Cut off her hand...

[presidente]

It is difficult to establish how the jews in ancient times interpreted this. I looked but couldn’t even find much about how modern jews interpret it, it seems such a thing is not exactly a hot issue!
Plenty of jews don’t seem to believe the bible at all.
So it comes down to how you would interpret ‘cutting off her hip’. Some kind of sawing in half or female genital mutilation?

If the passage is talking about her hand, it doesn't make sense to jump to the idea that it means hip. It could mean cut her palm off, but I'm not sure how they'd do that without taking more of the palm.

The text has just been talking about Levirate marriage, is it too big a leap for you to make the connection?

But jumping from cutting off her palm-- or even if it means hip--- to not allowing her to marry her brother's husband if her hsuband dies? That's really out of left field. We don't use English the way that interpretation uses Hebrew. Do you really think any native speaker of Hebrew or Moses would have known that's what the passage was supposed to mean if that's what it meant?

The one thing many jews did say was that amputation was not a practice in Israel, even in ancient times.

Yeah, well there are Orthodox Jews that say Judaism is against hunting, and that it is against Judaism to hunt. But hunting is allowed right in the Torah, so other Orthodox groups who care a little more about the Bible on that subject will say that hunting is allowed. One Jewish girl in college told me that where there are four Jews, there are five opinions. Another Jewish woman disagreed with me when I repeated that and was of the opinion that it was a different number of Jews and a different number of opinions.

 

[PS]

Interesting reading.... https://biblehub.com/commentaries/deuteronomy/25-12.htm

 

[Scrobulous]

If the passage is talking about her hand, it doesn't make sense to jump to the idea that it means hip. It could mean cut her palm off, but I'm not sure how they'd do that without taking more of the palm.



But jumping from cutting off her palm-- or even if it means hip--- to not allowing her to marry her brother's husband if her hsuband dies? That's really out of left field. We don't use English the way that interpretation uses Hebrew. Do you really think any native speaker of Hebrew or Moses would have known that's what the passage was supposed to mean if that's what it meant?



Yeah, well there are Orthodox Jews that say Judaism is against hunting, and that it is against Judaism to hunt. But hunting is allowed right in the Torah, so other Orthodox groups who care a little more about the Bible on that subject will say that hunting is allowed. One Jewish girl in college told me that where there are four Jews, there are five opinions. Another Jewish woman disagreed with me when I repeated that and was of the opinion that it was a different number of Jews and a different number of opinions.

I grant you the interpretation seems strange, but hebrew has specific words for hand and foot and hip and a single word meaning all three. This is very odd. No other language has this feature. The fact that a different word is used for the hand in verse 11 and 12 immediately draws the attention of the reader. Since the crime and punishment don’t match, this verse is not based on the Talion (eye for eye) principle and the idea of an amputation is utterly foreign to jews who abhor mutilation, so in these circumstances they would be faced with ‘cut off her hip’ and given that the verses immediately prior discuss Levirate marriage and its abuses, I don’t see that this interpretation is so extreme. It is in the context. The english translation faces the reader with a similar extreme interpretation.
As for your comment that no jew agrees with any other, I would point out that they are united in opposition to Jesus as Messiah, there is almost universal support for the Israeli state, despite its moral indefensibility, they are agreed that killing and maiming palestinians is a good thing and there is a consensus against Corbyn, so I don’t think your argument on this stands.

 

[PS]

I grant you the interpretation seems strange, but hebrew has specific words for hand and foot and hip and a single word meaning all three. This is very odd. No other language has this feature. The fact that a different word is used for the hand in verse 11 and 12 immediately draws the attention of the reader. Since the crime and punishment don’t match, this verse is not based on the Talion (eye for eye) principle and the idea of an amputation is utterly foreign to jews who abhor mutilation, so in these circumstances they would be faced with ‘cut off her hip’ and given that the verses immediately prior discuss Levirate marriage and its abuses, I don’t see that this interpretation is so extreme. It is in the context. The english translation faces the reader with a similar extreme interpretation.
As for your comment that no jew agrees with any other, I would point out that they are united in opposition to Jesus as Messiah, there is almost universal support for the Israeli state, despite its moral indefensibility, they are agreed that killing and maiming palestinians is a good thing and there is a consensus against Corbyn, so I don’t think your argument on this stands.

