Why does god want to cut off women's hands?

[John V]

My point exactly. To you and God it doesn't matter who the initial aggressor was - the woman still gets her hand cut off for the "crime" of handling the other guy's penis.

Do you think she was let off the hook if she kicked the man, or hit his nuts with a hammer?

[CapnAwesome]

In
Deuteronomy 25:12
it says:
11"If two men, a man and his countryman, are struggling together, and the wife of one comes near to deliver her husband from the hand of the one who is striking him, and puts out her hand and seizes his genitals, 12then you shall cut off her hand; you shall not show pity.

Why is god so suddenly concerned about a woman touching a man's privates?
He has no such prohibition or punishment for a man helping his friend and grabbing another man's junk.

Think about it. The law has the general principal of eye for eye and tooth for tooth. Since a woman doesn't have balls, this clarifies the punishment for that situation. Ripping out her lady junk would probably be worse than cutting off a hand.

Wow, are you actually defending this?

[max-greece]

My point exactly. To you and God it doesn't matter who the initial aggressor was - the woman still gets her hand cut off for the "crime" of handling the other guy's penis.

Do you think she was let off the hook if she kicked the man, or hit his nuts with a hammer?

I don't know - the verse makes no mention of it.

Lets be straight here - I had no idea this verse existed until the op brought it up and then, tbh, I doubted it enough to get my bible out and check.

You have to admit it is a very strange law and very specific. It does appear it is the fact that her hand touched another man's penis/testicles that is the problem. Who is at fault, whether or not it was accidental and whether or not any lasting damage was done doesn't carry any water - she loses her hand.

Frankly - you tell me - this is too alien a legal framework for me to make head nor tail of it.

[John V]

I don't know - the verse makes no mention of it.

Lets be straight here - I had no idea this verse existed until the op brought it up and then, tbh, I doubted it enough to get my bible out and check.

You have to admit it is a very strange law and very specific. It does appear it is the fact that her hand touched another man's penis/testicles that is the problem. Who is at fault, whether or not it was accidental and whether or not any lasting damage was done doesn't carry any water - she loses her hand.

Frankly - you tell me - this is too alien a legal framework for me to make head nor tail of it.

Some of you don't seem to realize that very specific statutes such as this were taken as general principles and expounded upon in the Mishneh. Here's one interpretation of the verse:
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cd...er-One.htm
There is no difference whether she grabs "his private parts" or any other organ that imperils his life. Similarly, the rodef may be a man or a woman. The intent of the verse is that whenever a person intends to strike a colleague with a blow that could kill him, the pursued should be saved by "cutting off the hand" of the rodef. If this cannot be done, the victim should be saved by taking the rodef's life, as the verse continues: "you may not show pity."

[CapnAwesome]

I don't know - the verse makes no mention of it.

Lets be straight here - I had no idea this verse existed until the op brought it up and then, tbh, I doubted it enough to get my bible out and check.

You have to admit it is a very strange law and very specific. It does appear it is the fact that her hand touched another man's penis/testicles that is the problem. Who is at fault, whether or not it was accidental and whether or not any lasting damage was done doesn't carry any water - she loses her hand.

Frankly - you tell me - this is too alien a legal framework for me to make head nor tail of it.

Some of you don't seem to realize that very specific statutes such as this were taken as general principles and expounded upon in the Mishneh. Here's one interpretation of the verse:
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cd...er-One.htm
There is no difference whether she grabs "his private parts" or any other organ that imperils his life. Similarly, the rodef may be a man or a woman. The intent of the verse is that whenever a person intends to strike a colleague with a blow that could kill him, the pursued should be saved by "cutting off the hand" of the rodef. If this cannot be done, the victim should be saved by taking the rodef's life, as the verse continues: "you may not show pity."

Okay..... even with that interpretation are you defending said law? Do you think we should be cutting off hands in the western world?

[pineapplebunnybounce]

I don't know - the verse makes no mention of it.

Lets be straight here - I had no idea this verse existed until the op brought it up and then, tbh, I doubted it enough to get my bible out and check.

You have to admit it is a very strange law and very specific. It does appear it is the fact that her hand touched another man's penis/testicles that is the problem. Who is at fault, whether or not it was accidental and whether or not any lasting damage was done doesn't carry any water - she loses her hand.

Frankly - you tell me - this is too alien a legal framework for me to make head nor tail of it.

Some of you don't seem to realize that very specific statutes such as this were taken as general principles and expounded upon in the Mishneh. Here's one interpretation of the verse:
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cd...er-One.htm
There is no difference whether she grabs "his private parts" or any other organ that imperils his life. Similarly, the rodef may be a man or a woman. The intent of the verse is that whenever a person intends to strike a colleague with a blow that could kill him, the pursued should be saved by "cutting off the hand" of the rodef. If this cannot be done, the victim should be saved by taking the rodef's life, as the verse continues: "you may not show pity."

So now it's an instruction on self defence and not a legal system like you were previously advocating for?

And if it were to be life saving, it's definitely a lot more efficient to just knock her hand away in terms of energy. If you actually spend the time to get your knife out or find a knife and then chop off her hand, her husband would've killed you by then. Or she would have, by grabbing your genitals, no doubt an outdated way of killing someone.

[John V]

Some of you don't seem to realize that very specific statutes such as this were taken as general principles and expounded upon in the Mishneh. Here's one interpretation of the verse:
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cd...er-One.htm
There is no difference whether she grabs "his private parts" or any other organ that imperils his life. Similarly, the rodef may be a man or a woman. The intent of the verse is that whenever a person intends to strike a colleague with a blow that could kill him, the pursued should be saved by "cutting off the hand" of the rodef. If this cannot be done, the victim should be saved by taking the rodef's life, as the verse continues: "you may not show pity."

Okay..... even with that interpretation are you defending said law? Do you think we should be cutting off hands in the western world?

With that interpretation, in much of the western world one would be justified in using lethal force.

[max-greece]

Actually the Mishneh interpretation is more reasonable. I understood the cutting off of the hand to be punishment, not prevention. I am also glad to see that this is law by example and that the grabber could be male or female and the organ any that might be deemed to be life threatening.

In the light of this explanation I'd expect that the instruction to "cut off the hand and show no mercy" is more to communicate the urgency and immediacy of the required action - in order to save a life.

Therefore, subject to the accuracy of the interpretation I am a lot more comfortable with the whole thing. It almost seems reasonable - if a little over zealous.

Halacha 9 is even more interesting (the link to the page for those who cannot be bothered to scroll up http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cd...er-One.htm )

Permission to abort a foetus if the mother's life is in danger. Who knew that was in there?

[Captain Colostomy]

Leave it to a Rebbe to soften god's blow here. These are the same nitwits who determined that a passage forbiding boiling a kid in it's mother's milk means Yahweh disapproves of cheeseburgers. WTF?

[max-greece]

Leave it to a Rebbe to soften god's blow here. These are the same nitwits who determined that a passage forbiding boiling a kid in it's mother's milk means Yahweh disapproves of cheeseburgers. WTF?

You gotta admit it though - they are damn good at this sort of thing.