virgin who is betrothed and has sexual relations with her. If this happens in a city, they should both be taken to the city gate and stoned to death, she, because she did not cry out even though it was in the city, and he, because he violated his neighbor’s wife. And so you will purge such evil from among you. But if it is in the country that a man meets a virgin who is betrothed and rapes her, then only the man who has done this must be put to death. Do nothing to the young woman, though, for she has committed no crime worthy of death. This is like the case of a man being attacked and murdered away from town, because the woman was attacked in open country, even if she had cried out, there would have been no one to hear and rescue her.
“If a man encounters a woman who is not betrothed, rapes her, and they are found out, then he must pay the father of the girl 50 shekels of silver. He must also marry the girl, because he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
“A man must not have sexual relations with his father’s wife, for this would dishonor his father’s manhood.”
Notes
1. It has only been in recent times that the virginity of the bride has not been of crucial importance. Since wives were not unlike a commodity that is bought or sold, the husband is being cheated if he receives used or damaged goods. And there is the certainty the husband must have that his children are, in fact, his, and not those of another man. The accusation that a bride has been unchaste is so damning that one who makes it falsely must suffer legal punishment, while the non-virgin bride is to suffer death, if the accusation is true. There is a general death penalty for adulterers, male and female -- death as well for the man who has sexual relations with a betrothed woman and for the betrothed woman if it is determined that she could have successfully cried out for help. (The woman, whether actually raped or not, is given a pass if she is ravished in the countryside where no one would hear her cries for help -- an interesting, but not unreasonable loophole.) These draconian punishments would, one might think, reduce the incidence of adultery and premarital sex in Hebrew society to next to nothing, but subsequent history will reveal that this, sadly, would not be the case.
2. The father of the bride accused of being non-virginal is apparently expected to prove his daughter’s virginity with physical evidence, no less than the sullied sheets of the bridal bed (or possibly the bride’s clothes). Apparently the father-in-law is supposed to call at his son-in-law’s house the morning after the wedding and collect the properly stained bed clothes, in order to preserve them in case of challenges to his daughter’s prenuptial virginity. Really? Was this a custom fastidiously pursued? It seems preposterous, if not disgusting.
3. That the non-virginal bride is stoned at the door of her father’s house suggests that a measure of guilt must be shared by the father, who failed to control his daughter. One can imagine the sadness of the parents not only loosing a daughter in so dishonorable a way, but washing her blood from the door of their house. One would think that such “honor” killings would be unknown in the modern world, but in some conservative societies, mostly Islamic, they still occur and if not legally sanctioned, they are often tolerated.
4. A shekel is worth about half an ounce. Therefore, 50 shekels of silver would be equal to 100 ounces, or about $1700 in today’s money. 100 shekels of silver would be worth about $3400. Although these fines seem minimal today, they were probably significant to the average Israelite. As is the case with all legal fines, the punishment weighs heavily on the poor, lightly upon the rich.
5. The punishment for a rapist is merely a fine and an obligation to marry his victim, desirable or undesirable as that may be for him. This does not seem like a good deal for the girl who must not only suffer being raped, but has to spend the rest of her life married to the man who raped her. Of course this outcome is not surprising in a society that is totally male-centric, with women generally regarded as property.
Various Regulations
(Deuteronomy 21:22 - 22:12)
“If a man has committed a capital offense, is executed, and his body exposed on a stake, his body should not remain there over night. He should be buried that day, for a hanged man is under a divine curse and you should not thus desecrate the land Jehovah your god has given you as an inheritance.
“If you see your neighbor’s cattle or sheep wandering away, do not evade your responsibility. Return it to its owner. If the owner does not live nearby or if you don’t know who the owner is, you should bring it to your home and keep it there until the owner comes looking for it. You will then return it to him. This applies as well to your neighbor’s donkey, an article of clothing, or anything else your neighbor has lost. Don’t evade your responsibility! And if you see that your neighbor’s donkey or ox has collapsed on the road, don’t look the other way. Help your neighbor to get it back on its feet.
“A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor should a man wear women’s clothing. Anyone who does so is an abomination to Jehovah your god.
“If you happen to find a bird’s nest in a tree or on the ground and there are eggs or chicks and the mother is sitting on the nest, do not take the mother along with the chicks. You may take the chicks, but be sure to let the mother go, so that you may prosper and live long.
