atheist fag: "The Taliban are a modern day example of Tanach law and justice"

[Rational Jew]

http://calvarychapelabuse.com/wordpress/if-you-like-the-god-of-the-old-testament-then-you-should-love-the-taliban-the-taliban-are-a-modern-day-example-of-old-testament-law-and-justice/

[muman613]

What a completely ignorant fool thinks... Nowhere in Tanakh does it say that a thief should have his hands cut off. The entire 'eye for eye' mistranslation has been taken to its maximum when making this kind of comparison. The Torah never ever meant that a criminals eyes, teeth, hands or feet should be damaged if they harm another. Rather it is clear from the oral tradition (and other sources) that the Torah presents a completely just system of payment for the value of the damages made. Idiots like the author and of course the biggest fool of them all (Mohamud) misunderstood what the Torah says and thus we have comparisons like this.

Tanakh does not require women to do anything besides cover her hair. As a matter of fact in the Torah a woman who covers her entire face is considered like a prostitute. Women in the Tanakh are never subjugated, rather the Torah is progressive in that it allows women the right to inherit. Women are not considered as chattel as many ignorant fools suggest. But marriage is a very serious institution and thus infidelity is considered a very bad offence.
 

[Rational Jew]

Their major accusation is that Judaism promotes stoning people to death for various crimes, such as disobeying parents. The muzzies also claim they adopted stoning from Judasim.

[muman613]

Their major accusation is that Judaism promotes stoning people to death for various crimes, such as disobeying parents. The muzzies also claim they adopted stoning from Judasim.

Again this is based on a misunderstanding of the Torah. No son was ever stoned for disobeying parents, the mitzvah of the rebellious son was only given to ensure that the children would obey their parents. I believe this is the command you are referring to, because there certainly is no death penalty for the mitzvah of 'honor your mother and father'.

See this Torah.org discussion of 'Ben Sorer Umoreh' @ http://www.torah.org/learning/ravfrand/5767/kiseitzei.html

The Reward of Learning About the Rebellious Son


This week's parsha contains within it the very peculiar mitzvah of the wayward and rebellious son. The requirements for achieving the status of a bona fide "ben sorer u'moreh" are staggering. The Talmud [Sanhedrin Chapter 8] teaches that the window of time in which a son can become a ben sorer u'moreh is very short. He has to steal a certain amount of meat and drink a certain amount of wine. The Talmud infers from pasukim [verses] that the parents have to have the same height and appearance and even the same tone of voice.

Because of these myriad requirements, the Gemara states: "Ben sorer u'moreh never happened and never will happen. Why then were the laws given? So that we may expound it and get reward." [Sanhedrin 71a]

Rabbi Yisrael Salanter (in the Sefer Or Yisrael) wonders about the meaning of this statement. After all, he argues, is the Torah not big enough without this set of laws to provide enough material to learn, expound upon, and gain the reward of Torah study? Rav Yisrael says that a person could live for 1000 years and still not exhaust the potential for deriving reward from Torah study –- even excluding the four pasukim in Parshas Ki Seitzei and the 7 folios in tractate Sanhedrin dealing with the Wayward and Rebellious son.

He therefore concludes that the chapter of Ben Sorer U'Moreh indeed teaches us a unique and profound lesson: Learning for learning's sake alone, without any application to the "real world" whatsoever, is worthwhile in and of itself. Certainly, the purpose of learning is to bring one to action and there is value in being "results oriented". However Reb Yisrael teaches us that we should not think that the whole point of learning is to know "what to do". Even if something will never be practically relevant, there is still value in just learning the Word of G-d.

There are other esoteric areas of Halacha that may not be relevant in our time and that may, most likely, not be relevant in any time, for the overwhelming number of people. However, all other areas of Torah are at least at some time theoretically relevant. But the Torah found it necessary to give at least one Halacha where one could be absolutely sure that it would never be relevant. No one will ever tell an Orthodox Rabbi "I have a ben Sorer U'Moreh shaylah (query) for you!" It will never happen!

