-4

Looking atDeuteronomy 21 which talks about the wayward, stubborn and rebellious, defiant son who at a certain point (and after he went to trial before the court) should be stoned to death. Or Deuteronomy 22:28-29 in which a rapist should marry his victim. People don’t seem to apply these commandments in these days, and most certainly not according to the way they are literally described. Looking at all the commandments during Temple time, but which can’t be fulfilled because we have no Temple service these days, Hosea teaches that during a time without a Temple one must for example offer the sacrifices of his lips (prayer).

So here’s my question how (on which grounds) do we determine if a commandment is time-bound or not, if we should or shouldn’t apply them in these days or should interpreter them in a different way or fulfill them in a different way.

  • We haven't head capital cases tried for the last 2,000 years or so, so the question about the rebelliious son is moot. Anyway, the talmud tells us that it was never actually tried in practice, or possibly once in history, so there is not much point in debating its applicability today. – simyou Aug 23 at 7:18
1

There is no Mitzvah that should be interpreted as no longer applying because what the Torah wrote is now meant to be interpreted differently.

There are certain Mitzvah that have technicalities preventing them from being done in modern time. That isn't because they are interpreted differently.

To address the examples given here

(1)The wayward son: There are so many requirements to meet that criteria that according to at least one opinion in the Gemara there never was such a case to begin with because no one ever met the criteria. Even if someone would, today we no longer have the Sanhedrin with the proper Semicha authorizing them to judge a case of capital punishments

(2)A rapist should marry his victim: The girl who has to be between the ages of three and twelve and a half and has to agree. Which girl today would agree to marry her rapist? Anyway as above even if she would agree we no longer have the Sanhedrin with the proper Semicha authorizing them to judge a case of this nature

(3)Hosea teaches that during a time without a Temple one must for example offer the sacrifices of his lips: That means we try do whatever substitute we can for the temple services. Not they are inherently no longer to be understood as the Torah says

| improve this answer | |
  • There are certain mitzvos that were for a specific time period. What does your first sentence mean? – robev Aug 23 at 3:59

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .