Thursday, February 01, 2007

Halacha of Adultery: Proof that Yahweh was Immoral Had He Existed (which of course he did not)



A married man can have sex with a woman (so long as she's not married/property of another man and so long as he doesn't rape her) but he cannot eat chicken with milk or turn on a light switch on Shabbos? Or wear shatnez?

Now, if this isn't a litmus test for how morality has shifted (Shifting Moral Zeitgeist) for the better since the writing of the Torah, what is? (feel free to submit as many absurdities as you like).

Meanwhile, a woman who is married is prohibited from adultery and is killed for it. Whereas, if a man rapes an unmarried girl, his penalty is to marry her! Moreover, the torah spells out the elaborate (and Wizard of Oz-like) Sotah ritual in great dirt-eating detail, while no such test of a man's character exists.
To add insult to injury, chazzal decided to use the Sotah ritual to further knock women down. It is the sole "source" for a woman's "obligation" to cover her hair (usually with a sheitel/wig which looks like a dead cat). This absurdity is one that orthodox women live with to this day, public submission that ensures that at least a part of the Sotah humiliation will live on.
The above fact are well-known aspects of halacha, however unspoken. They are PROOF- yes
P-R-O-O-F to those that believe in Yahweh, that was totally immoral by today's standards.

34 Comments:

Blogger Baal Habos said...

BTA, the problem is there can be no proof. The believers claim that by definition the Torah's morality is correct. It is our thinking that has been corrupted by western immoral thinking.

2/02/2007 9:44 AM  
Blogger seaslipper said...

I don't think that's true that a man is halachically allowed to "have sex with a woman (so long as she's not married/property of another man and so long as he doesn't rape her)" Even if you go by the rule of a pelegish, which nobody does today, it has to be a steady and permanent relationship.

2/02/2007 11:17 AM  
Blogger BTA said...

"it has to be a steady and permanent relationship."

That isn't the point- the torah (supposedly god) put no such rules in there. The old "oral law explains is" canard doesn't hold any water since there are so many details about adulterous women.

Therefore any halachos (and there really aren't any) that would make this injustice more palatable were simply the result of medieval commentators trying to bring judaism in line with contemporary standards.

2/02/2007 11:40 AM  
Blogger BTA said...

"BTA, the problem is there can be no proof. The believers claim that by definition the Torah's morality is correct."

BHB, not exactly, that's why I chose this post. They can say anything, and often do, but this post isn't for them, it's for naive potential BT's to see the light and save some time.

Actions speak louder than words- this kind of behavior if engaged in publicly by a gadol would be frowned upon as utterly immoral. There's no disputing that. And if that's the case, it means morality has moved on since the Bronze Age, in a way that even sheltered, backwards gedolim have internalized.

2/02/2007 11:51 AM  
Blogger KiddushClubGuy said...

Halachos were created by men for men. (I don't) believe there is anything divine (about them). We all have our comfort level. I have found mine. I see you are still struggling. Chill out bro....

2/02/2007 12:21 PM  
Blogger Rabbi Seinfeld said...

BTA, your conclusion that

Therefore any halachos (and there really aren't any) that would make this injustice more palatable were simply the result of medieval commentators trying to bring judaism in line with contemporary standards.

Depends on your assertion that

The old "oral law explains is" canard doesn't hold any water since there are so many details about adulterous women.

However, this assertion doesn't make sense. How does the fact that there are more details about adulterous women in itself invalidate the Oral Tradition? This is the same main point I challenged you on in the Jan 23 edition of this blog which you have yet to reply to. In case anyone else is reading this and would like a summary, over there I stated that:

The real question - and IMHO the most pertinent question of our times - is our evaluation of the veracity of the oral tradition. I think that the jury is still out on this one. New archaeological research is bringing more and more evidence to support the Masorah in other areas. For instance, since the Dead Sea Scrolls were finally published in 1996, we have been able to push back the Masoretic text 1,000 years earlier than any scholar had previously allowed. Another example: Kenneth Kitchen's 2001 book, On the Reliability of Genesis - a book not without controversy, but once you read it, impossible to brush aside quickly. He is one of the few scholars who has world-class credentials in both Biblical and Egyptian archeology, and he utilizes that breadth in this book to synthesize an enormous amount of complex data that few others, if any, could muster. Moreover, there is emerging research on the reliability of oral traditions in general that is more and more supportive of reliability.

