Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar:


The Jews came to Allah's Apostle and told him that a man and a woman from amongst them had committed illegal sexual intercourse. Allah's Apostle said to them, "What do you find in the Torah (old Testament) about the legal punishment of Ar-Rajm (stoning)?" They replied, (But) we announce their crime and lash them." Abdullah bin Salam said, "You are telling a lie; Torah contains the order of Rajm." They brought and opened the Torah and one of them solaced his hand on the Verse of Rajm and read the verses preceding and following it. Abdullah bin Salam said to him, "Lift your hand." When he lifted his hand, the Verse of Rajm was written there. They said, "Muhammad has told the truth; the Torah has the Verse of Rajm. The Prophet then gave the order that both of them should be stoned to death. ('Abdullah bin 'Umar said, "I saw the man leaning over the woman to shelter her from the stones."


The above Hadith clearly shows that the stoning is mentioned in the Torah. Is the verse or Rajm still available in today versions?

The Jewish courts administered four death penalties: stoning, burning, beheading, and strangling. The first three are explicitly specified in the Torah for various sins, and the punishment for murder too is beheading. It is a tradition received from Moses that whenever the Torah does not specify the manner of execution strangling is meant.

I doubt whether you would find many advocates for stoning today - even amongst Orthodox Jews. At the time of Mohammed, the practice of stoning had fallen into disuse amongst Jews as they progressed and adapted to prevailing social mores. In his wisdom, Mohammed decided to turn back the clock 3.500 years for Muslims, which is why we still hear of barbaric stonings in the Muslim world today, such as in northern Nigeria.

SK, my question is clear!


Originally posted by IceTea
Is the verse or Rajm still available in today versions?

You would be better off asking a practising Jew, but I doubt whether anyone would accept the words "today versions".

Does this mean you are not sure about what is written in the Torah (Old Testament)?

Do we have a practiced Jew here?

And what is wrong with the word today versions?

This is the problem with Christian members, they want us to answer their questions and when we ask them simple questions they run away!! :rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

He answered it in the first post. To wit:

YES.

Does the stoning verse still available in today versions?

Is it still mentioned in the Old Testament? Yes. Even in the New Testament it was mentioned. Is it practical? No. As Shakoosh mentioned, stoning as a punishment has long been abandoned even by Jews today, as they do not see it as humane. Remember that such punishments were done then because there were not very many available means of capital punishment. Akin to stoning would be, today, the firing squad, at least in principle. In any case, in a Christian perspective, Jesus said He has come to fulfill the law, and since everything was fulfilled in Him, such practices would naturally become obsolete.

This is the problem with Christian members, they want us to answer their questions and when we ask them simple questions they run away!!

Interesting you would make such a ludicrous statement. I have a posted thread on cult status, and openly asked Muslims to rate their own religion on that scale. I have yet to have a response.

I have additionally posted another, from a Muslim site, that contradicts, somewhat, what people say here. Interesting to see how many people respond to that.

You had best take a look at the true track record on who does not answer questions on contradictory statements of "fact". And I'm guessing, that you must be handed the answer, when it was already answered.

Yes it's still there.

The only reason I know that, is because it was clearly stated, though those 4 little words weren't used.

Originally posted by Milliardo Peacecraft
Is it still mentioned in the Old Testament? Yes. Even in the New Testament it was mentioned. Is it practical? No. As Shakoosh mentioned, stoning as a punishment has long been abandoned even by Jews today, as they do not see it as humane. Remember that such punishments were done then because there were not very many available means of capital punishment. Akin to stoning would be, today, the firing squad, at least in principle. In any case, in a Christian perspective, Jesus said He has come to fulfill the law, and since everything was fulfilled in Him, such practices would naturally become obsolete.

Can you quote the verse if it is still mentioned?

This just proves the corruption of the Bible and changed by people. Because everything they don't like they remove it and they keep what they like and also they add what they find it good for them. So Basicaly they ultered Allah words as the Torah and Bible were sent to Allah Prophets to guide the people. Look at the Quran all rulings available nothing removed and nothing added.

