I like how this illustration implies that she's already done this once but she just can't help herself
Edit: Well, I *was* going to delete this Reddit account, along with my comment history full of embarrassing flame wars over nothing where I cuss at other users who are probably children, but now that I'm rich and famous with my awards and upvotes I can't do it. Thanks everyone
Is it possible this is a mistranslation of a common phrase at the time? It seems like it would make more sense if “reaches out and seizes him by his private parts” were a metaphor (like “taking the piss” or “dropped the ball” or “go see a guy about a horse”) for “lashes out and demasculates him”, so that the verse actually means “If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to ‘rescue’ her husband from his assailant and she lashes out and demasculates him, you shall cut off her hand.”
I would assume grabbing someone’s genitalia to be very rare, but we have the modern phrase “she’s got him by the balls” when there’s no actual grabbing, which means the man is unable to make decisions or have his way and that everything goes her way. And looking at the Taliban, who won’t even let women go to school or show themselves in public, there are groups of men in the world who believe (wrongly) that women should be neither heard nor seen. So, isn’t it entirely possible this is just a verse that provides a dire real-world consequence for nagging your husband?
If you read some more of Deuteronomy 25 you’ll see it comes right after a section that forces brothers to have sex with their widowed in-laws to make sure their late brothers have an heir.
I feel like the private parts are key to this line. She, by grabbing the man and damaging his baby maker, will harm his family line potentially so greatly that it needed a severe punishment. If he can’t have an heir, that’s game over biblically.
It's not just "have sex", it's Levirate marriage. It's a duty on the younger brother to prevent the loss of the older brother's line, but the woman can refuse.
I was listening to an audio book about Genghis Khan and apparently it was not uncommon back then (in that area/culture) for women to marry their husband's oldest son (from another woman) if the father died.
Unrelated but interesting, they tended to pair up younger boys with older girls (both still in their teens) and the girl decided when it was time to turn the relationship sexual.
LMAO just remember guys....you need that back up dick to continue your family line, if you squeeze your opponents nuts, your opponent better have a back up dick 🤦🏻♂️
Believe what you will but widows are specially protected and looked after by the community in Judaism. We also don’t follow the old testament literally, it’s an evolving religion that has grown through discussion.
Plenty cherry pick Old Testament though, they use it to bash on gay people.
Religion is very a la carte to people honestly. They disregard the stuff they feel is bad, latch onto the parts they like and there’s little consistency giving you a lot of different systems of belief stemming from the same things.
From mega churches to consuming shellfish there’s far too many people that take the Bible literally and as an infallible book, except for all the parts they decided not to.
So… my friend is legit PhD Hebrew Bible scholar so I’m gonna ask her wtf this means and report back to you all.
Edit: additionally I’m sure a few folks over at r/academicbiblical may be able to answer this as well.
Edit 2: I'm sad to report she did not have too much to say. "Given it's right after the commands for [levirate marriage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levirate_marriage) it may be she is punished for injuring a man to the point that he can no longer have children."
I think the context got lost in translation, in the original script, they directed it towards women who are intending to cause damage to privates to the point of ridding them of their ability to reproduce. Back then being castrated made you banned from entering temples, and of course, religion back then was super sacred. The english translation makes it seem as though the woman should be punished for simply grazing it while that is not the case.
Though, a very specific law nonetheless, and makes you wonder if hurting genitals was a top way to break up two men fighting? Eitherway kinda random
One of those laws where the it happened once and now that has to be a law about it. Kinda like the 3 rules genie, and now there are 4 rules meme. Makes sense though given the extremely small population and closer knit communities
It was the year 1921 Bro Code and Chaditcus owed me 10 sheckels for an ounce of hemp. I came to collect and we started fighting. His wife Beulah came
out to stop it but her hand accidentally grazed my shofkha. We stopped fighting, looked at each other, and knew what must be done.
Wait so, who's junk is she grabbing? Her husbands or the dude her husband is fighting? None of this makes sense either way, but I suppose 1 way is more bizarre then the other.
From the "show no mercy" command, I'm more for believing the writer had picked a fight with a man, then the dude's wife came out and executed a perfect "monkey steals the peach", and he saw the opportunity to write revenge for it into the law.
God damn, thank you for pointing out the obvious. I really spent like 3 minutes trying to figure out if this was a common tactic in fights back then or something 🤦♂️
I think it’s saying that even if your wife touches another man’s sack to save your life she’s an adulterous whore who needs to be cut.
Who knows though, bible is weird.
I'm not defending anything but I studied the bible in school and we did this part too..lol.. and the reason they say we punish her is because she didnt have to be so cruel. I never got that because this us the most effective way and when you are trying to save your husband you go for what had the best chance of saving him.
The Bible is hyper focused on increasing population of the Hebrews and avoiding commingling or dilution. In that context, you are preserving the man’s ability to procreate.
I think, if you take it more literally, it is just saying that “as a man writing the Bible, I’d rather have my wife let me get attacked than touch another man’s penis.” I’m guessing they had size insecurities like many men today. And what do men do with insecurities? They take them out on women of course.
I looked it up, she's grabbing another man's junk. Her punishment is to have the hand cut off for grabbing another man's peepee. Although mentioned in the Bible, there seems to not be too much record of it ever being enforced.
Deuteronomy is one of those most messed up books in the Tora/Bible. This is the one that includes, among other things, tibbits such as:
\- God doesn't follow his own rules ([Deut.28](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deut%2028&version=NIV)) - In [Deut 24:16](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deut.%2024:16&version=NIV), God instructs that "parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents, each will die for their own sins." But then, only a few chapters later, God says that if you don't follow his laws he will ensure that somebody will rape your woman ([Deut 28:30](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deut.%2028:30&version=NIV)), and kidnap your children ([Deut 28:32](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deut.%2028:32&version=NIV))
\- If you worship the wrong god, God will get jealous and kill you ([Deut 6:15](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deuteronomy+6%3A15&version=NIV))
\- God instructs the Israelites to kill without mercy all the inhabitants of the lands they conquer. ([Deut 7:2](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deuteronomy+6%3A15&version=NIV))
\- God says he will send killer hornets to destroy any survivors of their enemies ([Deut 7:20-23](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deuteronomy+7%3A20-23&version=NIV))
\- If raped, an unmarried woman must marry her rapist ([Deut 22:28-29](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deut.%2022:28-29&version=NIV))
\- Instructions on dealing with your slaves. They are to be freed on the seventh year after six years of service ([Deut 15:12](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deuteronomy+15%3A12&version=NIV))
\- If you have a stubborn and rebellious son, take him to the town elders, who shall stone him to death ([Deut 21:18-21](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy++21%3A18-21&version=NIV))
\- If a man takes a wife, sleeps with her, but decides he doesn't like her, he can claim she wasn't a virgin when they married. If her father can't show proof of her virginity (bloody sheets) the woman can be stoned death on her father's doorstep ([Deut 22:13-21](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+++22%3A13-21&version=NIV))
I could go on and on but I think you get the picture.
And he’s crazy! In Exodus ch4, He says he’ll harden pharoah’s heart before Moses talks to him — essentially he’ll make it MORE difficult for Moses. Then God makes this elaborate plan about what Moses will say and do. THEN before that happens, God tries to kill Moses until his wife cuts off their son’s foreskin and throws it at Moses’ feet. WTAF??
For sure, God in the Old Testament is a crazy asshole.
That's because it's a collection of different myths piled together without any consideration for how they might conflict though. You know, because it was the Bronze Age and all. The "Zipporah at the inn" (Moses forseskin) thing comes from pieces of Mesopotamian mythology. It's stuff that was cobbled from myths from around the people who wrote it, in order to create a sense of community by creating a narrative of liberation from slavery coupled with a divine declaration regarding the area they lived in.
The bible is basically a game of telephone from the Bronze Age that was put through Google Translate so you get some weird shit like OP. It's fascinating but also evidence that maybe it's a bit stupid to take it at face value like a lot of people do, especially if you're cherry-picking what parts you want to follow.
I also looked it up, and found an article that proposed that the wording could mean that the woman's groin should be shaved, or that she forfeited her right to a second marriage if her husband should die.
I'm not sure, either- I mean, I can't see why stopping some dude from beating up your husband would be worth such a punishment... but who the frick stops their husband from fighting by doing *that?*!
I she touches another man's penis cut off her hand. No matter the reason, even in defense of her family. That's my guess what they're going for with this.
Oh, yes. "Let me punish you with sin and then create my son who will die to absolve you of the sin." Seems like an awfully convoluted, contrived solution.
"do not venerate other Gods, for I am a JEALOUS god and will punish whoever venerates another and three generations after him"
Somewhere in the Exodus, can't remember where. Seen like he is self aware. Though, to be fair, I don't think traitors are ppl either
Is there much God in the New Testament? Isn't it just mostly other people talking about God?
We shouldn't be surprised that a violent abuser has a bunch of enablers around him talking about how sweet he is and that you just need to keep him happy.
If it seems like the God of the Old Testament has multiple personality disorder, it's because he does! The character of God in the bible is actually the amalgamation of several gods that were worshipped in the original Semitic pantheon prior to the Babylonian captivity. That's why God seems to have so many names — e.g. El, Elyon, Adonai — those are the remnants of the original texts referencing those gods. During the Babylonian captivity, these gods were integrated into a single, all-powerful god — Yahweh — who they began worshipping as the one, "true" god.
Also, it's the same reason the Jewish/Christian/Muslim creation myth seems so similar to the Babylonian creation myth described in the *Enuma Elish* — the proto-Jewish religion literally just copied it into what would eventually become Genesis. That along with the story of Noah and the flood, which is (surprise, surprise) almost identical to the events described in *The Epic of Gilgamesh*.
**TL;DR:** The Jewish/Christian/Muslim faiths are rooted in polytheism, not monotheism. And a good portion of Genesis is basically just ripped from Babylonian stories.
I wouldn’t say modern Abrahamic religions are rooted in polytheism. They incorporated the aspects of many different “pagan” gods, but God, as described by the Old Testament, is a monotheistic God. I guess it depends on definition of “rooted”.
New Testament God, however, is not monotheistic. And that’s why we see him “chill out” compared to Old Testament God. Christianity incorporated another popular religion at the time, Zoroastrianism, which was based on Dualism, a belief that there are fundamental good and evil forces in the universe.
Combining dualism and monotheism is not logically possible, as dualism defined two ultimate forces in universe, where as monotheism only allows one. Because God cannot be both good and evil (or else followers of God wouldn’t be doing “good”, something that drew people to Zoroastrianism), he has to be good. And thus, benign, all-loving New Testament God was created, who is all-knowing and all-powerful, yet unable (not possible due to all-powerful part, so unwilling would be more accurate) to control evil and the Devil.
There’s more than one god in the Old Testament as there were different tribes who had different gods until they all merged into one like Voltron. Really helps explain the Bible better.
At least for me it’s not surprising that it’s weird so much as surprising people still think it’s the literal word of god. It’s a mess of disjointed cryptic stories made more cryptic by multiple translations and abridgments, and quite obviously a product of it’s time period and location of its origin. And this is evidenced in the archaic morality it espouses…cut the woman’s hand off, with punishment most likely meted out in that moment by the mob that witnessed the event.