2/04/2007 1:20 AM  
Blogger satyaman said...

>>>>evaluation of the veracity of the oral tradition>>>>

For the Oral traditions veracity regarding the historicity of Persia,

please see http://groups.msn.com/JudaismFAQs/history.msnw. this is one of many historical errors of the tradition.

2/04/2007 6:33 PM  
Blogger satyaman said...

>>>>evaluation of the veracity of the oral tradition>>>>
see also http://talkreason.com/articles/fixing1.cfm

2/04/2007 6:34 PM  
Blogger satyaman said...

>>>the most pertinent question of our times - is our evaluation of the veracity of the oral tradition.>>

Rabbi Seinfeld,

Although I am aware that it would be time consuming I would appreciate if you would read the article http://talkreason.com/articles/letter1.cfm
and pay particular attention to Part 7
7. Tradition -- is it reliable?
o Personal integrity -- not the best criterion
o Tradition as the basis of our faith
o The Gemara on the reliability of tradition
o Judaic tradition unaware of its own history
o Judaism has no mass tradition
o Different Jewish traditions of the exodus from Egypt
o No definite tradition of the Torah text
o Tradition unreliable -- an example


I hope that you, as a truth seeker, will consider the contents of this article carefully and write the author himself if you believe you can answer his questions related to the reliability of the Jewish Tradition. I am asking you to review this article, and if time permits the other articles that I cite below, because you appear to be very self confident that he evidence supports the Torah’s authenticity. Other articles on talk reason that you may be interested in are

http://talkreason.com/articles/kuzariflaws.cfm
http://talkreason.com/articles/kuzari.cfm
http://talkreason.com/articles/gottlieb.cfm
http://talkreason.com/articles/Rubin_Gottl.cfm
http://talkreason.com/articles/list.cfm

On Jewish Morality
http://talkreason.com/articles/gentiles.cfm
http://talkreason.com/articles/students.cfm

2/04/2007 7:11 PM  
Blogger satyaman said...

Rabbi Seinfeld,
>>> On the Reliability of Genesis ->>>>
If Genesis is so reliable, why was there overwhelming evidence that a key part of the narrative, the flood, never happened. If you care to respond, please first read
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html You can ignore part 1 to 4 and focus on part 5 to 11
5. The Flood Itself
6. Implications of a Flood
7. Producing the Geological Record
8. Species Survival and Post-Flood Ecology
9. Species Distribution and Diversity
10. Historical Aspects
11. Logical, Philosophical, and Theological Points

Also important is http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v16/mj_v16i36.html#CIO
Where Prof Marc Shapiro discusses the flood.

2/04/2007 7:17 PM  
Blogger nschuster said...

Just a few points.

#1. The Torah does not discuss a chicken in milk, only a kid in milk. The Rabbis discuss a chicklen in milk.

#2. Do i understand you to be saying according to modern standereds of morality, consensual relations between adults is immoral? According to modern standards anything to consenting addult want to do is perfectly natural, normal, ethical, healthy, ect. There isn't even any stigman attached to single motherhood. So your understanding of the Torah (at least in the case of heterosexual relationships) would appear to conform to modern morality exactly.

2/05/2007 9:47 AM  
Blogger nschuster said...

Hi, got a few minutes left on my lunch period so I'll post.

#1 A quick google search on "flood legends" gives a list of a whole bunch of websites that record flood legends from all over the world. The Aleuts, Choctaw, Maya, Inca, Chinese, Polynesian, all have legends of world destroying flood that contain many of the elements found in Bereishis. Of course, historians explain them away, but the fact that there is something to explain away, to my mind is significant.

#2 As far as the lack of physical evidence for a flood, I know that you aren't going to like what I say, but I'm allowed to come on to miracles. Rashi says that the sun and stars didn't shine or move during the duration of the flood. This means that the laws of nature where suspended. Thsi had to have happende on Earth as well. Rshi says that the fish weren't effected. This means that there was divine intervention, or else all that fresh water entering a salt water ecosystem would have caused massive disruption. It is clear form the Possuk, that Hashem wanted normal life to resume as quickly as possible, so the damage done by the mabul would ahve to be kept to a minimum. As for as there being no physical evidence, geoolgist repost that there is evidence of a massive flood in several western states. They explain this as being the result of a pleistocene glacial dam that burst and release water that had gathered in a galcial lake. The Nov. 14 New York Times reports that there are ocean bottom deposits found far inland all over the world. They geologist say that this is the result of a series of Tsunamis during the last 10,000 years or so. Or maybe, just maybe, it is physical remains of the Mabul.