Basically this was the incident when some Jews wanted to stone a woman for adultery, and Jesus looked at them and said, "Let the one among you who is without sin cast the first stone on her." This is from John 8:7. The whole incident is in John 8:3-11. One by one those who wanted to stone the woman went away, leaving only Jesus and the woman. Jesus then asked the woman, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" To which the woman replied no one, so Jesus said to her, "Neither do I condemn you. Go and from now on do not sin anymore." The whole incident shows us that we must not be quick in condemning a person, and as well shows the mercy and forgiveness of Jesus.

Ice Tea, I made some statements, would you care to respond, or are you running away?

Do we have a practiced Jew here?

Who in the world is a practiced Jew? :rolleyes:

Originally posted by IceTea


This just proves the corruption of the Bible and changed by people. Because everything they don't like they remove it and they keep what they like and also they add what they find it good for them. So Basicaly they ultered Allah words as the Torah and Bible were sent to Allah Prophets to guide the people. Look at the Quran all rulings available nothing removed and nothing added.

IceTea

With every ciomment you make, you make it blindingly obvious that you understand nothing whatsoever about Christianity or Judaism.

If I wanted information about Buddhism, I certainly would not consult the Baghavad Gita.

I am a practicing Jew.

Yes, a practicing Jew objects to the use of the expression "today's versions" in reference to the Hebrew Scriptures.

We believe that the Hebrew Scriptures have not changed or been tampered with at all since they were revealed to Moses and the Jewish people at Mount Sinai.

Here are the sources IceTea requested:

from http://www.jewishgates.com/file.asp?File_ID=1144

The first of the four death penalties that was imposed was stoning (sekilah). If this was the penalty imposed, when the condemned person came to within four cubits (approximately six feet) of the stoning platform, he would be stripped of all his clothing except his pants. The stoning platform was twice the height of a man. The two witnesses [through whose testimony he was condemned] would lead him to the top of this platform. His hands would then be tied, and one of the witnesses would push him down from the platform so that he would fall down face forward. If the condemned person died of this fall, he was considered to have been killed by "stoning" because in describing this penalty, the Torah says, "He shall be stoned or thrown down." (Exodus 19:13) This teaches that throwing a person from a high place is the same as stoning him. It makes no difference whether stones are thrown on him or he is thrown down on stones.

If the condemned did not die immediately upon being thrown down, the two witnesses would take a large stone prepared especially for the purpose and throw it on his chest. The stone had to be so heavy that it took the two of them to lift it.

If the condemned was still alive, all the onlookers would pelt him with large stones until he was dead. It is thus written, "The hand of the witnesses shall be the first upon him to put him to death and afterwards the hand of all the people." (Deuteronomy 17:7) This indicates that the first people to perform the act of execution had to be the two witnesses who testified against the condemned in court. If their action did not kill him, then all the people would stone him until he was killed.

There are eighteen crimes for which the penalty is death by stoning:

1. Incest between a man and his mother.

I Incest between a man and his father's wife.

3. Incest between a man and his daughter-in-law.

4. Adultery with a betrothed girl.

5. Homosexual sodomy.

6. Bestiality.

7. A woman submitting to an animal.

8. Blasphemy.

9. Idolatry.

10. Giving one's seed to Molech. (Leviticus 20:2) This was a type of idolatry where a fire was burned, and one's children had to pass through it.

11. Sorcery through necromancy (ov: Leviticus 20:27).

12. Pythonism (yid'oni: Leviticus 20:27).

13. Enticing individuals to idolatry even if no act is committed.

14. Instigating communities to idolatry.

is. Witchcraft.

16. Violating the Sabbath through any of the thirty-nine categories of forbidden work.

17. Cursing a parent.

18. A rebellious son (Deuteronomy 21:18-21).

For two of these crimes, blasphemy and idolatry, not only would the condemned be stoned, but after his death he would be hanged. This only applied to men; women were not hanged since it was not seemly.

When hanging was required, a heavy pole would be placed in the ground. Securely fastened to it would be a protruding board. The hands of the executed criminal would be bound together and the corpse would hang by its hands from the protruding beam.