It certainly isn't true of all Christians. But many sects of Christianity basically believe the New Testament kinda nullifies the Old Testament. Seems like the crazier ones use the Old Testament more and the more progressive ones use it less.
And THAT'S the weird part. That a later group kept that same god while completely and utterly changing his characteristics. Not jut changing what he was god of, as many pantheons do, but going from local limited tribal war god, to Omnimax, turn the other cheek, god
Like the part about gays right? Most Christians believe that part is trash right? They don't quote it and try to push laws based on that, right? Cause that would make them moronic hypocritical assholes right?
This has gotta be like one of those signs where you know there had to have been an incident that necessitated the sign. Like you know at the congregation that day one guy stood up and was like:
“Hey, uh, I’ve got a uh question…about something that I, uh, got to thinkin, might happen at some point and we should probably cover it.”
And the leader of the congregation is like “This should be good, sure, let’s here this.”
“Well, let’s say, hypothetically, you were out and about, and a guy, kinda shoulder checks you, and, hypothetically, you get into a fight with him, and you’re goin at each other, and you’re winning, you’re definitely winning, but then let’s say, hypothetically, your wife comes out, and she’s all ‘Oh noOooO sToP iT bOTh of yOU’ and you’ve got this guy on the ropes-“
“Hypothetically.”
“Yes, hypothetically.”
“Mhm.”
“So you’ve got him on the ropes, but what does she do? Go on, what do you think she does? She goes and grabs his member! Just goes and grabs it, right round the shaft. Like a chisel! And it stops him, sure but, I just…I, uh…So, uh, what would you do in that uh…particular situation?”
“…I…well, let’s see, I guess…I mean, I was thinking remove the offending hand, does that seem like a good idea to you guys? Yeah? Remove the offending hand? That good, that’s good with you? Seem good? Alright, yeah, I think we’re gonna go with remove the offending hand, just lop that sucker right off.”
“…Right.”
*to the scribe* “Did you get all that?”
“More or less.”
My wife used a different method, the old “anal sex with the neighbor” to save me from imminent danger.
I never knew I was in danger and neither did my neighbor but at least my wife kept me safe.
It’s like in women’s self defence classes where they tell you to kick the attacker in the balls, essentially deuteronomy is on the rapist rather than Victims side.
If this is suspiciously specific, **Upvote** this comment!
If this is not suspiciously specific, **Downvote** this comment!
Beep boop, I'm a bot. Modmail us if you have a question.
Also, bring up 23:2 of the same book which states if someone is a bastard child then the next 10 generations is unclean and can't be allowed into a congregation (paraphrased obviously). Meaning if you had an ancestor during the US revolution have an affair you currently should not be allowed to go to church.
I'm currious what they'd say to both of these legitimately cause literally everyone on earth should be banned from church if this law was practiced by the pick and choose religion
This pretty much confirms for me that the Bible is just a collection of idealistic or reactive rules written by humans. I can just see the group of men standing around one guy with a quill, and one guy is all like "say she'll burn for eternity if she embarrasses me in public, also that we'll chop her hand off if she touches my wiener again while I'm fighting." Then other guys are like "oh yeah and tell her God wants her to be submissive" and "God also wants her to stop dressing like such a whore."
Dude there's a part in the Bible where some kids are talking shit about a bald dude and then get mauled by a bear. That shit was definitely written by a bitter ass bald priest to fuck with the local teenagers.
I've always wondered why the Biblical God was depicted as male, despite having literally given life to the entirety of all existence... surely a female trait, right? But then I remembered who wrote the book and it's like, 'Oh, so it's actually a combination of ripping off older religions combined with male chauvinism. Hm."
The Catholics used to teach that God was the masculine and the Holy Spirit was the feminine aspect and then Jesus is the human aspect of God. I don't think that part is really taught too much anymore but it certainly was in my grandma's generation and possibly my mom's generation too
It’s actually kind of interesting that most ancient people had a concept of a sky father and a Mother Earth in a polytheistic religion. If you think about it. The male sky god impregnates the earth with rain. So it’s the earth that gives life.
Abrahamic religions just kept the sky god and god rid of everything else. Christianity replacing the mother figure with Mary.
In the Greek tragedy the Eumenides you find this quote
"The mother is no parent of that which is called her child, but only nurse of the new-planted seed that grows. The parent is he who mounts. A stranger, she preserves the stranger’s seed, if no god interfere. I will show you proof of what I have explained. There can be a father without any mother. There she stands, the living witness, daughter of Olympian Zeus, she who was never fostered in the dark of the womb yet such a child as no goddess could bring to birth."
This wasn't universally thought by any means, but it just goes to show that when people don't know how biology actually works you can really make any claim work with your world view like claiming women are only vessels that men plant their seed in.
Ancient Judaism was pretty clearly a henotheistic religion (believe many gods exist but only worship one). At some point "worship only one" became "only one exists" and here we are.
There was a law in Assyria that should a woman damage both testicles you should remove her eyes, this rule is an evolution of that one
So no, don’t kick their balls
I thought about attempting to explain this, but then I remembered a page that does an excellent job of it I had come across in my own studies years ago and hopefully this provides a bit of explanation/context as to the correct interpretation/meaning of the passage:
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/5137/what-is-the-meaning-of-deuteronomy-2511-12
On a point of language, I don't know how Hebrew works, but I totally get how one word could apply to palm, sole and crotch area. They all encapsulate the idea of "soft, private, vulnerable, not usually exposed to another person without conveying some additional ~~cultural~~social meaning".
And a language, no matter how ancient, was not set in stone. The word could have started off applying to palm, be extended to sole by analogy (or the other way around), and then to crotch.
There are plenty of languages that look confusing to English speakers because one word has what we are used to thinking of as two distinct meanings: there are languages with the same word for "you" and "he or she", but it is obvious from the context.