#3. I think I look pretty good in a Sheitel.

2/05/2007 10:02 AM  
Blogger Anonymous said...

"There shall not be a k’daisha among the daughters of Israel" [Deut. 23:18]. The word k'daisha has different interpretations. According to normative halachah, though (Rambam, Ishus 1:4, Naarah Besulah 2:17, Issurei Biah 18:2; Even HaEzer 26:1, Rama) it refers to the prohibition forbidding all forms of premarital intercourse. I.e. a k'daisha is an unmarried woman. Thus, the Torah itself forbids it.

It is also forbidden by Torah law for a man to have relations with a menstruant [Vayikra 18:19, 20:18).

2/07/2007 5:30 PM  
Blogger BTA said...

"The word k'daisha has different interpretations."

Look, we know that the original torah law was changed by rabbis hundreds of years later, that isn't the point. They also outlawed polygamy, although god (immorally) allowed it.

Also, the word "k'daisha" is more likely means a non-vigin unmarried girl. It still doesn't imply that unmarried males weren't allowed to screw around and we know that married men could sleep "concubines." Also, even taking your example literally, we can see that it only applies to jewish women. Thus, jewish men could have sex with gentiles under this halacha, even while married to jewish wives. Which explains why the chareidim in Israel feel pretty comfortable using the services of the russian prostitutes in Tel Aviv.

2/07/2007 9:20 PM  
Blogger Anonymous said...

Look, we know that the original torah law was changed by rabbis hundreds of years later, that isn't the point.

How do "we" know that?

They also outlawed polygamy, although god (immorally) allowed it.

Two different things: prevention of polygamy openly stated as a takannah vs. a scriptural law the authorities understand to be rooted in Sinai.

Also, the word "k'daisha" is more likely means a non-vigin unmarried girl.

Source or reason, please?

It still doesn't imply that unmarried males weren't allowed to screw around

That's prohibited by the second half of the same verse: "Similarly, there must be no k'dais [male unmarrieds having sex] among Israelite men."

Thus, jewish men could have sex with gentiles under this halacha,

This is forbidden by: [Devarim 7:3], "You shall not give your daughter to his son, nor shall you take his daughter for your son." [Hilchos Issurei Biah 12:1; SMaG 112; SMaK 290; Even HaEzer 16:1].

2/08/2007 2:55 PM  
Blogger BTA said...

Anon, good, thoughtful responses, thanks.

My replies:

I said:"Look, we know that the original torah law was changed by rabbis hundreds of years later, that isn't the point."

You said: How do "we" know that?

Because, as I pointed out in the post itself, the Torah allows this and all you could come back with were much later halachic sources.

You said:
"That's prohibited by the second half of the same verse: "Similarly, there must be no k'dais [male unmarrieds having sex] among Israelite men."

Yes, but according to Kiddushin, you could marry by sexual intercourse (vaginal or anal), which I'm sure you were aware of, so where does that leave the underlying logic of your point?

I said: "Thus, jewish men could have sex with gentiles under this halacha,"

You replied:
"This is forbidden by: [Devarim 7:3], "You shall not give your daughter to his son, nor shall you take his daughter for your son." [Hilchos Issurei Biah 12:1; SMaG 112; SMaK 290; Even HaEzer 16:1]."

So what happened with Moshe, King David, Avroham, and of course, my personal King Shlomo (who had 1000 goyische, idol worshiping wives- 300 of whom were 'concubines')?
http://offthederech.blogspot.com/2006/01/if-its-good-enough-for-king-solomon.html

He got virtually no punishment for this. It's also interesting that many Jews today could claim their heritage goes back to Solomon, via one of his wives. The only problem, is that these Jews would halachically be goyim. Think of how many descendants he would have today if the biblical account were true.

2/08/2007 4:03 PM  
Blogger Anonymous said...

I said:"Look, we know that the original torah law was changed by rabbis hundreds of years later, that isn't the point."

You said: How do "we" know that?

Because, as I pointed out in the post itself, the Torah allows this and all you could come back with were much later halachic sources.