Both the execution and hanging would take place shortly before sunset. If a man was hanged, he would be taken down after a short while. It was forbidden to allow him to remain on the gallows since it is written, "...but his body shall not remain overnight on the beam." (Deuteronomy 21:22,23)

mono,

I will save tebag some time and post his response in advance.

Since the Quran says the Torah has been corrupted it must have been. What more proof do you want than that ?

PS. I believe none of what he says, I am just preparing you for his answer.

We were discussing the specific issue of stoning. IceTea asked for a source in the Torah for stoning, and Shakoosh Kabir said that a practicing Jew is the one to ask. So as I am a practicing Jew, I responded.

I don't know much about the Quran, but I certainly don't believe that the Torah was corrupted, Heaven forbid. If anyone wants to engage in a peaceful, respectful discussion about which religion is true in general, I am willing to discuss it--in a separate thread.:)

Originally posted by monotheism
I am a practicing Jew.

Yes, a practicing Jew objects to the use of the expression "today's versions" in reference to the Hebrew Scriptures.

We believe that the Hebrew Scriptures have not changed or been tampered with at all since they were revealed to Moses and the Jewish people at Mount Sinai.

Here are the sources IceTea requested:

from http://www.jewishgates.com/file.asp?File_ID=1144

Thanx for the answers :), from your source it seems the stoning still available. Is it practiced in today word?

As far as stoning is concerned, the Jewish Sages teach that the death penalty is only administered when we have the Holy Temple in Jerusalem standing, with a high court of Jewish Sages known as a Sanhedrin. Once the Holy Temple was destroyed, until it will be rebuilt by the Jewish Messiah, the death penalty has not been able to be carried out.

What is pythonism?

Surely not having to do with snakes? :p

Webster's 1913 Dictionary Definition: \Pyth"o*nism\, n.

The art of predicting events after the manner of the
priestess of Apollo at Delphi; equivocal prophesying.

I.e., "Pythonism" refers to seeking the advice of fortunetellers, known in the Torah as the Ov or Yidoni. One of the reasons they are wrong is that they can lead one to heresy because they function based on the premise that occurrences in this world are determined purely by chance.

Furthermore, one is led to believe that going to fortunetellers and performing worthless ceremonies are the means to securing a good future. These false beliefs deter one from the truth that the Creator is the Master of the universe and that all that happens in this world is due to His will. Additionally, one will lose appreciation for the Commandments and for their role in determining one's future.

Why is only the death penalty affected by the Jerusalem Temple's status? Why aren't other rules (dietary, dress codes etc) in suspension as well?

Originally posted by monotheism
As far as stoning is concerned, the Jewish Sages teach that the death penalty is only administered when we have the Holy Temple in Jerusalem standing, with a high court of Jewish Sages known as a Sanhedrin. Once the Holy Temple was destroyed, until it will be rebuilt by the Jewish Messiah, the death penalty has not been able to be carried out.


Ahhh, sure. Moonchild mentioned this to me last night.

So the Jews "suspended" their God's laws - and without permission. How interesting.

I have a more reasonable explanation for why the Jews ceased enforcement of their capital punishment laws and animal sacrifice practices - they were simply in no position to do so !!

Once the temple was destroyed (first time/second time - it doesn't matter) the Jewish governing body was disassembled/dismantled. Either Babylonians or Romans were in charge and it was their laws that would be enforced - not Jewish laws.

After the second fall of the temple and the subsequent Diaspora, Jews around the world were subject to the laws of the lands they inhabited. What ruler would tolerate resident Jews setting up their own courts ? If you answered 'None", you win an unleavened biscuit.

Jews were simply in no position to carry on as their holy books perscribed. So they stuck to what they could get away with - their dietary laws.

I could boil it down a bit more. For practical purposes, Jews simply stopped following many of their God's laws for practical purposes.

Why is only the death penalty affected by the Jerusalem Temple's status? Why aren't other rules (dietary, dress codes etc) in suspension as well?