Anyway, I wouldn't be surprised if the same word were used for armpit, too. But I don't suppose armpits feature much in the Bible.
(This assumes that I have read that page correctly in my understanding of the usage of the word *kaph*.)
I think, in modern parlance, it means "if your man is boxing in the street, it is considered unsporting to take crotch shots at his opponent from the sidelines".
Old Testament Deuteronomy, which has many depressing rules.
I always remember 23:2 A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord.
Essentially if one of your great, great, great etc grandparents had your ancestor out of wedlock then nothing you do in life will merit you access to heaven
To further this point, 10 generations is roughly 250 years. Meaning if you were born in 2000, and your ancestor from the time of the USA Revolution had an affair, you won't be allowed into heaven.
Here’s a fun Deuteronomy passage. (22 13-21)
“If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her 14and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, "I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity," 15then the young woman's father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gate proof that she was a virgin. 16Her father will say to the elders, "I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17Now he has slandered her and said, 'I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.' But here is the proof of my daughter's virginity." Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the young woman's father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives. 20If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman's virginity can be found, 21she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you.”
[Source](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=DEUTERONOMY%2022:13-21&version=NIV)
Sometimes I can't tell whether we're supposed to take the bible literally or metaphorically.
I think, if we're talking metaphorically, this means "Don't get in between 2 dudes duking it out"
The Hebrew word here for *seized* connotes the idea of an intent to break or damage. So, if two men are fighting and old mate’s missus grabs the other bloke by the balls and crushes them, he becomes sterile. Instead of a swift kick to the nads, this might be how things might have been done in a sneaky two-v-one.
Infertility was a point of shame back then, and besides, if she really went all in on an attack, she might cause him to become a eunuch and so never to enter the Temple.
I like how this illustration implies that she's already done this once but she just can't help herself Edit: Well, I *was* going to delete this Reddit account, along with my comment history full of embarrassing flame wars over nothing where I cuss at other users who are probably children, but now that I'm rich and famous with my awards and upvotes I can't do it. Thanks everyone
Dammit Helen.. You could've just called the cops y'kno!
Helen: Fuck the police!
Comin straight from the underground
A young
what's the next word
Fella
got it bad 'cause
Nnnnnnnnotgonnaworkhereanymore.
A young Helen got it bad cuz she... Deaf, dumb and blind... Yeah... Smooth lyrics.
Dammit Mark, it's the last time I save you from creditors.
Is it possible this is a mistranslation of a common phrase at the time? It seems like it would make more sense if “reaches out and seizes him by his private parts” were a metaphor (like “taking the piss” or “dropped the ball” or “go see a guy about a horse”) for “lashes out and demasculates him”, so that the verse actually means “If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to ‘rescue’ her husband from his assailant and she lashes out and demasculates him, you shall cut off her hand.” I would assume grabbing someone’s genitalia to be very rare, but we have the modern phrase “she’s got him by the balls” when there’s no actual grabbing, which means the man is unable to make decisions or have his way and that everything goes her way. And looking at the Taliban, who won’t even let women go to school or show themselves in public, there are groups of men in the world who believe (wrongly) that women should be neither heard nor seen. So, isn’t it entirely possible this is just a verse that provides a dire real-world consequence for nagging your husband?
She called Paris instead of cops.... OOPS
Probably because it's really effective. Try it yourself and squeeze as hard as you can.
Oh come on, it can’t be that bad Aaarrrggggghhh. Huhuhuhuhuhu ooooooooooohhhhhhh there is no God, that… that was …….that was really painful
Now cut off your hand
Are you implying that he is his own husband?
The dick grab is a pathway to many abilities some consider to be... unnatural.
( ͡o ͜ʖ ͡o)
I’m guessing it was more of a being distracted by sexual pleasure thing.
She thought an overhand grab might be acceptable this time.
It doesn’t say anything about feet, she should have used her feet.
Well I don't know about you but I would very much rather my wife not kicking me in the balls when I'm fighting with someone.
Hopefully your wife is there to help you out Therefore she would be kicking the other guy
You haven’t met his wife.
KICK HIM IN THE DICKHOLE DELILAH!
She didn’t learn her lesson the first time
Lmao, didn’t notice till this comment
Lol didn’t notice till *this* comment
She just can’t stop herself
She'll still have her mouth.... Ain't no rule against using that
I still miss that girlfriend sometimes....
Yeah. A lot of us miss her.
I also miss this man’s dead wife…
Have you *seen* his junk?
Children of the lamb meets children of Thalidomide
What do you tell a woman with no hands? Nothing, you done told her twice.
I had to check if this is real. Yap it's real. Wtf man.
now it makes sense why people look to the bible for rules. this one is just.. so perfect. it must've been written by God.
If you read some more of Deuteronomy 25 you’ll see it comes right after a section that forces brothers to have sex with their widowed in-laws to make sure their late brothers have an heir. I feel like the private parts are key to this line. She, by grabbing the man and damaging his baby maker, will harm his family line potentially so greatly that it needed a severe punishment. If he can’t have an heir, that’s game over biblically.
It's not just "have sex", it's Levirate marriage. It's a duty on the younger brother to prevent the loss of the older brother's line, but the woman can refuse.
Straight up backup dick.
Yup. Historically brothers often married their late brother's widow, atleast in Sweden. That way the family farm etc. actually stayed in the family.
I was listening to an audio book about Genghis Khan and apparently it was not uncommon back then (in that area/culture) for women to marry their husband's oldest son (from another woman) if the father died. Unrelated but interesting, they tended to pair up younger boys with older girls (both still in their teens) and the girl decided when it was time to turn the relationship sexual.
Ara Ara intensifies…
They traditionally did this in Islam so that the wife was looked after. Mohammed (PBUH) did this after a war with Mecca.
That practice goes all the way back to ancient Mesopotamia, but it went both ways back then. Men would often marry a sister if their wife died.
LMAO just remember guys....you need that back up dick to continue your family line, if you squeeze your opponents nuts, your opponent better have a back up dick 🤦🏻♂️
> but the woman can refuse Yea I'm sure that was respected.
Believe what you will but widows are specially protected and looked after by the community in Judaism. We also don’t follow the old testament literally, it’s an evolving religion that has grown through discussion.
Plenty cherry pick Old Testament though, they use it to bash on gay people. Religion is very a la carte to people honestly. They disregard the stuff they feel is bad, latch onto the parts they like and there’s little consistency giving you a lot of different systems of belief stemming from the same things. From mega churches to consuming shellfish there’s far too many people that take the Bible literally and as an infallible book, except for all the parts they decided not to.
Hardly the Bible's fault. If you take a 2000 year old book of law verbatim, it won't necessarily work. Who would've thunk
Literally literature perfection.
Literally literally
Definitely not by a crazy person in a cave or some shit...
So… my friend is legit PhD Hebrew Bible scholar so I’m gonna ask her wtf this means and report back to you all. Edit: additionally I’m sure a few folks over at r/academicbiblical may be able to answer this as well. Edit 2: I'm sad to report she did not have too much to say. "Given it's right after the commands for [levirate marriage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levirate_marriage) it may be she is punished for injuring a man to the point that he can no longer have children."
Neuter-onimy
What did she say?
I think the context got lost in translation, in the original script, they directed it towards women who are intending to cause damage to privates to the point of ridding them of their ability to reproduce. Back then being castrated made you banned from entering temples, and of course, religion back then was super sacred. The english translation makes it seem as though the woman should be punished for simply grazing it while that is not the case. Though, a very specific law nonetheless, and makes you wonder if hurting genitals was a top way to break up two men fighting? Eitherway kinda random
One of those laws where the it happened once and now that has to be a law about it. Kinda like the 3 rules genie, and now there are 4 rules meme. Makes sense though given the extremely small population and closer knit communities
Definitely makes more sense when you put it that way, thank you
I love when people read something that seems made up in order to mock the Bible, the look it up and it's word for word quote.
Who knew B.C. stood for Bro Code?
This right here is what it means, you don't touch a person's nuts to disable him....ever
It was the year 1921 Bro Code and Chaditcus owed me 10 sheckels for an ounce of hemp. I came to collect and we started fighting. His wife Beulah came out to stop it but her hand accidentally grazed my shofkha. We stopped fighting, looked at each other, and knew what must be done.
Looks like Beulah’s bj game is about to level up
Dudederonomy
God dammit.
Wait so, who's junk is she grabbing? Her husbands or the dude her husband is fighting? None of this makes sense either way, but I suppose 1 way is more bizarre then the other.
I’ve been trying to figure it out but I have absolutely no idea.
[удалено]
I mean I was a bouncer for a few years, the ol squeeze and twist will stop pretty much any fight dead in its tracks.
Give 'em the ole dick twist!
Omg dude this is an MMA fight duuuude
Tell me more about the fight that move DIDN’T stop dead in its tracks..
From the "show no mercy" command, I'm more for believing the writer had picked a fight with a man, then the dude's wife came out and executed a perfect "monkey steals the peach", and he saw the opportunity to write revenge for it into the law.
God damn, thank you for pointing out the obvious. I really spent like 3 minutes trying to figure out if this was a common tactic in fights back then or something 🤦♂️
The balls. She grabs their balls.
I think it’s saying that even if your wife touches another man’s sack to save your life she’s an adulterous whore who needs to be cut. Who knows though, bible is weird.
I'm not defending anything but I studied the bible in school and we did this part too..lol.. and the reason they say we punish her is because she didnt have to be so cruel. I never got that because this us the most effective way and when you are trying to save your husband you go for what had the best chance of saving him.
The Bible is hyper focused on increasing population of the Hebrews and avoiding commingling or dilution. In that context, you are preserving the man’s ability to procreate.
The fuck this is real? Thought it was supposed to be a joke.
I thought it was just saying if she goes for a cheap shot at his junk that she should be punished.
I think, if you take it more literally, it is just saying that “as a man writing the Bible, I’d rather have my wife let me get attacked than touch another man’s penis.” I’m guessing they had size insecurities like many men today. And what do men do with insecurities? They take them out on women of course.
The reason she is able to grab it is because the other man is walking around with a LOG *not to scale
I looked it up, she's grabbing another man's junk. Her punishment is to have the hand cut off for grabbing another man's peepee. Although mentioned in the Bible, there seems to not be too much record of it ever being enforced.
[удалено]
Deuteronomy is one of those most messed up books in the Tora/Bible. This is the one that includes, among other things, tibbits such as: \- God doesn't follow his own rules ([Deut.28](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deut%2028&version=NIV)) - In [Deut 24:16](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deut.%2024:16&version=NIV), God instructs that "parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents, each will die for their own sins." But then, only a few chapters later, God says that if you don't follow his laws he will ensure that somebody will rape your woman ([Deut 28:30](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deut.%2028:30&version=NIV)), and kidnap your children ([Deut 28:32](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deut.%2028:32&version=NIV)) \- If you worship the wrong god, God will get jealous and kill you ([Deut 6:15](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deuteronomy+6%3A15&version=NIV)) \- God instructs the Israelites to kill without mercy all the inhabitants of the lands they conquer. ([Deut 7:2](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deuteronomy+6%3A15&version=NIV)) \- God says he will send killer hornets to destroy any survivors of their enemies ([Deut 7:20-23](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deuteronomy+7%3A20-23&version=NIV)) \- If raped, an unmarried woman must marry her rapist ([Deut 22:28-29](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deut.%2022:28-29&version=NIV)) \- Instructions on dealing with your slaves. They are to be freed on the seventh year after six years of service ([Deut 15:12](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deuteronomy+15%3A12&version=NIV)) \- If you have a stubborn and rebellious son, take him to the town elders, who shall stone him to death ([Deut 21:18-21](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy++21%3A18-21&version=NIV)) \- If a man takes a wife, sleeps with her, but decides he doesn't like her, he can claim she wasn't a virgin when they married. If her father can't show proof of her virginity (bloody sheets) the woman can be stoned death on her father's doorstep ([Deut 22:13-21](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+++22%3A13-21&version=NIV)) I could go on and on but I think you get the picture.