Just because the Torah "allows" rabbinic interpretation of some details in certain cases, or the issuing of takkanos in some cases, doesn't necessarily mean in all/most cases or, specifically, this case. My question to you is how to you know this is not a case of the halachic ruling preserving the original interpretation? You have not demonstrated that. You said: "...we know that the original torah law was changed." How do you know it?

You said:
"That's prohibited by the second half of the same verse: "Similarly, there must be no k'dais [male unmarrieds having sex] among Israelite men."

Yes, but according to Kiddushin, you could marry by sexual intercourse (vaginal or anal), which I'm sure you were aware of,


Anal? I am not aware of a source for that.

so where does that leave the underlying logic of your point?

The case in Kiddushin -- which authorities are explicit is not practiced today -- is discussing one of the ways marriage could be accomplished. Once intercourse -- consensual, of course -- is accomplished the man and women are married. This is not a case of men (or women) being allowed to have casual sex, which I thought was one of your points. It's not a case proving a "A married man can have sex with a woman" casually. If he wanted to marry her, then, yes, in the olden days this was one of the ways it could have been accomplished. And, again, it had to be consensual.

I said: "Thus, jewish men could have sex with gentiles under this halacha,"

You replied:
"This is forbidden by: [Devarim 7:3], "You shall not give your daughter to his son, nor shall you take his daughter for your son." [Hilchos Issurei Biah 12:1; SMaG 112; SMaK 290; Even HaEzer 16:1]."

So what happened with Moshe,


Before Sinai.

King David,

When did he marry a non-Jewish woman?

Avroham,

Also before Sinai. Plus, which Jewish woman did you expect him to marry; he started the line!

and of course, my personal King Shlomo (who had 1000 goyische, idol worshiping wives- 300 of whom were 'concubines')?

And he's taken to task for it. Which only further proves the point that it was/is forbidden.

2/08/2007 5:20 PM  
Blogger Anonymous said...

Meanwhile, a woman who is married is prohibited from adultery and is killed for it.

So is the man who committed the adultery with her, whether he is married or not.

Whereas, if a man rapes an unmarried girl, his penalty is to marry her!

She has the right to refuse (Kesubos 39a; Naarah Besulah 1:3-4), but he has to pay the fine (maybe $50-100,000 in today's terms) as well as other compensation for damages and disgrace (“for it is no worse than the case of one who wounds his fellow-man, who is obligated to pay the five categories of damages” – Sefer HaChinuch). And, if he couldn't pay it, then he would have to sell himself to indentured servitude.

This is, in fact, arguably much harsher punishment than typical laws in today's world. If the rapist is ever convicted he goes to jail, usually has his relatively short sentence curtailed by many years, and owes the woman he raped NOTHING. Zip. Imagine if they would ever force the rapist to pay, say, $100,000 to his victim or garnish his wages for the next x amount of years till he paid up? It may or may not stop the person, but it would probably benefit the victim at least as much as having the guy spend time in jail, get his sentence commuted, and the victim end up with nothing.

2/08/2007 5:44 PM  
Blogger BTA said...

"Avroham, Also before Sinai. Plus, which Jewish woman did you expect him to marry; he started the line!"

Don't you know that he re-married Hagar after Sara died and had already born Yitchok???

2/08/2007 6:46 PM  
Blogger BTA said...

I said: "Yes, but according to Kiddushin, you could marry by sexual intercourse (vaginal or anal), which I'm sure you were aware of,"

Anon said:
"Anal? I am not aware of a source for that."

You've been missing the best parts of the "Oral" law! See Gemara Yevamos 54 where it states (this is Soncino translation)regarding the brother's consummation of a Levirite marriage via cohabitation:

"Another [Baraitha] taught: Her husband's brother shall go in unto her, in the natural way; and take her, even though IN AN UNNATURAL WAY; and perform the duty of a husband's brother unto her, only the cohabitation consummates her marriage, but neither money nor deed can consummate her marriage; and perform the duty of a husband's brother unto her, EVEN AGAINST HER WILL." (emphasis mine).

Note that this brisa allows for rape of the brother's wife. Nice!

2/08/2007 10:57 PM  
Blogger BTA said...

Yevamos 54a, that is.

2/08/2007 10:57 PM  
Blogger BTA said...

"Imagine if they would ever force the rapist to pay, say, $100,000 to his victim or garnish his wages for the next x amount of years till he paid up? It may or may not stop the person, but it would probably benefit the victim at least as much as having the guy spend time in jail, get his sentence commuted, and the victim end up with nothing. "

Well, actually, even where restitution is not ordered, a woman whose rapist is convicted has a very easy time of getting a judgment for money damages against him in civil court. So, that brilliant deterrent already exists. The man won't likely defend himself of the charge.

2/08/2007 11:00 PM  
Blogger BTA said...

"King David, When did he marry a non-Jewish woman?"

He had numerous concubines and had children with them. Machah was a wife and a gentile. See this Wiki entry:



David had eight wives, although he appears to have had children from other women as well:

Michal, the second daughter of King Saul
Ahinoam of Jezreel
Abigail, previously wife of the evil Nabal
Maachah
Haggith
Abital
Eglah
Bathsheba, previously the wife of Uriah the Hittite
In his old age he took the beautiful Abishag into his bed for health reasons, "but the king knew her not (intimately)" (1 Kings 1:1-4).

As given in 1 Chronicles 3, David had sons by various wives and concubines; their names are not given in Chronicles. By Bathsheba, his sons were:

Shammua
Shobab
Nathan
Solomon
His sons born in Hebron by other mothers included:

Amnon was the progeny of David and Ahinoam
Daniel was the progeny of David and Abigail
Absalom was the progeny of David and Maachah
Adonijah was the progeny of David and Haggith
Shephatiah was the progeny of David and Abital
Ithream was the progeny of David and Eglah
His sons born in Jerusalem by other mothers included:

Ibhar
Elishua
Eliphelet
Nogah
Nepheg
Japhia
Elishama
Eliada

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David

2/08/2007 11:11 PM  
Blogger Anonymous said...

Don't you know that he re-married Hagar after Sara died and had already born Yitchok???

A) Before Sinai.
B) Before even Yaakov/Yisrael, and the Jewish line.

2/09/2007 1:05 PM  
Blogger Anonymous said...

"Another [Baraitha] taught: Her husband's brother shall go in unto her, in the natural way; and take her, even though IN AN UNNATURAL WAY; and perform the duty of a husband's brother unto her, only the cohabitation consummates her marriage, but neither money nor deed can consummate her marriage; and perform the duty of a husband's brother unto her, EVEN AGAINST HER WILL." (emphasis mine).

The term shelo k'darko ("IN AN UNNATURAL WAY") has different interpretations. Anal sex is one of them, but by not the only one.

In either case, the Gemara is not talking about casual sex, but a means of creating a legally binding marriage. Was I correct in assuming that you were attempting to use the passage to demonstrate that the Torah sanctions men having casual, non-marital sex but not women?

2/09/2007 1:14 PM  
Blogger Anonymous said...

Well, actually, even where restitution is not ordered, a woman whose rapist is convicted has a very easy time of getting a judgment for money damages against him in civil court.

How often does it happen? I don't believe it is too often or the norm. And what if the rapist is penniless?

In either event, it's good to know that, theoretically at least, the civil court is on the right track.

So, that brilliant deterrent already exists.

I didn't say and I doubt it is a deterrent. It is a means of trying to carry out justice without executing the perpetrator.

2/09/2007 1:19 PM  
Blogger Anonymous said...

He had numerous concubines and had children with them.

Concubines, yes. Non-Jewish wives, no.

Machah was a wife and a gentile.

Machah was a yifat toar, a woman captured in war. After she goes through the process described in Deuteronomy, and consents to the marriage, she is considered Jewish in Jewish law.

[He can marry her immediately if she agrees to convert to Judaism (Yevamos 47b; Rambam, Melachim 8:5). However, some maintain that he must still wait three months before being intimate with her (Kesef Mishneh).]

2/09/2007 1:25 PM  
Blogger BTA said...

"Machah was a yifat toar, a woman captured in war. After she goes through the process described in Deuteronomy, and consents to the marriage, she is considered Jewish in Jewish law."

Well, I think we also know that David was pretty bidieved when it came to the halachos around marriage. (Batsheba). No reason to believe he did any of the processes you recount above. No reason to believe anyone did any of these things since there was apparently no penalty for not following it.

In general though, it seems like you can convince yourself of just about anything. But the thrust of this post is that most of the halacha that "god" supposedly created was moral at the time and immoral now. Capturing goyim in battle and forcing them to marry you would also qualify.

I'm sure you can rationalize how deep these halachos really are, but that begs the question why no one would consider them moral nowadays.

