From: hem@col400.att.com (Hillel E. Markowitz)
Subject: Re: Child abuse ordered by G-d
Originator: news@cbnewsf.cb.att.com
Organization: AT&T Federal Systems
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 18:59:43 GMT

In article <1993Jan09.033430.194148@zeus.calpoly.edu> jmunch@hertz.elee.calpoly.edu (John Munch) writes:
>I wrote, quoting the bible:
>
>>                          Deuteronomy 21:18-21
>>    If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father
>> and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father
>> and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate 
>> of his town. They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn
>> and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." 
>> Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the
>> evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.
>
>>In <1ifq5lINNiuf@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, bb099@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Trent Phillips)  wrote:
>> 	Why should ANY kid, even one that is drunken and "wastrel" !
>> 
>> 	The DEATH sentence for KIDS ! For ANY reason ? Without a TRIAL !
>> 
>> 	THAT is barbaric !
> 
>In article <765351d8174923t251@witsend.uucp> "D. C. Sessions" <dcs@witsend.tnet.com> writes:
>>  Huh?  The 'child' in question had to be a grown man.  Taking
>>  ANY legislation out of context can be a hoot; if you don't
>>  believe it, crack open any book of Revised Statutes and read
>>  a single paragraph.
>>
>>  (I was taught that this particular passage is in effect a dead
>>  letter since the conditions attached are almost impossible to
>>  satisfy.  My teacher claimed that there were no executions
>>  under this one in the entire recorded history of the Jews.)
>
>   This passage gives no indication what age the son is. The son could be
>a kid or a grown man. The passage is not taken out of context. I keyed
>in the whole paragraph. The previous paragraph is about the rights of 
>the first born son. The subsequent paragraph is about disposing of bodies
>from executions via hanging. The conditions are not impossible to satisfy,
>unless your talking about conditions attached from outside the bible. It
>sounds like you need to crack open the bible. 
>
>                       -John David Munch


This gives an example of why it is impossible to read the text
without having studied the oral law properly.  In the first place
going to the "elders at the gate of the city" is the idiom for
having a trial.  The "elsers" were the judges and "the gates of
the city" was the public square where trials were held.  Capital
crimes were restricted to specific courts.  The definitions of
"drunkard" and "wastrel" also had specific legal meanings.  The
child had to be past the age of bar mitzvah (legally an adult)
but not yet 13 and six months.  He also had to commit certain
acts (which included theft, assault, and declaring before
witnesses that he intended to do these things even though he knew
the prescribed punishment).

The example given of reading a statute "out of context" is
similar to reading a constitutional amendment (such as "the right
to bear arms") without taking into account the full extent of the
case law. [Note example chosen with malice aforethought]

Once the appropriate "case law" is taken into account, the
talmudic statement that this is a case which "never was and never
will be" (literal translation of legal phrase) is understood.

-- 
____________________________________________________
| Hillel Markowitz    |     Im ain ani li mi li    |
| H_Markowitz@att.com | Veahavta Leraiecha Kamocha |
|_____________________|____________________________|
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc