de@moscom.UUCP (Dave Esan) (06/26/85)
In reference to the question of "if adultery is not punishable by skila (stoning), why does the Xian Bible relate a story of a woman who was being stoned for adultery?" The Talmud Sanherdrin notes that capital cases can only be heard by a court of twenty-three. These courts courts existed only in larger towns. According to the text, there was extreme investigation of the witnesses, with the intent that a person should not be found guilty. Rabbi Akiva noted that any court that actually condemned a person to death and meted out the punishment, even if it were once in seventy years, was called a bloody court. This obviously implies that capital cases were quite rare, if non-existant. In answer to the question, if such an action were going on it would have been done by a court of twenty-three, composed of three-three people who had "smicha", that is were really rabbis in the Talmudic tradition, and were well versed in the law. They would have been aware of the distinctions, and would have acted according to the traditional law. If Samet is correct that adultery is not punishable by "skila", then the story is just that a story. David Esan (!ritcv!moscom!de) > In article <612@sfmag.UUCP> samet@sfmag.UUCP (A.I.Samet) writes: > > > > 1) The sin of male homosexuality is punishable by death by skila > > (stoning). Of the 4 methods of execution, skila is the most > > severe. The only other sexual offenses punishable by skila are > > certain types of incest, and having sex with an animal. By > > contrast, adultery is punishable by lesser forms of execution. > > > Was this not true in biblical (Roman occupation) times? I ask because > there is a well-known New Testament Christian story most commonly > referred to as "The woman taken in adultery". [The story is that Jesus > comes across a scene in which a woman who had been caught in adultery is > about to be stoned to death. He intervenes, says "Let he who is without > sin cast the first stone", and the crowd disperses. He then forgives the > woman.] > > Anyway, this incident depicts a woman guilty only of adultery being > subject to stoning, supposedly in a typical 1st-century Jewish > community. Would it be that the distinction between the different death > sentences was not made until later, or only by an official court, like > the Sanhedrin (if they would get involved in such), and not in an > ordinary village? >
fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (06/28/85)
> In article <612@sfmag.UUCP> samet@sfmag.UUCP (A.I.Samet) writes: > > > > 1) The sin of male homosexuality is punishable by death by skila > > (stoning). Of the 4 methods of execution, skila is the most > > severe. The only other sexual offenses punishable by skila are > > certain types of incest, and having sex with an animal. By > > contrast, adultery is punishable by lesser forms of execution. > Was this not true in biblical (Roman occupation) times? I ask because > there is a well-known New Testament Christian story most commonly > referred to as "The woman taken in adultery". [The story is that Jesus > comes across a scene in which a woman who had been caught in adultery is > about to be stoned to death. He intervenes, says "Let he who is without > sin cast the first stone", and the crowd disperses. He then forgives the > woman.] > > Anyway, this incident depicts a woman guilty only of adultery being > subject to stoning, supposedly in a typical 1st-century Jewish > community. Would it be that the distinction between the different death > sentences was not made until later, or only by an official court, like > the Sanhedrin (if they would get involved in such), and not in an > ordinary village? Maybe that's why Jesus stopped the stoning -- it was illegal under Jewish law. Frank Silbermann
cgeiger@ut-ngp.UTEXAS (charles s. geiger) (07/04/85)
So I read that male homosexuality is worse than adultery because its death penalty is worse than that for adultery. It seems to me that *any* death penalty is pretty severe. I understand what is trying to be said, but I still find it hard to believe that anyone still takes this stuff seriously!