2/09/2007 2:03 PM  
Blogger BTA said...

"The term shelo k'darko ("IN AN UNNATURAL WAY") has different interpretations. Anal sex is one of them, but by not the only one."

No, there is no other interpretation in the context of cohabitation. You aren't suggesting that a levirite marriage could be consumated with fellatio are you?

"Was I correct in assuming that you were attempting to use the passage to demonstrate that the Torah sanctions men having casual, non-marital sex but not women?"

Now you are trying to bob and weave your way out of this. I mentioned as an aside that anal sex was one of the ways it could be done and you challenged it, so I showed at least one source.

But, yes, men could have anal sex with unmarried women, gentiles whomever and not suffer death penalty as women would. I've borne this out above. Your arguments are really "form over substance." Of course there are some apologetics written hundreds of years after the torah was written that try to make it seem more moral. However, with our moral hindsight, even those apologetic sources are positively, well- medieval now.

How anyone, upon close examination of halacha, can believe it is anything but manmade and arbitrary is a psychological phenomenon that merits further study.

2/09/2007 2:08 PM  
Blogger BTA said...

"Machah was a yifat toar, a woman captured in war. After she goes through the process described in Deuteronomy, and consents to the marriage, she is considered Jewish in Jewish law"

that is too funny! "Consents to the marriage." Let's see... her husband and family are killed and her whole town. She's good looking, so they capture her (does she "consent" to being captured, having her head shaven and being locked up for 30 days as well?!).

After this solitary confinement, Guantanamo style, she "consents" to the marriage? And let's consider her fabulous, divinely imposed options- "consent" or...? Die? Enslavement?

Really, this is Nazi material. It doesn't come close to being moral. None of this bothers you in the least?

2/09/2007 2:27 PM  
Blogger Anonymous said...

Well, I think we also know that David was pretty bidieved when it came to the halachos around marriage. (Batsheba). No reason to believe he did any of the processes you recount above.

You stated he had non-Jewish wives. I asked you to back up your point. You have not. I am just trying to address your points.

I'm only trying to address what you write.
But the thrust of this post is that most of the halacha that "god" supposedly created was moral at the time and immoral now. Capturing goyim in battle and forcing them to marry you would also qualify.

War may be immoral, but it is certainly not any less practiced today than in the past.

As for forcing captured women to marry you, where do you see it says you can force her against her will? The marriage to her is a Jewish marriage and as in all such marriage must have her consent. Otherwise, she is sent away free.

In truth, what the law does is try to inhibit rape of captured women, which was and is a common characteristic of a conquering army.

As for "rationalizing" things, I am only trying to address your points. You try to present yourself, and, indeed, often succeed in coming across as a very rational person with a very rational POV. That's why I'm a little miffed why, suddenly, when faced with valid reasons for laws you seem to not have studied very much that you suddenly get defensive.

I'm only trying to

2/09/2007 2:50 PM  
Blogger Anonymous said...

that is too funny! "Consents to the marriage." Let's see... her husband and family are killed and her whole town. She's good looking, so they capture her (does she "consent" to being captured, having her head shaven and being locked up for 30 days as well?!).

After this solitary confinement, Guantanamo style, she "consents" to the marriage? And let's consider her fabulous, divinely imposed options- "consent" or...? Die? Enslavement?


First, she has full power to reject marriage. She can go on her way.

Second, the problem here is that we live in a world where war is, unfortunately, a reality. I also wish we lived in a world where there was no war, no violence, no suicide mass murderers, etc. I wish we lived in a Peter Pan world.

However, we do not. And until we do there is such a thing as war. And war is hell.

The Torah is not pollyannish about that.

The next question -- the next question about morality -- then is that if there is war, and you are not on the side that is getting murdered and raped, then do you at least try to curb lusts that are common in victorious armies? I think that is what the Torah is addressing with this law.

Other than banning war, do you have a better suggestion or sugggestions?

2/09/2007 2:58 PM  
Blogger jewish philosopher said...

What's wrong with executing an adultress and her partner? Sounds like good deterent to me.

2/12/2007 12:28 PM  
Blogger Rebeljew said...

A key point also. there were so ,amy mitigating circumstances for Sotah that she COULD NEVER BE VINDICATED! The Gemorra says as much. So if she fails the ordeal she is dead, but if she passes, it proves nothing. What is the point of putting her through it?

2/26/2007 5:41 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home