The point the Torah is trying to make is: Learn it anyway. The lesson to be derived is the lesson of Torah learning. The intrinsic purpose of Torah learning is to study the word of G-d. Its benefit is not dependent on practical application.
.
.
.

Stoning is one of the four methods of implementing the death penalty... This is true.. And we do support the death penalty. The various penalties have certain meanings and are applied for various crimes.

[muman613]

Now the Torah does impose a death penalty on a son who strikes his father...

Here is an interesting discussion of some of these laws, from the true Jewish perspective:

http://www.torchweb.org/torah_detail.php?id=246

Parshas Mishpatim (5773)
Kidnapping Your Kid

Police searching for a missing child heard heavy breathing coming from a parked van. But, when they looked, it was just a kid napping.

Thankfully, real kidnappings are relatively infrequent occurrences, and quite often a “missing” or “abducted” child turns out to be just some kid who fell asleep in a minivan and his parents forgot that he was there.

There is one type of “kidnapping” that happens more often than we think, and it is alluded to in this week’s Torah portion, Parshas Mishpatim.

The Torah lists various sins and their corresponding punishments. In chapter 21 verse 15, it teaches: “One who strikes his father or mother shall surely be put to death”.

[The Talmud in Sanhedrin 85b explains that the death penalty is only for one who strikes his parents in a way that causes a bruise, as opposed to ordinary assault which, although forbidden, does not carry so severe a punishment. Also, bear in mind that even if a child were to actually bruise his parent, the death penalty would almost never be implemented by the court for a whole host of reasons, and the primary goal of the Torah in mentioning the death penalty is to teach us the severity of the sin.].

The following verse states: “One who kidnaps a man and sells him, and he was found to have been in his power, shall surely be put to death”. This is the biblical prohibition against kidnapping. Rashi comments that kidnappers are liable to the death penalty only if they forced the victim to work for them and then sold him into slavery.

The verse after that states: “One who curses his father or mother shall surely be put to death”. The Talmud teaches that the death penalty is only applied where the child cursed his parents using G-d’s Name.

The obvious question is why the Torah places the sin of kidnapping smack in between the two sins of striking and cursing parents.

The great medieval Bible commentator Rabbi Avraham ibn Ezra cites Rav Saadia Gaon who answers that a majority of those who are kidnapped are young children. A child who was abducted could easily grow up not knowing the identity of his parents and therefore could possibly come to strike or curse his parent without knowing it. The kidnapper is therefore liable for punishment for being the cause of the child’s sin against his parents. It is for this reason that the sin of kidnapping is sandwiched in between the sins of cursing or striking one’s parents.

Rabbi Shimon Schwab ZT”L, in his Selected Speeches (CIS Publishers), suggests a different approach. He writes that in these verses we find an allusion to the psychological causes which may make a son or daughter stoop so low as to actually strike or curse their parents after all the good that their parents have done for them in life. And while it is not at all an excuse for the sin they are committing, the Torah here is warning parents not to treat their own children like kidnapped hostages, constantly breathing down their necks, stifling their initiatives, suppressing their youthful plans and aspirations.

Parents who “kidnap” their own kids by trying to force them into being something they are not but that their parents want them to be, might one day trigger an open rebellion with disastrous results.

Yet another answer I saw in the book Direction, written by Rabbi Zadok Shmuel Suchard, quoting his friend Ivan Segal. He writes that when parents divorce and there is acrimony, one parent may “kidnap” a child or even flee with a child, inciting the child against the other parent. Sometimes the child is filled with such venom and hate that he might actually come to curse or strike that parent. The Torah therefore places the verse about kidnapping in between the laws of striking or cursing one’s parents to warn against this.

These two answers share a common theme: We have to be aware of the repercussions of our actions, especially when it comes to our children.

http://www.torchweb.org/torah_detail.php?id=246