“When you build a new house, you should make a barrier around the perimeter of the roof so that you will not incur blood guilt if someone should fall from it to their death.
“You must not plant in your vineyard a second crop. If you do so, both the grapes from the vineyard and the other crop will be considered impure. You must not yoke to your plow an ox and a donkey together. Nor should you wear clothing made of wool and linen woven together.
“You should attach tassels to the four corners of the hem of the cloak you wear.”
Notes
1. The provision concerning the exposure of the executed man is ambiguous and has been translated variously. The Israelites probably did not use hanging as a form of execution. Those already executed, by stoning or otherwise, may have been displayed by being hung from a tree or gibbet, but, more likely, impaled on a stake. (Impaling itself was a not uncommon form of execution in ancient and medieval times, but it was probably not practiced by the Israelites.) Until very recent times executed criminals were publicly exposed as a warning to potential lawbreakers and a deterrent to crime. Hanged men might dangle on the gibbet or hanging tree until their corpses rotted. Jehovah, though, apparently did not think much of the practice, more concerned about defiling the land with the presence and perhaps stench of those executed.
2. Jehovah encourages a good neighbor policy with his exhortations for his people to take care of lost livestock and property, in contrast to a “finders keepers, losers weepers” policy. This seems consistent with the Christian concept of the “Good Samaritan.” Helping a neighbor whose ox or donkey has collapsed on the road suggests a modern parallel, “If a neighbor’s car is stalled on the road, do not drive on, but stop and lend him assistance.”
3. Having a railing, a wall, a fence, a parapet, whatever, atop the flat roofs of their homes seems a sensible idea if it was a practice, and apparently it was, for Israelites to stroll on their roofs. This suggests that the common house would be a more than one story, since someone is unlikely to kill themselves falling off the roof of a single story dwelling. This section also affirms that causing death through negligence is tantamount to murder under Jehovan law.
4. The prohibition against wearing clothes of the other sex is not surprising. The practice has pretty much always been frowned upon, if not condemned. Although in contemporary society no one would look too askance at a woman wearing clothes that are pretty much what a man would wear, male transvestites are still not viewed with acceptance in most quarters. In regard to ancient society, one might ask, however, looking at the clothing the ancient Hebrew men and women wore, how could one tell the difference.
5. Taking a bird’s eggs or chicks is acceptable, but one must not take the mother bird as well, presumably for conservation reasons. This makes sense. The mother can have more chicks; if the mothers are taken as well it might wipe out the species.
6. This phobia of Jehovah’s for mixing things of different types, plant species, yarns, animals, seems an extension of his xenophobia and his desire for his Chosen People to remain uncontaminated by external influences. One wouldn’t think that the fiber composition of an article of clothing or the manner in which a plow is yoked would be subject to divine law, but we have seen that there no limit to Jehovah’s pettiness or to his obsessive efforts to micromanage Hebrew society. It should be mentioned, though, there is more to the proscriptions that it might seem. The ox-donkey combination is significant because Jehovah has already decreed that cattle are ritually pure and donkeys are ritually impure. The linen-wool combination (linsey-woolsey, or shatnez) also has import. Priests wore linen undergarments and wool overgarments: for lay persons to do the same would be to presume their sacred prerogative. (The tassels, or tzitzit, which are prepared in a special way described in Numbers, were exempt from the shatnez prohibition.) The linen-wool mixture may also be symbolic. Linen represents Egypt, an agrarian society, wool, Israel, a society of herders; the customs of the two societies must not be mixed.
“If a man has committed a capital offense, is executed, and his body exposed on a stake, his body should not remain there over night. He should be buried that day, for a hanged man is under a divine curse and you should not thus desecrate the land Jehovah your god has given you as an inheritance.
“If you see your neighbor’s cattle or sheep wandering away, do not evade your responsibility. Return it to its owner. If the owner does not live nearby or if you don’t know who the owner is, you should bring it to your home and keep it there until the owner comes looking for it. You will then return it to him. This applies as well to your neighbor’s donkey, an article of clothing, or anything else your neighbor has lost. Don’t evade your responsibility! And if you see that your neighbor’s donkey or ox has collapsed on the road, don’t look the other way. Help your neighbor to get it back on its feet.
“A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor should a man wear women’s clothing. Anyone who does so is an abomination to Jehovah your god.
