By A.J. Jacobs
For my book, The Year of Living Biblically, I spent 12 months trying to follow every rule in the Old Testament. Even the obscure one-like stoning adulterers (I used pebbles) and never shaving your beard (I did a lot of itching). My challenge: to reconcile the Bible's easy-to-grasp wisdom with some of its seemingly baffling laws. The following are a few of the more arcane rules I found along the way, with possible reasons behind them.
1. THE RULE: "...she shall put the rainment of her capitivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month; and after that thou shalt go in unto her and be her husband..." (from Deuteronomy 21:10-14)
THE TRANSLATION: If you capture a beautiful woman during war, and you want to marry her, you must first have her shave her head and trim her nails. Then you must live with her for a month without touching her. After that, she's all yours.
POSSIBLE EXPLANATION: Think of it like gun control-it's a mandatory waiting period. If you still want to marry a bald, short-nailed woman after a month of no sex, then maybe it truly is love.
THE TRANSLATION: You can't eat bugs. Well, except for locusts, beetles, and grasshoppers-those you can eat all you want.
POSSIBLE EXPLANATION: A ban on eating bugs isn't all that hard to argue with, but why the loophole for locusts et al.? It's believed that this is actually an example of the Bible's pragmatism. If locusts swarmed and devoured all the crops, the Israelites would have nothing left to eat-except the locusts themselves.
3. THE RULE: "...thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed; neither shall a garment of mingled linen and woolen come upon thee." (Leviticus 19:19)
THE TRANSLATION: Don't wear clothes made of mixed fibers. Wool-and-linen blends are particularly bad. Polycotton is probably OK.
POSSIBLE EXPLANATION: The Old Testament was obsessed with separating things. (Don't wear mixed fibers; don't mix milk and meat.) According to many biblical scholars, the idea was to drill the notion of separation into the ancient Israelite mind. This way, they would remain separate from the pagans and not intermarry-a sin even worse than mixing wool and linen.
4. THE RULE: "And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days; and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even." (Leviticus 15: 19)
THE TRANSLATION: Stay away from a woman if she's menstruating. She's impure, and if you touch her, you'll become impure, too.
POSSIBLE EXPLANATION: While many people say this rule is misogynistic (kind of like the theological equivalent of cooties), some scholars and devout Jews defend the practice. They say it has to do with reverence for life. When a woman has her period, it's like a small death. A potential life has vanished, and this is a way of paying your respects.
5. THE RULE: "A naughty person, a wicked man, walketh with a froward mouth. He winketh with his eyes..." (Proverbs 6: 12-13)
THE TRANSLATION: No winking. This is just one example, but the Bible contains no less than four anti-winking passages.
POSSIBLE EXPLANATION: Many believe that the Bible's "wink" referred to a tacit approval of evil. As in "I saw what you did, but I won't tell." But let's face it; the wink is a creepy gesture, no matter how you cut it.
[Editor's note:] All Old testament verses are taken from the King James translation of the Bible. They are presented here solely for the purpose of historic investigation and in no way reflect the religious views of the magazine.
Be sure to visit mental_floss' entertaining website and blog for more fun stuff!
For my book, The Year of Living Biblically, I spent 12 months trying to follow every rule in the Old Testament. Even the obscure one-like stoning adulterers (I used pebbles) and never shaving your beard (I did a lot of itching). My challenge: to reconcile the Bible's easy-to-grasp wisdom with some of its seemingly baffling laws. The following are a few of the more arcane rules I found along the way, with possible reasons behind them.
1. THE RULE: "...she shall put the rainment of her capitivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month; and after that thou shalt go in unto her and be her husband..." (from Deuteronomy 21:10-14)
THE TRANSLATION: If you capture a beautiful woman during war, and you want to marry her, you must first have her shave her head and trim her nails. Then you must live with her for a month without touching her. After that, she's all yours.
POSSIBLE EXPLANATION: Think of it like gun control-it's a mandatory waiting period. If you still want to marry a bald, short-nailed woman after a month of no sex, then maybe it truly is love.
(Image credit: Flickr user Willam Cho)
2. THE RULE: "Even these of them ye may eat: the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind. / But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you." (Leviticus 11:22-23)THE TRANSLATION: You can't eat bugs. Well, except for locusts, beetles, and grasshoppers-those you can eat all you want.
POSSIBLE EXPLANATION: A ban on eating bugs isn't all that hard to argue with, but why the loophole for locusts et al.? It's believed that this is actually an example of the Bible's pragmatism. If locusts swarmed and devoured all the crops, the Israelites would have nothing left to eat-except the locusts themselves.
3. THE RULE: "...thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed; neither shall a garment of mingled linen and woolen come upon thee." (Leviticus 19:19)
THE TRANSLATION: Don't wear clothes made of mixed fibers. Wool-and-linen blends are particularly bad. Polycotton is probably OK.
POSSIBLE EXPLANATION: The Old Testament was obsessed with separating things. (Don't wear mixed fibers; don't mix milk and meat.) According to many biblical scholars, the idea was to drill the notion of separation into the ancient Israelite mind. This way, they would remain separate from the pagans and not intermarry-a sin even worse than mixing wool and linen.
4. THE RULE: "And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days; and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even." (Leviticus 15: 19)
THE TRANSLATION: Stay away from a woman if she's menstruating. She's impure, and if you touch her, you'll become impure, too.
POSSIBLE EXPLANATION: While many people say this rule is misogynistic (kind of like the theological equivalent of cooties), some scholars and devout Jews defend the practice. They say it has to do with reverence for life. When a woman has her period, it's like a small death. A potential life has vanished, and this is a way of paying your respects.
5. THE RULE: "A naughty person, a wicked man, walketh with a froward mouth. He winketh with his eyes..." (Proverbs 6: 12-13)
THE TRANSLATION: No winking. This is just one example, but the Bible contains no less than four anti-winking passages.
POSSIBLE EXPLANATION: Many believe that the Bible's "wink" referred to a tacit approval of evil. As in "I saw what you did, but I won't tell." But let's face it; the wink is a creepy gesture, no matter how you cut it.
[Editor's note:] All Old testament verses are taken from the King James translation of the Bible. They are presented here solely for the purpose of historic investigation and in no way reflect the religious views of the magazine.
__________________________
The above article was written by A.J. Jacobs. It is reprinted with permission from the Scatterbrained section of the November-December 2007 issue of mental_floss magazine.
Be sure to visit mental_floss' entertaining website and blog for more fun stuff!
Or it's just to give the wife a break. ;)
-- Eugene Mirman
If you do not understand something ask, it is so much simpler to do and saves people from being uninformed. It is about context and we do know what happens when people take things out of context and misinterpret them.
Rabbi Kaplan
Rabbi J.
If two men are fighting, and the wife of one of them grabs the other man's testicles, her hand is to be chopped off. There is no penalty if a male relative were to grab the other man.
Women, when dudes are fighting, hands off the junk! But male relatives are a-okay!
Rule 1: shaven and untouched for a month would get rid of foreign lice, other parasites, and possibly show any STD's so as to not infect the whole army/population.
Rule 2: Possibly to keep people from eating unknown and possibly poisonous insects.
Something I find interesting, is that a lot of people will say these laws no longer apply because they are in the OT. However, I have never really seen anyone provide the part of the NT that says to ignore the OT or to not follow specific laws from the OT.
Second, there are modern English translations of the OT and NT. Try _The Message_, which is a recent modern translation in contemporary English.
Third, regarding Christians and their lack of observance of these Jewish laws, I point the reader to the Epistle to the Galatians. That letter deals precisely with that topic. Also, there's a portion of Acts (Acts 15) that states the requirements of the law are not to be expected from Gentile believers.
and as was mentioned above, insects have 6 legs and 6 feet, not 4. and what about arthropods and arachnids?
these mostly arbitrary rules were solely set up to separate the jewish tribe from the other tribes in the area which they were also taught to hate with racist and genocidal zeal by the writers of the bible who ultimately gave the credit to yahweh or elohim, depending on where the original verses were written.
"This is all taken out of context."
Could you please provide the context which makes taking female prisoners of war as your wife an OK thing to do?
"Making fun of these laws which apply to Jews is antisemitism"
And I suppose some notable Jews, say, Larry David or Jerry Seinfeld would NEVER make fun of these laws, as that would make them semite-anti-semites?
And what difference does it make? all us Goy are going to hell anyways, right?
Might as well try and figure out why Rudolph's nose glows red instead of white (did santa invent infrared goggles?).
Rub some brain cells together people - religion (of any flavour) is the biggest scam since man evolved from primordial sludge.
@Vonskippy: As for religion being the largest scam ever, I'm not exactly sure what you are pointing at. I am A Catholic because I believe in Jesus Christ's teachings, and consider myself extremely accepting to all races, sexualities and religions (and I am aware other Catholics may not approve of my stance). But simply lambasting religion for an outdated cultural sham is rather insulting to millions of people out there.
Anyways, we all know that Mr. Madoff's Ponzi scheme is quite possibly the largest known scam in the world
Oh, and P.S. the original languages of the Bible were Hebrew and Greek (with a little Aramaic mixed in).
The KJV translators used manuscripts in these languages, but that was 400 years ago, and English has changed a ton!
Maybe it wasn't such a dumb thing after all.
And, btw, the Hebrews certainly weren't the only ancient culture to take captured women as wives. In fact, I think their captives had a little more rights as spelled out in the OT than other cultures of the same period. (But I'm not a historian and may be wrong about that.) I'd think that just naming them as wives gave them more status than that of sex slave/drudge. Women didn't have a lot of choices. Or girls as we consider them now.
BTW, I like Coyote's pragmatic view on #1 as well.
Also, if she's going to martyr herself/commit suicide, she's had her chance. After that month's time, you're looking at a Survivor.
Maybe it wasn't such a dumb thing after all.
And, btw, the Hebrews certainly weren't the only ancient culture to take captured women as wives. In fact, I think their captives had a little more rights as spelled out in the OT than other cultures of the same period. (But I'm not a historian and may be wrong about that.) I'd think that just naming them as 'wives' gave them more status than that of sex slave/drudge. Women didn't have a lot of choices. Or girls as we would consider them now.
BTW, I like Coyote's pragmatic view on #1 as well.
If you are going to spout facts, please make sure they are in fact accurate. The New Testament is (by secular and biblical scholars) now dated to have been written between 50CE and 150CE. Your assertion of "300 years after" is almost 200 years old itself in thought and has been disproven. Even taking into account that Jesus was most likely born 3-4BCE, someone writing in 50CE who was born the same year would be mid-50s. Also, for dating purposes, we are looking at the earliest existing documentation. It's entirely possible that more manuscripts will come to light or that the current oldest manuscripts are not the first time those words were committed to written word.
WRT to the idea that the bible loves segregation of things, I'd make a couple of points: the first is that the words 'sacred' and 'sin' both have their origins in the word for 'separation'. That which is holy is that which is set aside as having special value. The root of 'sin' goes back to the concept of unnecessary separation. The second is that the kosher law regarding separation of meat and dairy is stated as 'don't cook the calf in the milk of its mother.'
These observances are symbolic, and a lot of them don't make sense unless you actually know the historical context. One of the best illustrations I can think of is in Kyle Baker's _King David_, where Saul is telling his son about the point where he lost God's favor. He says something to the effect that he staged a raid on a neighboring village/country and killed everything down to the last woman and child.. the only things he left alive were the cattle. His son says something to the effect of "Oh wow," and Saul says, "I should've killed the cattle."
Baker does a great job of explaining why that makes sense, and I heartily recommend _King David_ to anyone who can find it. Otherwise, ask a rabbi.
Face it, most people in the US can't even give a decent explanation of the sociopolitical forces behind the Revolution or the Civil War. Hell, most can't even explain the net of political alliances that led to WWI, or how the humiliation of Germany made WWII more or less inevitable. Don't presume to expect immediate and transparent understanding of events from two or three millennia ago, in a culture whose mindset was decidedly different from our own.
Do *not* go up against people who've spent the past few thousand years arguing over exactly what all the laws of Judiaism mean om the strength of thirty seconds of not knowing Jack about it. It's a gross discourtesy if nothing else. Do something more constructive, like joining in the YouTube commentary over the authenticity of the moon landing videos.
However, if you look back at the time it was written, you realize that these rules made sense.
In regards to not eating pork (swine), the chances of getting trichinosis was probably pretty high. So, to prevent the spread of disease, just ban pork.
In regards to not eating shellfish: anyone ever eaten bad shellfish? The common way, in biblical times, to preserve fish was to leave it out to dry in the sun. You can't really do that with shellfish.
I would agree with the commenter that stated the Bible should be re-translated from the original manuscripts. Many translations of the Bible are actually translations of translations. Just like making copies of copies on a xerox, errors can be introduced that change things subtly but will add up over time. There is an interesting diagram in the Thompson Chain-Reference Bible showing how the different translations came to be.
To those that may mock the beliefs of others: why? Just because someone believes in a God or divine being does not make them any less intelligent than someone who doesn't, and vice versa. To each their own!
"Reading this book will result in severe mental problems"
I find it amusing when I see all these forums which talk about the Bible and quote from the KJ Bible which has lost a whole lot in translation. Also, I am not trying to prove or disprove Judaism to anybody, but the literal text is meaningless without the Oral Law. There is no such law that a Jewish man can't shave his beard. The Bible actually states that he cannot shave off the CORNERS of his beard. There has been debate in the time s of the Talmud over exactly what that means, but people agree that it just means the sideburns. Also, there is no law in the Bible that says that you have to maim another or cut off their hand. Eye for an eye means that you have to pay the value of the eye. What I'm saying is that every individual has the right to think for themselves and can criticize or make fun of the Bible as being old and outdated. I think its only fair though, that you first analyze exactly what the Bible means when it says something before making a statement about it (something which is completely impossible to do without going through the Oral Law). Finally, I want to say that it is a normal human reaction to want to find reason and order in things. This is why people try to find the reasons for the commandments in the Bible. However, every Jew knows that there is only so much a human is capable of understanding. We believe that we were given the ability to understand SOME of the reasons for SOME of the commandments. In no way has any Jew ever believed that they could understand the reasons that G-d has for the things that he does. There is a very simple reason for this. Once you state that you can understand G-d then that means that you have just reduced the concept of G-d from something that is almighty and all-knowing/infinite into something that can be grasped by the human intelligence. That kind of lowers G-d's ranking doesn't it? I am open to all criticism about this comment but I ask that you please be mature about it. Thanks.
Has anybody told Sarah Palin this? :)
I'm sure every Jew thanks you for speaking for them and putting your words in their mouth.
You mean to tell me that religion was invented by folk who didn't believe it was true? What do you call those folk?
THAT is funny!
How about explain for instance these - according to Bible all these are ways to go to Hell.
Basically, you are going to Hell if...
* eat fruit from a tree less than five years old. [Lev. 19:23]
* cross-breed animals. [Lev. 19:19]
* grow two different plants in your garden. [Lev. 19:19]
* wear a cotton-polyester blend T-Shirt. [Lev. 19:19]
* read your horoscope. [Lev. 19:26]
* consult a psychic. [Lev. 19:31]
* cut your hair. [Lev. 19:27]
* trim your beard. [Lev. 19:27]
* are tattooed. [Lev. 19:28]
* plant crops for more than seven years. [Lev. 25:4, Ex. 23:10-13]
* bear a grudge. [Lev. 19:17]
* collect interest on a loan. [Ex. 22:24]
* insult a leader. [Ex. 22:27]
* spread false rumors. [Ex. 23:1]
* drive a Mercury. [Ex. 23:13]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hh_shsRfXqk
I might be wrong, but wasn't 'issue' another word for offspring? So we're talking about a week to recover after a miscarriage.
That's the problem. There is so much room open for interpretation, yet there are so many yahoos out there that "know" the true answer. That's why there are so many sects inside these religions, they can't come to an agreement with their difference of opinion, when both sides declare themselves as being right.
@Ben Eshbach
Actually religion is found to be a defense mechanism for those who suffer from delusions caused me mental illnesses or childhood trauma to help them cope with the unexplained that only they can see. We have better ways of helping those people today, but that's all they had back then.
but rule #4.. c'mon that's gross yes but it feel's 10x better when your "makinglove" :]
and the wink.. CREEPERRRRRR
But after a month, you'll know whether or not she was already pregnant from before her capture (and whether the child is from someone not of the clan), or whether she is not with child. Whereas if the victor started having sex with her from day one (regardless of whether he was raping her or whether she was consenting, though consent when you've just been captured as a spoil of war is understandably not really happening to start with) he wouldn't be able to tell whether the baby was his or someone else's until the baby was born and started showing a family resemblance.