MoonChild: Because, according to the Rabbinic interpretation, from the outset the death penalty for Jews was only intended to be carried out 1. when Jews have control of the Land, and 2. have their Temple built (the Sanhedrin had a special place designated for them to convene in the Temple).

The same applies to sacrifices. (I spend a lot of time explaining this to Christians:)) There is a prohibition in the Torah for a Jew to offer sacrifices outside the Temple. So now that the Temple is destroyed, we can no longer offer sacrifices. (Btw, the Jewish Sages instituted prayers in the place of sacrifices.) That's a Divinely-imposed circumstance.

It's as if G-d would bless everyone to be wealthy. You wouldn't be able to keep the commandment to give charity. Does that mean that the commandment would cease to exist? No, the commandment continues to exist: that if in such a circumstance, do such-and-such.

But other commandments (e.g., dietary, dress codes) did not contain any such condition when they were first commanded.

Isn't that funny, Wanderer? Even before I read what you wrote (because you hadn't yet posted, or I hadn't yet refreshed the screen), I responded to MoonChild, addressing the issue of sacrifices as well! I hope you find my explanation satisfactory.:)

So the Jews "suspended" their God's laws - and without permission. How interesting.

We did no such thing. From the outset, Jewish Sages were appointed by G-d to apply and interpret the Law, and this is what they interpreted, and therefore for a Jew, their word is the Word of G-d, similar to the concept of a Prophet.

What ruler would tolerate resident Jews setting up their own courts?

Actually, there were lesser courts throughout Diaspora times, except that those courts were not invested with the power to execute, as they did not have the status of a Sanhedrin. Anyway, even in the times of the Temple, they could only execute other Jews.

Originally posted by monotheism
Because, according to the Rabbinic interpretation, from the outset the death penalty for Jews was only intended to be carried out 1. when Jews have control of the Land, ...

It's a good thing that the Rabbinic interpretation took into account the practical aspect of trying to enforce laws when you're not in control :) The interpretation is unnecessary and simply self-serving.


Originally posted by monotheism

There is a prohibition in the Torah for a Jew to offer sacrifices outside the Temple.

Yes, but was the prohibition put in before or after the Temple was destroyed ?


Originally posted by monotheism

But other commandments (e.g., dietary, dress codes) did not contain any such condition when they were first commanded.

And since one could still follow the easy commandments while living under the laws of others, it all worked out just splendidly.

How convenient.

Wanderer: I see no need to answer each question of yours individually. All your questions stem from your presumption that the Jewish Sages were not Divinely appointed. Since you think that is so, you feel free to ascribe unworthy motives to them.

Why not discuss the issue of their authority itself then, instead of simply dismissing everything through the lens of your presumption?

Furthermore, if I may say, you speak from a position of ignorance. You have not studied their works. Can you read Hebrew? Aramaic? I can. And I can testify to you that for every decision they make, there are detailed reasons and explanations, in a way that one cannot imagine without having immersed oneself in such study. A cursory reading will not do.

My position is that the Jewish Sages were Divinely appointed, and that their tradition of interpretation began immediately when the Torah was first revealed at Sinai, as logic dictates:

There could never have been a Law without interpreters, and those interpreters must have been Divinely appointed, because otherwise, why listen to them and their opinion on G-d's Law?

Originally posted by monotheism
Wanderer: I see no need to answer each question of yours individually. All your questions stem from your presumption that the Jewish Sages were not Divinely appointed.

I understand that answering my questions puts you in an untenable position.

That Jewish sages were "Divinely appointed" is a presumption on your part not mine.


Originally posted by monotheism

Furthermore, if I may say, you speak from a position of ignorance. You have not studied their works. Can you read Hebrew? Aramaic? I can..

Ad hominem

I cannot juggle cats either. But I don't need to read "The Cat Juggler's Bible" to know that such jugglers are not divinely inspired.


Originally posted by monotheism

My position is that the Jewish Sages were Divinely appointed, and that their tradition of interpretation began immediately when the Torah was first revealed at Sinai, as logic dictates:..

My position is that it was not just interpretation but a fair amount of re-interpretation - when you have material subject to one, it is subject to both, eh ?