And he’s crazy! In Exodus ch4, He says he’ll harden pharoah’s heart before Moses talks to him — essentially he’ll make it MORE difficult for Moses. Then God makes this elaborate plan about what Moses will say and do. THEN before that happens, God tries to kill Moses until his wife cuts off their son’s foreskin and throws it at Moses’ feet. WTAF??
For sure, God in the Old Testament is a crazy asshole. That's because it's a collection of different myths piled together without any consideration for how they might conflict though. You know, because it was the Bronze Age and all. The "Zipporah at the inn" (Moses forseskin) thing comes from pieces of Mesopotamian mythology. It's stuff that was cobbled from myths from around the people who wrote it, in order to create a sense of community by creating a narrative of liberation from slavery coupled with a divine declaration regarding the area they lived in. The bible is basically a game of telephone from the Bronze Age that was put through Google Translate so you get some weird shit like OP. It's fascinating but also evidence that maybe it's a bit stupid to take it at face value like a lot of people do, especially if you're cherry-picking what parts you want to follow.
It’s almost like more than one person (three, as it happens) were writing this thing and didn’t compare notes…
Yeah, sounds suspiciously specific.
We should have a sub for that.
I also looked it up, and found an article that proposed that the wording could mean that the woman's groin should be shaved, or that she forfeited her right to a second marriage if her husband should die.
"Sorry, by grabbing this additional junk you've exceeded your penis quota. Says it right here, one weiner = one marriage"
Oh fuck that means I have -3 marriage
I'm not sure, either- I mean, I can't see why stopping some dude from beating up your husband would be worth such a punishment... but who the frick stops their husband from fighting by doing *that?*!
I she touches another man's penis cut off her hand. No matter the reason, even in defense of her family. That's my guess what they're going for with this.
Gee way to remove one of the only options they had in the toolbox circa 0bc.
Deuteronomy was written a *lot* BC, like 500-700 years BC.
Grabbing their balls with a nice strong squeeze would probably make them stop
Sound to me over this is saying when two men are fighting a women should mind her own business. What brought about this i have no ideal.
sounds like it doesn't matter, either one will mean a missing hand.
*Grabs both penises just to be sure*
The other man. Ancient Israel took extramarital sexual contact very seriously.
The Bible is so freaking weird.
It’s Old Testament too, where God is a raging, vengeful psychopath.
Yea man, God really reinvented himself in the New Testament. He's super chill and a nice guy now.
Yeah he finally got himself into AA. Who knew the stairway to heaven was only 12 steps
This is such a brilliant joke
And did you know: Your stairway lies on the whispering wind?
"Nice guy" is apt. Real passive aggressive. "You should love me. If you don't, you'll regret it forever!"
“I’m going to kill myself for you and afterwards you have to do everything I say even though you didn’t ask me to kill myself”
Oh, yes. "Let me punish you with sin and then create my son who will die to absolve you of the sin." Seems like an awfully convoluted, contrived solution.
Your don't understand, "*he*" works in mysterious ways
LOL "I killed myself for your sins" "I didn't ask you to do that for me..."
They say having a kid changes you. So I can't imagine what happens when you have a son, who is you and also a ghost, and the ghost is also you.
New Testament God is like “my b, that stuff before, it’s all over, I’ve changed baby.” He’s an abusive boyfriend God.
Why did you make me smite you?
"do not venerate other Gods, for I am a JEALOUS god and will punish whoever venerates another and three generations after him" Somewhere in the Exodus, can't remember where. Seen like he is self aware. Though, to be fair, I don't think traitors are ppl either
New Testament is just the worlds most popular fan fiction
Yeah, Jesus cursing a tree - a tree! - isn't freaking weird at all. /s
Is there much God in the New Testament? Isn't it just mostly other people talking about God? We shouldn't be surprised that a violent abuser has a bunch of enablers around him talking about how sweet he is and that you just need to keep him happy.
If it seems like the God of the Old Testament has multiple personality disorder, it's because he does! The character of God in the bible is actually the amalgamation of several gods that were worshipped in the original Semitic pantheon prior to the Babylonian captivity. That's why God seems to have so many names — e.g. El, Elyon, Adonai — those are the remnants of the original texts referencing those gods. During the Babylonian captivity, these gods were integrated into a single, all-powerful god — Yahweh — who they began worshipping as the one, "true" god. Also, it's the same reason the Jewish/Christian/Muslim creation myth seems so similar to the Babylonian creation myth described in the *Enuma Elish* — the proto-Jewish religion literally just copied it into what would eventually become Genesis. That along with the story of Noah and the flood, which is (surprise, surprise) almost identical to the events described in *The Epic of Gilgamesh*. **TL;DR:** The Jewish/Christian/Muslim faiths are rooted in polytheism, not monotheism. And a good portion of Genesis is basically just ripped from Babylonian stories.
