10 commandments = mass homicide?

[Sunny_day]

We are all familiar with the 10 Commandments, but less people are familiar with the punishments of breaking those commandments.

21:12 He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.

(King James Bible, Exodus)

Exodus 22:20: He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed.

Leviticus 24:16: And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death.

Exodus 31:15: Whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

21:15 And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.

(King James Bible, Exodus)

21:16 And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.

(King James Bible, Exodus)

21:17 And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.

(King James Bible, Exodus)

21:23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, 21:24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 21:25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

(King James Bible, Exodus)

If these punishments were indeed practiced then indeed there must have been mass homicide in Moses' day, or am i misunderstanding?

Also, the eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth law, why is it not still used today, if jews don't practice these punishments are they breaking vital law/commandments of God?

[Snoopy]

Hi,

So are you suggesting these punishments are too severe?

s.

[Sunny_day]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

Hi,

So are you suggesting these punishments are too severe?

s.

I'm suggesting that there was major manslaughter during Moses' time if these punishments were really in effect, i mean how easy is it to (accidentally) curse your mother and father or work on the sabbath.
Also, im curious to why Jews today practice the laws but not the punishments.

[Snoopy]

Hi,

sorry, probably should have put a or two in my post.

s.

[dauer]

Sunny Day,

Judaism has 613 commandments, not 10. The 10 commandments are sometimes considered like categories for the other 603. Focusing exclusively on the 10 is a very Christian approach. The KJV is also a very Christian translation. Judaism's also not sola scriptura. in addition to the TaNaCH (acronym for Jewish scripture's three sections) we also have the Talmud and numerous other books by different people that have become somehow significant.

In order to try a death penalty, you need a Sanhedrin, a high court of Jewish Law, which does not exist (no the one a group of rabbis are calling a sanhedrin does not count) and really couldn't since the line of smicha is broken and Jewish leaders, as well as the Jewish people, could never agree to a new Sanhedrin. And the Talmud says a Sanhedrin with one death penalty in seven years is a bloody sanhedrin.

The whole issue of eye for an eye is dealt with in the Talmud. You can read some of the arguments here:

MyJewishLearning.com - Texts: An Eye For $100, A Tooth For About Ten Bucks: The Monetary Meani

Essentially, it's a monetary issue unless it's dealing with the taking of a life.

Hope that helps.

Dauer

[bananabrain]

and it is generally agreed that the "man gathering sticks on the sabbath" is the test case for most of this. basically, if you just read the Torah text you are missing out on 90% of the detail. the Torah itself is just the "lecture notes" - it doesn't tell you how things actually work in practice.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

Hi,

So are you suggesting these punishments are too severe?

s.

"blasphemeth the name of the Lord" = Death sentence? No no, that doesn't sound severe......

[pohaikawahine]

mahalo dauer and bb for your thoughts on this .... "an eye for an eye" and also the "severed head" are two of my favorite symbols that I have spent many years looking at .... I like the reference you provided dauer .... there is also a related view that comes from Man's Eternal Quest by Paramahansa Yoganada ... "If thy hand offend thee, cut it off" in which he states that the intention is not to maim your body, but rather to cut off enslaving sense attachments which prevent one from finding G-d....there is also one of Kahlil Gibran's parables about 'The Blessed City" in which all the inhabitants have a single eye and one eye because of their literal reading of scriptures .... this makes me think of the word "jihad" which means to struggle, but not to struggle with another person, as far as I can tell it means to our internal struggle to overcome the things that get in the way of the inner path to paradise which seems to be related to the first reference in this note .... "the intention is not to maim your body, but rather to cut off enslaving sense attachments which prevent one from finding G-d" .... seems to me that the commandments (10 or 613) lead us to mass enlightnment and ultimately soverignty .... hope everyone is well .... aloha nui, poh

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by pohaikawahine

there is also a related view that comes from Man's Eternal Quest by Paramahansa Yoganada ... "If thy hand offend thee, cut it off" in which he states that the intention is not to maim your body, but rather to cut off enslaving sense attachments which prevent one from finding G-d....

Or if it's your feet you could just sit on them until they fall asleep!

I often wonder if there was ever a time when anyone actually followed all of that mosaic stuff to the letter. It kinda sounds to me like something somebody with a lot of time on their hands, and very little contact with the real world came up with. Maybe some sequestered clique of elitist levitical nuts stuck in some Babylonian suburb. I'm just using my imagination, not making a historical argument so I hope that doesn't offend.

Chris

[Thomas]

You have to read this in the context of the times.

Remember, up until a century or so ago, the death penalty was issued for stealing a loaf of bread.

Thomas

[bananabrain]

there is also one of Kahlil Gibran's parables about 'The Blessed City" in which all the inhabitants have a single eye and one eye because of their literal reading of scriptures .... this makes me think of the word "jihad" which means to struggle, but not to struggle with another person, as far as I can tell it means to our internal struggle to overcome the things that get in the way of the inner path to paradise which seems to be related to the first reference in this note .... "the intention is not to maim your body, but rather to cut off enslaving sense attachments which prevent one from finding G-d"

poh, i think this is an entirely aposite observation and jihad is an excellent example of precisely the sort of subtle, multilayered concept that gets jammed into a straitjacket by literalist nincompoops. so is the ma'aseh bereishit (creation story) - without the aforementioned literalist nincompoops (and, to be fair, the people who tried to reduce these concepts to aboriginal fairy stories) - this particular discussion would be unlikely to happen except in the context of traditional interpretation, which is more than equal to the task.

It kinda sounds to me like something somebody with a lot of time on their hands, and very little contact with the real world came up with. Maybe some sequestered clique of elitist levitical nuts stuck in some Babylonian suburb.

you'd have more of a case were you talking about the mishnah, which was an attempt at knowledge management, to capture a set of behaviours, traditions and laws which could no longer be practised as intended (at least in the case of the Temple procedures and some of the jurisprudence) and therefore had to be laid up and stored correctly in order to be reintroduced at a later date. it appears to have been a successful attermpt. the aforementioned "elitist levitical nuts" did more or less exist in rabbinic times in the form of the "tzadoqim" or "sadducees" although they were literalists, compared to the "pharisee" rabbis, who were able to preserve (or innovate, depending on your point of view) the laws and behaviours which had been passed down to them from their predecessors.

Remember, up until a century or so ago, the death penalty was issued for stealing a loaf of bread.

but not under jewish law. in fact, as i have already pointed out, it has always been nigh impossible to actually obtain a conviction in a capital case in a religious court.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Prober]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

poh, i think this is an entirely aposite observation and jihad is an excellent example of precisely the sort of subtle, multilayered concept that gets jammed into a straitjacket by literalist nincompoops. so is the ma'aseh bereishit (creation story) - without the aforementioned literalist nincompoops (and, to be fair, the people who tried to reduce these concepts to aboriginal fairy stories) - this particular discussion would be unlikely to happen except in the context of traditional interpretation, which is more than equal to the task.

Fundamentalist = literalist nincompoop?

[bananabrain]

literalist nincompoop = literalist nincompoop. the meaning of the word "fundamentalist" depends very much on who is talking and to whom.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Prober]

Okay.