Are you sure? What word is the homonym that means all three?

H3027 Hand (Deut 25:11)
ya^d
yawd
A primitive word; a hand (the open one (indicating power, means, direction, etc.), in distinction from H3709, the closed one); used (as noun, adverb, etc.) in a great variety of applications, both literally and figuratively, both proximate and remote: - (+ be) able, X about, + armholes, at, axletree, because of, beside, border, X bounty, + broad, [broken-] handed, X by, charge, coast, + consecrate, + creditor, custody, debt, dominion, X enough, + fellowship, force, X from, hand [-staves, -y work], X he, himself, X in, labour, + large, ledge, [left-] handed, means, X mine, ministry, near, X of, X order, ordinance, X our, parts, pain, power, X presumptuously, service, side, sore, state, stay, draw with strength, stroke, + swear, terror, X thee, X by them, X them-selves, X thine own, X thou, through, X throwing, + thumb, times, X to, X under, X us, X wait on, [way-] side, where, + wide, X with (him, me, you), work, + yield, X your-selves.
Total KJV occurrences: 1612

H7785 Hip
sho^q
shoke
From H7783; the (lower) leg (as a runner): - hip, leg, shoulder, thigh.
Total KJV occurrences: 19

H7272 Foot
regel
reh'-gel
From H7270; a foot (as used in walking); by implication a step; by euphemism the pudenda: - X be able to endure, X according as, X after, X coming, X follow, ([broken-]) foot ([-ed, -stool]), X great toe, X haunt, X journey, leg, + piss, + possession, time.
Total KJV occurrences: 247

 

[povawiqe]

In Deuteronomy 25 we have the following:
11 If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, 12 you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.

When reading the OT law, it is important to realise that although, by our standards, the events are pretty barbaric, we are dealing with divine judgment and being educated to understand the deadliness of sin and God’s attitude towards it. Genocide is a last resort and the means by which God judges the nations of the middle east. There are indications, Gen 15:16 that God waits generations before judging in this way. We are, in fact, instructed to love the law and to dwell on it night and day Ps 1:2.
It seems to me that the law is an imperfect means of structuring a society along godly lines, but in spite of all this, the above command strikes me as utterly disgusting.
I am appalled too, at commands to stone animals, like bulls who gore people to death. Stoning is a means of killing so painful, slow and disgusting, that surely no merciful God could condone it. Why the cruelty?
I have to say such things really upset my faith.
Does anyone have a view on this?

The Torah is harsh because it was given against the lawless, not against the righteous,

Now we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, knowing this, that law is not enacted for a righteous one, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and sinful, for those unmerciful and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for slayers of man, for the sexually immoral, homosexuals, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and if anything other is opposed to being sound in the teaching, according to the gospel of the glory of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted. (1 Timothy 1:8-11)

As such, while you are criticizing and calling the Torah disgusting, it is in fact the Law of God,

For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, (Romans 7:22)

Which has not been abolished,

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. (Matthew 5:17)

Which we are all bound to, STILL, so I'd suggest you change your views on the Law of God before you suffer the consequences of disobeying it, death,

Therefore, as tongues of fire lick up straw and as dry grass sinks down in the flames, so their roots will decay and their flowers blow away like dust; for they have rejected the law of Yehovah Almighty and spurned the word of the Set-Apart One of Israel. Therefore Yehovah’s anger burns against his people; his hand is raised and he strikes them down. The mountains shake, and the dead bodies are like refuse in the streets. Yet for all this, his anger is not turned away, his hand is still upraised. (Isaiah 5:24-25)

Hear, you earth: I am bringing disaster on this people, the fruit of their schemes, because they have not listened to my words and have rejected my law. (Jeremiah 6:19)

 

[Scrobulous]

Are you sure? What word is the homonym that means all three?