Originally posted by monotheism

There could never have been a Law without interpreters, and those interpreters must have been Divinely appointed, because otherwise, why listen to them and their opinion on G-d's Law?

Well, that's where the whole death penalty thing comes in, doesn't it. If you won't listen, you are ... removed. So fear of death could be one reason.

BTW - you seem to enjoy circular logic.

It comes in handy when one finds oneself in an untenable position.

For what it's worth, I like your style.

Originally posted by monotheism
Wanderer: Since you think that is so [Jewish Sages were not Divinely appointed], you feel free to ascribe unworthy motives to them.


You brought up unworthy motives. I just have a simple explanation to neatly wrap things up.

Consider:

How does an Orthodox Jewish parent explain to his son why some Jewish laws are practiced - no cheeseburgers, no blended fabrics, the sexual mutilation of infant males; and others are not, stoning the "bad" girls and rebellious sons, killing and burning sheep at an alter, selling daughters, keeping slaves, etc. ?

They are all God's laws after all. The highest laws a believer can have.

I suspect the parent would make something up to suspend those laws not followed, and attribute it to divine revelation (your Sages).

It sure beats the dilemma of having to say that "we're not following those of God's laws that might get us in trouble with the laws of the Prince/King/Queen of the land we're living in".

Because that makes one admit that the laws of the land are more meaningful than "God's" laws. And the truth would be exposed.

That Jewish sages were "Divinely appointed" is a presumption on your part not mine.

I have given logic to support this:

There could never have been a Law without interpreters, and those interpreters must have been Divinely appointed, because otherwise, why listen to them and their opinion on G-d's Law?

Let me ask you: do you believe that the Law was given at Sinai? (For that matter, do you believe in G-d at all?) Because if you don't, I don't see why it's an issue which group has authority to interpret the Law, if you don't believe that the Law was revealed in the first place. (Or that a Commander even exists.)

Ad hominem

I cannot juggle cats either. But I don't need to read "The Cat Juggler's Bible" to know that such jugglers are not divinely inspired.

Scholars throughout the ages, even non-Jewish, have recognised the wisdom and profundity of the Sages' teachings. Western jurisprudence is based on it. I think that, to be intellectually honest, deeper study is called for before reaching a conclusion.


My position is that it was not just interpretation but a fair amount of re-interpretation - when you have material subject to one, it is subject to both, eh ?

no, it was not subject to both, actually

statements made by authorities in earlier periods may not be contradicted by those in later periods, as any beginning student of the Talmud knows

which patently demonstrates your ignorance of Rabbinic jurisprudence, yet again

For what it's worth, I like your style.

what do you like about it?

How does an Orthodox Jewish parent explain to his son why some Jewish laws are practiced

Sure he explains. How? Through years of study, not on one foot, as you demand.

If I could study the Talmud with you, you could see that your questions stem from your total unfamiliarity with the sources.

It's laughable. It's like a high school science student contradicting a world-class professor.

Originally posted by monotheism
It's laughable. It's like a high school science student contradicting a world-class professor.

Since you didn't specify the professor's field, I am at liberty to knock your example down.


There are indeed, world class professors who don't understand much science at all, and who would be a a disadvantage debating a HS science student.

What does a world-class music professor necessarily know about the number of molecules in a mole (Avogadro's number) ?

What does a world-class philosophy professor necessarily know about diploblasts and triploblasts ?

In these cases, I can easily see a high school science student trumping a "world-class" professor in a discussion.

Oh, and world class professors can be stunningly wrong in their own fields too.

:yawn:

Originally posted by monotheism
It's laughable. It's like a high school science student contradicting a world-class professor.


I guess you're saying that I'm the poor high school science student and you're the world class professor.

Sort of a David vs. Goliath, eh ?

Hey, you're up on the Old Testament stuff - how did that one turn out again ?

I'm simply saying that, to someone skilled in the texts, it's glaringly obvious that you simply don't begin to know the texts that you attempt to challenge

as a friend told me long ago, a heretic is someone who knows, but denies regardless

for someone who simply doesn't know, the correct term is ignoramus

Originally posted by monotheism

as a friend told me long ago, a heretic is someone who knows, but denies regardless

for someone who simply doesn't know, the correct term is ignoramus


And those who believe in Fairy Tales and build a religion upon them are fools.


I do like your failed simple student vs renowned professor analogy though.

Imagine the world-recognized Literature Professor looking down on the poor ignorant science student who dared argue a point about the American Civil War. After all, the learned professor had made a career of studying "Gone with the Wind".

I think that a more apt analogy.



:p

Originally posted by Wanderer
And those who believe in Fairy Tales and build a religion upon them are fools.
:p

Actually ... it's quite simple ... it's about your belief and way of life ... and you and Mono ... could do this all day ... but you are chasing the proverbial tail ... both of you.

Wandy ... if you don't believe than you don't believe and that's fair enough ...

But you must believe in something ... you said God's Laws are not as useful and Human Laws ... but in the progressive age of same sex marriages slowly but surely winning legality in the States one has to wonder how 'flexible' Human law is willing to go to accomadate it's 'varied humanity'.

There is more to this in the sense that you have replaced your 'bible' so to speak with say the 'Consitution of the USA' or whatever guiding personal beliefs you have. That's a good thing ... because no one wants anarchy ... and most people want some sort of 'minimum set of guranteed rights'.

I believe Monothesitic Religion and Pluralistic Goverment has been ... and will continue to tear at each other even as these 'Democratic values' sweep 'East' as they have been doing in the 'West' ...

So now it comes down to who are you going to follow 'God's Law' or 'Govermental Law' ... I mean an 'Eye for an Eye' is practiced heavily in the South of the US ...

Where are the 'true' Christians? The Liberals?

At the end of the day ... if the Death Penalty is called by with the governments 'stamp of approval' as opposed to 'the identifiable religion of the land' what difference does it make?

:confused:

Originally posted by Pretender

Wandy ... if you don't believe than you don't believe and that's fair enough ...

That's very modern of you. I believe that there are some religions that would (or would have) put me to death, in the name of their God, for holding such views.


Originally posted by Pretender

But you must believe in something ...

There is more to this in the sense that you have replaced your 'bible' so to speak with say the 'Consitution of the USA' or whatever guiding personal beliefs you have. ...

People make, enforce, and may later even rescind those laws and replace them with other, often contradictory, laws. Some say that shows the inherent weakness of man-made laws. Yet we see that in the religious texts of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. The laws have changed even for "God's" laws. Jews don't have to follow some of "God's" laws any more - and Monotheism is doing his best to have us believe that Jewish scholars/sages can explain/have determined why that is. Christians don't follow Jewish laws, and they have thier own reasons "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". And Muslims believe that they now possess God's laws, and that inconsistancies with Jewish and Christian versions of "God's" laws can be attributed to corruption over time or changes of God's whim (?).

But that makes them no better than man's laws then, as both Mankind's and "God's" laws have been subject to change and corruption. Claimants of divine origin must then assert that God's laws carry greater wisdom. It is not in evidence. There is no outstanding law attributable to God that hasn't popped up elsewhere in this world by thinking men and women.

Originally posted by Pretender

So now it comes down to who are you going to follow 'God's Law' or 'Govermental Law' ... I mean an 'Eye for an Eye' is practiced heavily in the South of the US ...

In fact, it is (and has been) practiced most everywhere. I don't recognize it as a heavily practiced "law" in the southern US, though.


Originally posted by Pretender


At the end of the day ... if the Death Penalty is called by with the governments 'stamp of approval' as opposed to 'the identifiable religion of the land' what difference does it make?

:confused:

It makes a huge amount of difference because it honestly assigns responsibility and accountability. How do I know what "God's" laws are ? I'm no holy man. Oh, I have to ask Priests/Imams/Rabbis ? Do they all agree within and amongst themselves ?

How do I know who is resposible and accountable for man's laws ? Perhaps I must ask a King or Queen, Prince or Sultan, Chief or Elder. Perhaps I can look to a Magna Carta - and find the source of the laws.

In my country there is a founding legal document.