“If you happen to find a bird’s nest in a tree or on the ground and there are eggs or chicks and the mother is sitting on the nest, do not take the mother along with the chicks. You may take the chicks, but be sure to let the mother go, so that you may prosper and live long.
“When you build a new house, you should make a barrier around the perimeter of the roof so that you will not incur blood guilt if someone should fall from it to their death.
“You must not plant in your vineyard a second crop. If you do so, both the grapes from the vineyard and the other crop will be considered impure. You must not yoke to your plow an ox and a donkey together. Nor should you wear clothing made of wool and linen woven together.
“You should attach tassels to the four corners of the hem of the cloak you wear.”
Notes
1. The provision concerning the exposure of the executed man is ambiguous and has been translated variously. The Israelites probably did not use hanging as a form of execution. Those already executed, by stoning or otherwise, may have been displayed by being hung from a tree or gibbet, but, more likely, impaled on a stake. (Impaling itself was a not uncommon form of execution in ancient and medieval times, but it was probably not practiced by the Israelites.) Until very recent times executed criminals were publicly exposed as a warning to potential lawbreakers and a deterrent to crime. Hanged men might dangle on the gibbet or hanging tree until their corpses rotted. Jehovah, though, apparently did not think much of the practice, more concerned about defiling the land with the presence and perhaps stench of those executed.
2. Jehovah encourages a good neighbor policy with his exhortations for his people to take care of lost livestock and property, in contrast to a “finders keepers, losers weepers” policy. This seems consistent with the Christian concept of the “Good Samaritan.” Helping a neighbor whose ox or donkey has collapsed on the road suggests a modern parallel, “If a neighbor’s car is stalled on the road, do not drive on, but stop and lend him assistance.”
3. Having a railing, a wall, a fence, a parapet, whatever, atop the flat roofs of their homes seems a sensible idea if it was a practice, and apparently it was, for Israelites to stroll on their roofs. This suggests that the common house would be a more than one story, since someone is unlikely to kill themselves falling off the roof of a single story dwelling. This section also affirms that causing death through negligence is tantamount to murder under Jehovan law.
4. The prohibition against wearing clothes of the other sex is not surprising. The practice has pretty much always been frowned upon, if not condemned. Although in contemporary society no one would look too askance at a woman wearing clothes that are pretty much what a man would wear, male transvestites are still not viewed with acceptance in most quarters. In regard to ancient society, one might ask, however, looking at the clothing the ancient Hebrew men and women wore, how could one tell the difference.
5. Taking a bird’s eggs or chicks is acceptable, but one must not take the mother bird as well, presumably for conservation reasons. This makes sense. The mother can have more chicks; if the mothers are taken as well it might wipe out the species.
6. This phobia of Jehovah’s for mixing things of different types, plant species, yarns, animals, seems an extension of his xenophobia and his desire for his Chosen People to remain uncontaminated by external influences. One wouldn’t think that the fiber composition of an article of clothing or the manner in which a plow is yoked would be subject to divine law, but we have seen that there no limit to Jehovah’s pettiness or to his obsessive efforts to micromanage Hebrew society. It should be mentioned, though, there is more to the proscriptions that it might seem. The ox-donkey combination is significant because Jehovah has already decreed that cattle are ritually pure and donkeys are ritually impure. The linen-wool combination (linsey-woolsey, or shatnez) also has import. Priests wore linen undergarments and wool overgarments: for lay persons to do the same would be to presume their sacred prerogative. (The tassels, or tzitzit, which are prepared in a special way described in Numbers, were exempt from the shatnez prohibition.) The linen-wool mixture may also be symbolic. Linen represents Egypt, an agrarian society, wool, Israel, a society of herders; the customs of the two societies must not be mixed.
Friday, April 22, 2016
Treatment of Sons
(Deuteronomy 21:15 - 21:21)
“Take this case: A man has two wives. He loves one wife, but not the other. He has sons by both wives, the elder son by the unloved wife. When the time comes for him to distribute his inheritance, he may not give the younger son, the son of the wife he loves, more than the son of the unloved wife, who is the elder. He must recognize the son of the unloved wife as his first born and give to him as his inheritance a double share of his possessions, for that son is first fruit of his father’s virility and the rights of the firstborn belong to him.
“A man has a headstrong and rebellious son who will not obey his parents even though they discipline him. In such a case, the father and mother should then take hold of the son and bring him to see the elders at the town gate. They will say to them, ‘Our son is headstrong and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” Then all the men of the town should stone the son to death. In this way they will purge such evil from the community. All Israel will hear of it and be fearful.”
Notes
1. The Jehovan laws for inheritance cannot be altered to conform to a man’s preference for one wife over another. The eldest son receives a double portion of his father’s possessions and property regardless of the father’s feelings toward the eldest son’s mother. Although this may be a serious abrogation of paternal power, there is a certain fairness here: the eldest son cannot be disinherited simply because his mother has a falling out with his father or the father becomes attached to some younger wife who has given him a son. This system engenders less familial conflict and is probably better for the stability of society. However, this is an interesting pronouncement considering the fact that Jehovah’s most devoted follower, Jacob (Israel), more or less disinherited his eldest son, favoring his younger children. (Joseph’s descendants ended up with the greatest legacy.) The eldest son of Abraham, Ishmael, was disinherited in favor of Isaac, because Abraham preferred his mother Sarah to Ishmael’s mother Hagar. And Isaac was tricked into giving the blessing of the firstborn to Jacob, instead of to his eldest son Esau. Moses’ eldest son Gershom had his place taken as his father’s inheritor by Joshua. This passage clearly illustrates the common disconnect between the laws that Jehovah sets down for his people and the actions of the leaders of his Chosen People.
2. Rebellious sons pay a high price in Israelite society, the death penalty. The most serious transgression, that is, those mentioned, are gluttony and drunkenness; for these faults a son may be executed. There is no mention of a son who is a liar, a thief, a wastrel, or of being lazy and good for nothing, but one could presume that if the parents got fed up with him they could take him to see the town elders and persuade them to have the menfolk of the town stone the son to death -- a facile solution to problems of parenting. No word yet on the fate of rebellious daughters.
“Take this case: A man has two wives. He loves one wife, but not the other. He has sons by both wives, the elder son by the unloved wife. When the time comes for him to distribute his inheritance, he may not give the younger son, the son of the wife he loves, more than the son of the unloved wife, who is the elder. He must recognize the son of the unloved wife as his first born and give to him as his inheritance a double share of his possessions, for that son is first fruit of his father’s virility and the rights of the firstborn belong to him.
“A man has a headstrong and rebellious son who will not obey his parents even though they discipline him. In such a case, the father and mother should then take hold of the son and bring him to see the elders at the town gate. They will say to them, ‘Our son is headstrong and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” Then all the men of the town should stone the son to death. In this way they will purge such evil from the community. All Israel will hear of it and be fearful.”
Notes
1. The Jehovan laws for inheritance cannot be altered to conform to a man’s preference for one wife over another. The eldest son receives a double portion of his father’s possessions and property regardless of the father’s feelings toward the eldest son’s mother. Although this may be a serious abrogation of paternal power, there is a certain fairness here: the eldest son cannot be disinherited simply because his mother has a falling out with his father or the father becomes attached to some younger wife who has given him a son. This system engenders less familial conflict and is probably better for the stability of society. However, this is an interesting pronouncement considering the fact that Jehovah’s most devoted follower, Jacob (Israel), more or less disinherited his eldest son, favoring his younger children. (Joseph’s descendants ended up with the greatest legacy.) The eldest son of Abraham, Ishmael, was disinherited in favor of Isaac, because Abraham preferred his mother Sarah to Ishmael’s mother Hagar. And Isaac was tricked into giving the blessing of the firstborn to Jacob, instead of to his eldest son Esau. Moses’ eldest son Gershom had his place taken as his father’s inheritor by Joshua. This passage clearly illustrates the common disconnect between the laws that Jehovah sets down for his people and the actions of the leaders of his Chosen People.
2. Rebellious sons pay a high price in Israelite society, the death penalty. The most serious transgression, that is, those mentioned, are gluttony and drunkenness; for these faults a son may be executed. There is no mention of a son who is a liar, a thief, a wastrel, or of being lazy and good for nothing, but one could presume that if the parents got fed up with him they could take him to see the town elders and persuade them to have the menfolk of the town stone the son to death -- a facile solution to problems of parenting. No word yet on the fate of rebellious daughters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)