up vote 0 down vote favorite
1
share [g+] share [fb]

In Leviticus 20:14, it states that a man who has relations with a woman and also with her mother is a despicable lech, whose punishment is to be burned to death. This is one of two transgressions which are to be punished by burning to death, the other one is Leviticus 21:9, where the victim is a priest's daughter who chooses to prostitute herself.

Are these laws obsolete? Do any Jews think they should be revived? I ask this because I find it difficult to think of Leviticus law as divinely inspired because of barbarous passages such as this. All of Leviticus 27, for example.

I am aware that Judaism no longer takes these things seriously, nor does it follow these laws, but I have never seen anyone condemn these practices. Does anyone?

I am fluent in Hebrew, and I did a translation of Leviticus here: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bible_%28Wikisource%29/Leviticus#27._Loans_on_collateral . I wanted to go on and translate the rest of the Hebrew Bible, but the barbaric stuff in Leviticus just left such a terrible taste in my mouth, that I couldn't go on.

link|improve this question
Removed tag Halacha ... needs new tag "literal understanding of the bible" or similar – David Perlman Feb 18 at 18:56
7  
These laws are not obsolete and Judaism DO takes these things seriously. The punishment couldn't be applied nowadays because of reasons described in Will's answer. – jutky Feb 18 at 21:38
1  
Somewhat related (not specifically about burning): judaism.stackexchange.com/q/7739/472 – Monica Cellio Feb 19 at 1:17
3  
Ron, I can appreciate your feelings about some of the Torah's laws, but remember that your perspective is comimg from a different culture. For example, most people in today's societies have no problem slaughtering, grilling and eating another living creature, so long as those creatures cannot organize an equal rights movement. A goal of the Torah is to create a holy nation. The Torah uses a punitive system to indicate actions which are antithetical to that holiness. In short, you have not been raised in a society with the same values. – YDK Feb 19 at 5:33
@YDK: I don't believe in relative ethics, but in absolute ethics. Isn't that the whole point of monotheism? Barbaric practices such as this have only one goal--- terrorizing people into submission to religious authority, and it is a damnable practice. The holy people are those rabbis that put a stop to this nonsense. – Ron Maimon Feb 25 at 23:57
show 4 more comments
feedback

2 Answers

up vote 10 down vote accepted

The death penalty can only be carried out:

-with a specific kind of rabbinic court (which we don't have today)

-after the sinner has been caught in the act, warned by two people eligible to testify in a rabbinic court, and then IMMEDIATELY commits the same act again, in front of the same witnesses.

There are several other limiting factors to the death penalty in Jewish law, so much so that the Talmud, tractate Makkos declares that a court (the kind that we don't have today) which executes one man in SEVENTY YEARS is a murderous court!

Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Tarfon go even further, and explain that they would make the questioning of witnesses so exacting, that no one would stand up to it, thus precluding any "accurate testimony" from any such witnesses (who witnessed a capital crime, warned the perpetrator, and then witnessed him immediately commit the same act again) - and effectively preempting the death penalty entirely.

This question also brings up a general problem in drawing practical conclusions from the Tanach. Judaism has never believed that the Tanach is LITERALLY TRUE. Judaism has always believed that the Tanach is MASORETICALLY TRUE. The actual meaning of any given verse is whatever our mesorah (handed-down tradition) says it is.

I recommend this article for further clarification.

link|improve this answer
1  
+1 Good answer! (I like "masoretically true", too :-D) – HodofHod♦ Feb 19 at 0:21
1  
+1 from me too. I agree that the Rabbinical tradition is as important as the literal Biblical reading. It does allow a person to go on. But I suppose that the implicit answer to the condemnation question is "no, no condemnation" regarding the original written version of the law and its original religious court practice. – Ron Maimon Feb 19 at 9:06
3  
@RonMaimon no condemnation at all. Look again at all of the requirements to sentence a sinner to death. Jews who sinned privately could never face any earthly penalty. Think about it: someone who commits a death-penalty sin publicly, is warned about it by two qualified witnesses, and then immediately commits the sin again - what is that person's motive? Desire, or publicly protesting against G-d's Law? Obviously it's the latter; and only that kind of defiance warranted a death-penalty trial. – user1095 Feb 19 at 9:35
2  
@Ron It's got nothing to with courage. They won't denounce because they don't believe it's wrong. We believe that right and wrong are concepts that only have meaning because G-d gave them meaning. Otherwise you have "relative morality" which is always subject to change. If G-d says "Thou shalt do <x>", then <x> is morally right. Always. Period. – HodofHod♦ Feb 26 at 2:20
1  
@RonMaimon I agree with HodofHod, but again, it must be stressed that our masoretic understanding of the Torah is the word of G-d - not what anyone picking up a Bible today understands it to be. Actual Jewish practice follows G-d's laws. Asking us to reject the death penalty when we have no practical use for it in our times is a straw man argument, similar to the antisemites who asked us to denounce baking matzah with Christian children's blood - neither that nor this have any basis in Jewish law, and therefore, there is nothing to denounce. – user1095 Mar 8 at 3:39
show 6 more comments
feedback
up vote 8 down vote

As stated above, the death penalty was exceedingly rare.

Just regarding the burning part, fascinatingly the Talmud says that to burn someone at the stake is a violation of "love your fellow like yourself." Instead, a death sentence of "burning" is carried out by pouring molten lead down their throat. Still not fun, but it's seen as I believe less painful (anyone sentenced to death was first given drugged wine), and more honorable as it leaves the human body intact.

link|improve this answer
Seems more like a comment on Will's answer. – Double AA Feb 19 at 1:59
2  
@DoubleAA it answers the question's claim burning's barbaric. – msh210♦ Feb 19 at 4:16
@msh210 The question didn't ask about barbarity. So this is a comment not an answer. – Double AA Feb 19 at 4:31
@DoubleAA, the issue of barbarity may not have been put in the form of the question, but it was included in the question. I think we can take for granted that all information included in the question is to illuminate what is being asked. Plus the question asked if anyone "condemns" such acts, and wh – Yirmeyahu Feb 19 at 8:08
3  
"Jewish tradition doesn't find it easy": or desirable. – msh210♦ Feb 19 at 14:54
show 2 more comments
feedback

Your Answer

 
or
required, but never shown
discard

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.