H3027 Hand (Deut 25:11)
ya^d
yawd
A primitive word; a hand (the open one (indicating power, means, direction, etc.), in distinction from H3709, the closed one); used (as noun, adverb, etc.) in a great variety of applications, both literally and figuratively, both proximate and remote: - (+ be) able, X about, + armholes, at, axletree, because of, beside, border, X bounty, + broad, [broken-] handed, X by, charge, coast, + consecrate, + creditor, custody, debt, dominion, X enough, + fellowship, force, X from, hand [-staves, -y work], X he, himself, X in, labour, + large, ledge, [left-] handed, means, X mine, ministry, near, X of, X order, ordinance, X our, parts, pain, power, X presumptuously, service, side, sore, state, stay, draw with strength, stroke, + swear, terror, X thee, X by them, X them-selves, X thine own, X thou, through, X throwing, + thumb, times, X to, X under, X us, X wait on, [way-] side, where, + wide, X with (him, me, you), work, + yield, X your-selves.
Total KJV occurrences: 1612

H7785 Hip
sho^q
shoke
From H7783; the (lower) leg (as a runner): - hip, leg, shoulder, thigh.
Total KJV occurrences: 19

H7272 Foot
regel
reh'-gel
From H7270; a foot (as used in walking); by implication a step; by euphemism the pudenda: - X be able to endure, X according as, X after, X coming, X follow, ([broken-]) foot ([-ed, -stool]), X great toe, X haunt, X journey, leg, + piss, + possession, time.
Total KJV occurrences: 247

According to the link, it is
כַּף kaph, kaf; from H3721; the hollow hand or palm (so of the paw of an animal, of the sole, and even of the bowl of a dish or sling, the handle of a bolt, the leaves of a palm-tree); figuratively, power:—branch, foot, hand((-ful), -dle, (-led)), hollow, middle, palm, paw, power, sole, spoon.

 

[presidente]

I grant you the interpretation seems strange, but hebrew has specific words for hand and foot and hip and a single word meaning all three. This is very odd. No other language has this feature.

Did you learn thebl other languages to confirm this? Are you sure no orher Semetic language has this?

The word means palm not hand, right? So a reference to this word after a reference to the hand may direct the attention to the palm, not tge hip.

[/quote]
The fact that a different word is used for the hand in verse 11 and 12 immediately draws the attention of the reader. Since the crime and punishment don’t match, this verse is not based on the Talion (eye for eye) principle [/quote]



Women do not have man parts. And the hand and palm committed the crime.

[/quote]

Begging the question. It is not if they have read this passage.

and the idea of an amputation is utterly foreign to jews who abhor mutilation, so in these circumstances they would be faced with ‘cut off her hip’ and given that the verses immediately prior discuss Levirate marriage and its abuses, I don’t see that this interpretation is so extreme.

If removing the hip were emonstrated to be an idiom for levirate marriage, you would have a fair point. Us tgere evidence for that? Gas any Bible translator or other serious IT scholar agreed with this idea?

Sawing off a woman's hip would prabably be worse for ger than removing a han or palm.

Thebhand commited the crime. If hip refered to her private parts as a euphemism that would make sense conceptually but would be more extreme tganntge crime unless there was some very major damage, but I have neverbread of this being such a euphemism.

is in the context. The english translation faces the reader with a similar extreme interpretation.
As for your comment that no jew agrees with any other, I would point out that they are united in opposition to Jesus as Messiah, there is almost universal support for the Israeli state, despite its moral indefensibility, they are agreed that killing and maiming palestinians is a good thing and there is a consensus against

That was Jewish humor to make a point. I see you certainly have abpolitical position here. Jews are not all united about what to do about Palestinians or building in the territories tgey accquired in the Six Day War. Some were in favor of there being a territory. Others opposed it.

 

[PS]

According to the link, it is
כַּף kaph, kaf; from H3721; the hollow hand or palm (so of the paw of an animal, of the sole, and even of the bowl of a dish or sling, the handle of a bolt, the leaves of a palm-tree); figuratively, power:—branch, foot, hand((-ful), -dle, (-led)), hollow, middle, palm, paw, power, sole, spoon.

That doesn't seem right, neither do I see anyone bowing down.

I think I know the answer. It turns out to be well suited to the situation. It will take a while for me to write it. Would you like to see?

 

[Scrobulous]

That doesn't seem right, neither do I see anyone bowing down.

I think I know the answer. It turns out to be well suited to the situation. It will take a while for me to write it. Would you like to see?

Sure.

 

[Scrobulous]

Did you learn thebl other languages to confirm this? Are you sure no orher Semetic language has this?

The word means palm not hand, right? So a reference to this word after a reference to the hand may direct the attention to the palm, not tge hip.

The fact that a different word is used for the hand in verse 11 and 12 immediately draws the attention of the reader. Since the crime and punishment don’t match, this verse is not based on the Talion (eye for eye) principle [/quote]

Women do not have man parts. And the hand and palm committed the crime.

[/quote]

Begging the question. It is not if they have read this passage.



If removing the hip were emonstrated to be an idiom for levirate marriage, you would have a fair point. Us tgere evidence for that? Gas any Bible translator or other serious IT scholar agreed with this idea?

Sawing off a woman's hip would prabably be worse for ger than removing a han or palm.

Thebhand commited the crime. If hip refered to her private parts as a euphemism that would make sense conceptually but would be more extreme tganntge crime unless there was some very major damage, but I have neverbread of this being such a euphemism.


That was Jewish humor to make a point. I see you certainly have abpolitical position here. Jews are not all united about what to do about Palestinians or building in the territories tgey accquired in the Six Day War. Some were in favor of there being a territory. Others opposed it.[/QUOTE]


Hard to follow your argument.
In any event, the member LPT posted a comment and a link. It deals with the subject in detail. It makes a suggestion about the interpretation. It seems logical to me. I told you my reasons. If you don’t like it, fine! It’s your choice.

 

[PS]

Sure.

Very quickly typed out.

Rather than spell it out, the writer speaking of a man's private parts indicates the attacker was a prostitute of whom there were many. The amputation of the hand used by the attacker, usually the right hand would be seen as just punishment. The dead man's brother, understandably not wanting to possibly be infected, never mind having a prostitute give birth to his child and bring it up, refuses. The shoe symbolises the man's renunciation of his property and is kept by the court as evidence. It is a bad situation for the dead man's family who lose their inheritance and the attacker is suitably punished.

 

[Scrobulous]

The Torah is harsh because it was given against the lawless, not against the righteous,

Now we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, knowing this, that law is not enacted for a righteous one, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and sinful, for those unmerciful and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for slayers of man, for the sexually immoral, homosexuals, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and if anything other is opposed to being sound in the teaching, according to the gospel of the glory of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted. (1 Timothy 1:8-11)

As such, while you are criticizing and calling the Torah disgusting, it is in fact the Law of God,

For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, (Romans 7:22)

Which has not been abolished,

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. (Matthew 5:17)

Which we are all bound to, STILL, so I'd suggest you change your views on the Law of God before you suffer the consequences of disobeying it, death,

Therefore, as tongues of fire lick up straw and as dry grass sinks down in the flames, so their roots will decay and their flowers blow away like dust; for they have rejected the law of Yehovah Almighty and spurned the word of the Set-Apart One of Israel. Therefore Yehovah’s anger burns against his people; his hand is raised and he strikes them down. The mountains shake, and the dead bodies are like refuse in the streets. Yet for all this, his anger is not turned away, his hand is still upraised. (Isaiah 5:24-25)

Hear, you earth: I am bringing disaster on this people, the fruit of their schemes, because they have not listened to my words and have rejected my law. (Jeremiah 6:19)

I take it you are among the righteous, for whom the law was not written.
Thanks for your suggestion,
But
I am not under law but under grace
AND
There is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus
Good try though.

 

[presidente]

Very quickly typed out.

Rather than spell it out, the writer speaking of a man's private parts indicates the attacker was a prostitute of whom there were many. The amputation of the hand used by the attacker, usually the right hand would be seen as just punishment. The dead man's brother, understandably not wanting to possibly be infected, never mind having a prostitute give birth to his child and bring it up, refuses. The shoe symbolises the man's renunciation of his property and is kept by the court as evidence. It is a bad situation for the dead man's family who lose their inheritance and the attacker is suitably punished.

According to the link, it is
כַּף kaph, kaf; from H3721; the hollow hand or palm (so of the paw of an animal, of the sole, and even of the bowl of a dish or sling, the handle of a bolt, the leaves of a palm-tree); figuratively, power:—branch, foot, hand((-ful), -dle, (-led)), hollow, middle, palm, paw, power, sole, spoon.

'Maybe 'socket' would be an interpretation. It's not the whole hip is it? If we think of it as them calling palms and hips as 'sockets' or 'spoons' that might make just a little more sense to us. If you take the bone out, a hip socket may resemble a socket or a cupped palm, especially if you think of people who would have seen sockets of animals when preparing food who did not just buy cuts wrapped in plastic and styrofoam at the supermarket.

Anyway, jumping to the idea that cutting of the socket or hip to not being able to marry one's brother just doesn't make any sense without showing some evidence that this was an idiom in Hebrew. Wishful thinking is not a good basis for eisegesis.

 

[LPT]

Why would it be about a Levirate marriage? The passage doesn't say the other guy in the fight was her husband's brother. She gets her hand chopped off instead of one of the men's shoe being removed. Where is the connection in your mind?

Did you even read what I posted apparently not, it's not my fault people have no sight in their eyes and no sound in their ears, people who are pushing this about the hand literally being cut off, are mad at God for what ever reason it is. when someone comes in the bible forums and bash the bible they have NO discernment they look at every thing in the bible at face value. I'll say it again the word wasn't translated as the true meaning of the passages. I'm done with silly games people play.

 

[LPT]

The precise translation of kaph when used in conjunction with hand is "palm." While the translation is not precise, it makes sense. One way to cut off the palm is to remove the hand. Yet, since it is obvious the Law reads kaph (v12) after using yad (v11), then it follows a different meaning should be considered and invites further study for the correct response when the Law is violated.

Shouldn't it follow that the _same_ meaning is intended? Why a different meaning?

I had a look at the Babylonian Talmud, and in it, they debate whether this applies to the wife of a court officer if she has done so carrying out the orders of the court. The translation from the Aramaic uses 'hand'. It would be interesting to see how the Aramaic is translated, but I do not have the ability to check this out at the current time.



Sorry the 'leap' here is way too big to take without some real evidence. Why would the Hebrew reader interpret cutting a word that can refer to the palm of the hand or the hip socket to refer to remove the right to a Levrite marriage.

The hip is in the pelvic area.... so it must refer back to the Levrite marriage. That's reasonable, isn't it? No it's not. We need some reason these ideas are more connected than that, some linguistic usage type evidence or something. Did any of the ancient Jews ever take it that way?

I am wondering if anyone in history ever interpreted it that way before this poster.[/QUOTE]

And it will not makes sense to you, because you don't what it too, your playing a nitpicking viper.

 

[Scrobulous]

Shouldn't it follow that the _same_ meaning is intended? Why a different meaning?

I had a look at the Babylonian Talmud, and in it, they debate whether this applies to the wife of a court officer if she has done so carrying out the orders of the court. The translation from the Aramaic uses 'hand'. It would be interesting to see how the Aramaic is translated, but I do not have the ability to check this out at the current time.



Sorry the 'leap' here is way too big to take without some real evidence. Why would the Hebrew reader interpret cutting a word that can refer to the palm of the hand or the hip socket to refer to remove the right to a Levrite marriage.

The hip is in the pelvic area.... so it must refer back to the Levrite marriage. That's reasonable, isn't it? No it's not. We need some reason these ideas are more connected than that, some linguistic usage type evidence or something. Did any of the ancient Jews ever take it that way?