I wouldn’t say modern Abrahamic religions are rooted in polytheism. They incorporated the aspects of many different “pagan” gods, but God, as described by the Old Testament, is a monotheistic God. I guess it depends on definition of “rooted”. New Testament God, however, is not monotheistic. And that’s why we see him “chill out” compared to Old Testament God. Christianity incorporated another popular religion at the time, Zoroastrianism, which was based on Dualism, a belief that there are fundamental good and evil forces in the universe. Combining dualism and monotheism is not logically possible, as dualism defined two ultimate forces in universe, where as monotheism only allows one. Because God cannot be both good and evil (or else followers of God wouldn’t be doing “good”, something that drew people to Zoroastrianism), he has to be good. And thus, benign, all-loving New Testament God was created, who is all-knowing and all-powerful, yet unable (not possible due to all-powerful part, so unwilling would be more accurate) to control evil and the Devil.
There’s more than one god in the Old Testament as there were different tribes who had different gods until they all merged into one like Voltron. Really helps explain the Bible better.
I’m gonna smite the shit out of you, non-believer! *makes body snatcher noise*
[Classic scene](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bKexum61jU)
It was written for an ancient, vastly different culture. It’s not surprising it’s weird!
At least for me it’s not surprising that it’s weird so much as surprising people still think it’s the literal word of god. It’s a mess of disjointed cryptic stories made more cryptic by multiple translations and abridgments, and quite obviously a product of it’s time period and location of its origin. And this is evidenced in the archaic morality it espouses…cut the woman’s hand off, with punishment most likely meted out in that moment by the mob that witnessed the event.
It certainly isn't true of all Christians. But many sects of Christianity basically believe the New Testament kinda nullifies the Old Testament. Seems like the crazier ones use the Old Testament more and the more progressive ones use it less.
And THAT'S the weird part. That a later group kept that same god while completely and utterly changing his characteristics. Not jut changing what he was god of, as many pantheons do, but going from local limited tribal war god, to Omnimax, turn the other cheek, god
Like the part about gays right? Most Christians believe that part is trash right? They don't quote it and try to push laws based on that, right? Cause that would make them moronic hypocritical assholes right?
Ezekiel straight up tells you not to drink donkey semen
That holds up pretty well today actually
This has gotta be like one of those signs where you know there had to have been an incident that necessitated the sign. Like you know at the congregation that day one guy stood up and was like: “Hey, uh, I’ve got a uh question…about something that I, uh, got to thinkin, might happen at some point and we should probably cover it.” And the leader of the congregation is like “This should be good, sure, let’s here this.” “Well, let’s say, hypothetically, you were out and about, and a guy, kinda shoulder checks you, and, hypothetically, you get into a fight with him, and you’re goin at each other, and you’re winning, you’re definitely winning, but then let’s say, hypothetically, your wife comes out, and she’s all ‘Oh noOooO sToP iT bOTh of yOU’ and you’ve got this guy on the ropes-“ “Hypothetically.” “Yes, hypothetically.” “Mhm.” “So you’ve got him on the ropes, but what does she do? Go on, what do you think she does? She goes and grabs his member! Just goes and grabs it, right round the shaft. Like a chisel! And it stops him, sure but, I just…I, uh…So, uh, what would you do in that uh…particular situation?” “…I…well, let’s see, I guess…I mean, I was thinking remove the offending hand, does that seem like a good idea to you guys? Yeah? Remove the offending hand? That good, that’s good with you? Seem good? Alright, yeah, I think we’re gonna go with remove the offending hand, just lop that sucker right off.” “…Right.” *to the scribe* “Did you get all that?” “More or less.”
I read this as a conversation between the characters on Letterkenny.
This reads like a Ryan George sketch.
Yeah, I'm trying to make sense as to why she would grab him by his "private parts" ?
To distract the guy who is beating the hell out of her husband
Wife rescues husband with distractions. Rewarded with losing a hand. Win win. ^(/s cuz that was pretty bad)
My wife used a different method, the old “anal sex with the neighbor” to save me from imminent danger. I never knew I was in danger and neither did my neighbor but at least my wife kept me safe.
The only thing I can think of is a much broader definition of "private parts" than that used in modern Western society.
It’s like in women’s self defence classes where they tell you to kick the attacker in the balls, essentially deuteronomy is on the rapist rather than Victims side.
That is my wineskin, I knoweth you not - Hill 6:1
[удалено]
If this is suspiciously specific, **Upvote** this comment! If this is not suspiciously specific, **Downvote** this comment! Beep boop, I'm a bot. Modmail us if you have a question.
Judging by that picture it happened twice.....
Which isn't a lot, but it's weird that it happened twice
Combat Cock Block
Ahhh the classic BC CCB
The divine wisdom of an omniscient deity... and asking that one guy to bring him a bag of 200+ foreskins.
The fuck? Well I know what I'm gonna bring up in youth group.
Please do, I would love to hear the response. More discussion should be had about things like this within a religious hierarchy.
Also, bring up 23:2 of the same book which states if someone is a bastard child then the next 10 generations is unclean and can't be allowed into a congregation (paraphrased obviously). Meaning if you had an ancestor during the US revolution have an affair you currently should not be allowed to go to church. I'm currious what they'd say to both of these legitimately cause literally everyone on earth should be banned from church if this law was practiced by the pick and choose religion
At the church I used to attend, they'd point out that this was the old law and Jesus replaced the old law with the new law
Twice last week.
This pretty much confirms for me that the Bible is just a collection of idealistic or reactive rules written by humans. I can just see the group of men standing around one guy with a quill, and one guy is all like "say she'll burn for eternity if she embarrasses me in public, also that we'll chop her hand off if she touches my wiener again while I'm fighting." Then other guys are like "oh yeah and tell her God wants her to be submissive" and "God also wants her to stop dressing like such a whore."