It starts "We the People ... "

So we know who to hold accountable for our laws.

Originally posted by Wanderer
And those who believe in Fairy Tales and build a religion upon them are fools...I do like your failed simple student vs renowned professor analogy though.

Imagine the world-recognized Literature Professor looking down on the poor ignorant science student who dared argue a point about the American Civil War. After all, the learned professor had made a career of studying "Gone with the Wind".

I think that a more apt analogy.

and the fact that you think yourself knowledgeable enough to express an opinion on the relative value of your knowledge further proves your dismal ignorance

Originally posted by monotheism
and the fact that you think yourself knowledgeable enough to express an opinion on the relative value of your knowledge further proves your dismal ignorance

Are you condemming me for not studying "Gone with the Wind" with the same fervor as you and for using outside sources ?

Remember, I am not the one who lives in a house of cards built upon a bedrock of myth and fables.


So do tell, Mono. According to your vast knowledge of myth and Sages, once you get your temple rebuilt, will you start sacrificing animals, taking slaves, and stoning women again in the name of your god ?

to clarify: my comments above were not in response to your dismissal of all religion and theism as such, but in response to your specific criticisms of the Jewish Sages' words according to the Rabbinic Tradition's own internal rigorous legal system--without ever having examined what those Rabbis actually said on the specific issue that you think you are addressing

will you start sacrificing animals

yup! :c2:

taking slaves

the Torah's rigorous system was more like the concept of indentured servitude, was strongly discouraged, and only allowed under strict conditions guaranteeing the respectful treatment of the servant.

stoning women

this challenge implies reverse discrimination!:)

A literal reading of Scripture might make one think that one is reading the minutes of a "stoning Sanhedrin."

This is proven inaccurate by the famous statement in Mishnah Makkot 1:10: "A Sanhedrin that carries out one death sentence in seven years is called murderous. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah says, 'Once in seventy years.' Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva say, 'If we were on the Sanhedrin, no-one would ever be executed.'"

According to the Rabbinic Tradition, the possibility of sentencing an offender to death is extremely remote, virtually non-existent. Jewish Law (Rambam, Hilkhot Sanhedrin 12:2) requires prior warning in the presence of two witnesses; the offender must also have been told precisely how he would be executed; and he must have declared, "I know, and I am committing the sin nevertheless." If he only said "I know" without declaring that he intended to commit the offense, he is not considered to have been properly forewarned, as the warning must be issued when he is clearly showing his criminal intent.

Altogether, a most far-fetched possibility.

Originally posted by monotheism
According to the Rabbinic Tradition, the possibility of sentencing an offender to death is extremely remote, virtually non-existent. Jewish Law (Rambam, Hilkhot Sanhedrin 12:2) requires prior warning in the presence of two witnesses; the offender must also have been told precisely how he would be executed; and he must have declared, "I know, and I am committing the sin nevertheless." If he only said "I know" without declaring that he intended to commit the offense, he is not considered to have been properly forewarned, as the warning must be issued when he is clearly showing his criminal intent.

Altogether, a most far-fetched possibility.

You have in fact neutered God's laws.

I like it.

You cannot negate/abrogate God's laws but you cannot/will not enforce them (as they are much too brutal), so you have to find a way to effectively block them from being enforced.

By creating a series of absurd legal requirements you can at once maintain the semblance of observing God's laws AND still prevent them from being carried out/enforced. Very clever. I'm surprised that you don't require that the accused must have signed a confession while having legal council present before the punishments for God's laws can be carried out.

You know, if you required verbal consent from the intended sacrificial animals or only accepted volunteers ...



How about a "don't ask, don't tell" policy on food. I mean, if 12 people (1 from each tribe) didn't warn you that it was a cheesburger or a crab cocktail, how could you be certain that it wasn't allowed.

Nimoy should have done "In Search of: The Loopholes of Judaism."

these qualifications and their foundations are detailed at great length in the Talmud

from the beginning, the Rabbis were invested with the authority to interpret and apply the law as they saw fit, according to the oral traditions and rules of interpretation passed down to them from generation to generation, all the way back to Moses