I am wondering if anyone in history ever interpreted it that way before this poster.

And it will not makes sense to you, because you don't what it too, your playing a nitpicking viper.[/QUOTE]

Don't let them upset you LPT.
I read your post and it was a great help to me.
God bless you.

 

[LPT]

And it will not makes sense to you, because you don't what it too, your playing a nitpicking viper.

Don't let them upset you LPT.
I read your post and it was a great help to me.
God bless you.[/QUOTE]

Your welcome my friend and I'm jubilant it was helpful, indeed the bible can be quite difficult to interpret at times some words from other languages can be hard to translate some are not even used, take the phrase son in law, looking at Lukes translation of the geno, it simply says son of Heli which was Mary's father thus Joseph was the son in law of Heli.

 

[presidente]

Shouldn't it follow that the _same_ meaning is intended? Why a different meaning?

I had a look at the Babylonian Talmud, and in it, they debate whether this applies to the wife of a court officer if she has done so carrying out the orders of the court. The translation from the Aramaic uses 'hand'. It would be interesting to see how the Aramaic is translated, but I do not have the ability to check this out at the current time.

Sorry the 'leap' here is way too big to take without some real evidence. Why would the Hebrew reader interpret cutting a word that can refer to the palm of the hand or the hip socket to refer to remove the right to a Levrite marriage.

The hip is in the pelvic area.... so it must refer back to the Levrite marriage. That's reasonable, isn't it? No it's not. We need some reason these ideas are more connected than that, some linguistic usage type evidence or something. Did any of the ancient Jews ever take it that way?

I am wondering if anyone in history ever interpreted it that way before this poster.

And it will not makes sense to you, because you don't what it too, your playing a nitpicking viper.

You messed the quotes up, and quoted me as saying something I disagreed with. I thought I'd point that out to prevent confusion to those following the conversation.

Nitpicking viper. That's a rather mean accusation. I have learned to be skeptical of assertions about Greek and Hebrew. And I studied linguistics and a bit of Semetic languages (as electives) as an undergraduate student.

I'm open to other interpretations. Not chopping a woman's hand or palm off sounds better to me. I'm not nit picking. I'm just pointing out how loosey-goosey this interpretation is. If you've got some evidence that cutting off the hip is an idiom for not being allowed to marry one's brother's husband if the husband dies, then you may have a good case.

But no reasonable person who just speaks English is going to read a sentence about chopping off a palm, or hip even, and conclude it is talking about not a widow not being allowed to remarry into her husband's family. We shouldn't make such a wild assumption about Hebrew without some evidence. If you have evidence for the interpretation, I'm ready to look at it. That would be very interesting. If not, why should we randomly make up stuff about passages and pass it off as exegesis?

 

[PS]

Why are people worrying about the amputation of a hand when there is all this?

The courts must carry out the death penalty of stoning — Deut. 22:24 (She is to die because she did not cry out for help)
The courts must carry out the death penalty of burning — Lev. 20:14
The courts must carry out the death penalty of the sword — Ex. 21:20
The courts must carry out the death penalty of strangulation — Lev. 20:10
The courts must hang those stoned for blasphemy or idolatry — Deut. 21:22
Bury the executed on the day they are killed — Deut. 21:23
Not to delay burial overnight — Deut. 21:23
The court must not let the sorcerer live — Ex. 22:17
The court must not kill anybody on circumstantial evidence — Ex. 23:7
A judge must not pity the murderer or assaulter at the trial — Deut. 19:13
Not to kill the murderer before he stands trial — Num. 35:12
Save someone being pursued even by taking the life of the pursuer — Deut. 25:12
Destroy the seven Canaanite nations — Deut. 20:17
Not to let any of them remain alive — Deut. 20:16
Not to kill the murderer before he stands trial — Num. 35:12
Save someone being pursued even by taking the life of the pursuer — Deut. 25:12

 

[presidente]

PS I think you got some of your verses wrong. For example, I cannot find strangling in that verse.