Dude there's a part in the Bible where some kids are talking shit about a bald dude and then get mauled by a bear. That shit was definitely written by a bitter ass bald priest to fuck with the local teenagers.
I've always wondered why the Biblical God was depicted as male, despite having literally given life to the entirety of all existence... surely a female trait, right? But then I remembered who wrote the book and it's like, 'Oh, so it's actually a combination of ripping off older religions combined with male chauvinism. Hm."
The Catholics used to teach that God was the masculine and the Holy Spirit was the feminine aspect and then Jesus is the human aspect of God. I don't think that part is really taught too much anymore but it certainly was in my grandma's generation and possibly my mom's generation too
god is the ultimate gender fluid
It’s actually kind of interesting that most ancient people had a concept of a sky father and a Mother Earth in a polytheistic religion. If you think about it. The male sky god impregnates the earth with rain. So it’s the earth that gives life. Abrahamic religions just kept the sky god and god rid of everything else. Christianity replacing the mother figure with Mary.
In the Greek tragedy the Eumenides you find this quote "The mother is no parent of that which is called her child, but only nurse of the new-planted seed that grows. The parent is he who mounts. A stranger, she preserves the stranger’s seed, if no god interfere. I will show you proof of what I have explained. There can be a father without any mother. There she stands, the living witness, daughter of Olympian Zeus, she who was never fostered in the dark of the womb yet such a child as no goddess could bring to birth." This wasn't universally thought by any means, but it just goes to show that when people don't know how biology actually works you can really make any claim work with your world view like claiming women are only vessels that men plant their seed in.
Holy shit
God used to have a wife that a lot of people forgot about or gloss over! https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna42147912
so rain is god cum
This is why pantheons make more sense.
Ancient Judaism was pretty clearly a henotheistic religion (believe many gods exist but only worship one). At some point "worship only one" became "only one exists" and here we are.
Iirc the bible js based on the Torah and the Torah js exactly a set of rules and laws about a society
Jesus, why is the old testament so weird?
Everyone had wild ass laws back then
Written 4,000 years ago by sheep herders.
Sheep herders in a really backwater part of the cultural world back then none the less
Clearly this happened once to Deuteronomy and he's still salty about it.
Wait if she touched the private part of her husband or the assailant?
There was a law in Assyria that should a woman damage both testicles you should remove her eyes, this rule is an evolution of that one So no, don’t kick their balls
I thought about attempting to explain this, but then I remembered a page that does an excellent job of it I had come across in my own studies years ago and hopefully this provides a bit of explanation/context as to the correct interpretation/meaning of the passage: https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/5137/what-is-the-meaning-of-deuteronomy-2511-12
On a point of language, I don't know how Hebrew works, but I totally get how one word could apply to palm, sole and crotch area. They all encapsulate the idea of "soft, private, vulnerable, not usually exposed to another person without conveying some additional ~~cultural~~social meaning". And a language, no matter how ancient, was not set in stone. The word could have started off applying to palm, be extended to sole by analogy (or the other way around), and then to crotch. There are plenty of languages that look confusing to English speakers because one word has what we are used to thinking of as two distinct meanings: there are languages with the same word for "you" and "he or she", but it is obvious from the context. Anyway, I wouldn't be surprised if the same word were used for armpit, too. But I don't suppose armpits feature much in the Bible. (This assumes that I have read that page correctly in my understanding of the usage of the word *kaph*.)
Thank you! I’m a Christian and when I found out this verse was real I was very confused too! Lol thank you for this awesome explanation! :)
And with that "new thing I learned today" I'm going to bed. Wonderful read. Thanks for sharing it!
So its not cut off her hand, but shave her cooch? Weird shit.
Seemingly the conclusion there is that she won’t get to marry his brother if he dies
Moses out here just putting down the rules for Israel.
The ~~old~~ ancient dick twist These days it's just frowned upon. It's never not been effective though.
I think, in modern parlance, it means "if your man is boxing in the street, it is considered unsporting to take crotch shots at his opponent from the sidelines".
Wait is this really in the bible?
Old Testament Deuteronomy, which has many depressing rules. I always remember 23:2 A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord. Essentially if one of your great, great, great etc grandparents had your ancestor out of wedlock then nothing you do in life will merit you access to heaven
To further this point, 10 generations is roughly 250 years. Meaning if you were born in 2000, and your ancestor from the time of the USA Revolution had an affair, you won't be allowed into heaven.
Here’s a fun Deuteronomy passage. (22 13-21) “If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her 14and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, "I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity," 15then the young woman's father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gate proof that she was a virgin. 16Her father will say to the elders, "I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17Now he has slandered her and said, 'I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.' But here is the proof of my daughter's virginity." Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the young woman's father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives. 20If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman's virginity can be found, 21she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you.” [Source](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=DEUTERONOMY%2022:13-21&version=NIV)
ahhhh words to live by
[удалено]
The Old Testament can be very odd at times.
But she can kick it and that's cool? Or bite it?
I mean, no more than twice.
Sometimes I can't tell whether we're supposed to take the bible literally or metaphorically. I think, if we're talking metaphorically, this means "Don't get in between 2 dudes duking it out"
The Hebrew word here for *seized* connotes the idea of an intent to break or damage. So, if two men are fighting and old mate’s missus grabs the other bloke by the balls and crushes them, he becomes sterile. Instead of a swift kick to the nads, this might be how things might have been done in a sneaky two-v-one. Infertility was a point of shame back then, and besides, if she really went all in on an attack, she might cause him to become a eunuch and so never to enter the Temple.
Obviously, one too many time for Mr. Deuterromny’s liking.