NationStates Jolt Archive

Imagine a world where the Code of Hammurabi was still followed.

Those of you who don't know what the Code of Hammurabi is, look here (http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM).

'twas an important thing during it's time, it gave us the first written laws. But modern concepts are far superior to the code. I'm gonna say a modern world with such a set of laws wouldn't be a nice place.

'twas an important thing during it's time, it gave us the first written laws.
I know, but imagine if it was law today.

If a son strike his father, his hands shall be hewn off.

If a man put out the eye of another man, his eye shall be put out. [ An eye for an eye ]

If he break another man's bone, his bone shall be broken.

If a slave say to his master: "You are not my master," if they convict him his master shall cut off his ear.

If conspirators meet in the house of a tavern-keeper, and these conspirators are not captured and delivered to the court, the tavern-keeper shall be put to death.

If fire break out in a house, and some one who comes to put it out cast his eye upon the property of the owner of the house, and take the property of the master of the house, he shall be thrown into that self-same fire.

If any one steal the minor son of another, he shall be put to death.

Although established by pagans this approaches the rigour [except for the regrettable laxity of section 3] which we aspire to in our glorious and divine code of law.

Hey, this guy has a similar first name to mine. I have a long lost brother. Wow!

the fundies are working on getting back to the slightly modified version that wound up in the bible.

except for the part that says that the unborn are only worth ten shekels - actually, the bible allows for inflation and just leaves it at whatever the court decides.

the fundies are working on getting back to the slightly modified version that wound up in the bible.

except for the part that says that the unborn are only worth ten shekels - actually, the bible allows for inflation and just leaves it at whatever the court decides.

Please show me the verse that elaborates to the unborn being worthless? Or is this just making crap up? I remember one talking about being "knit together in my mother's womb" that seems to be the only verse that applies. Given that he uses the word "me" not it, subhuman group of cells... I think its pretty clear how this should be interprepted.
Defend human rights. Defend the UN's declaration of human rights, every man has a right to life.

heres a hint then, dont go to singapore

Please show me the verse that elaborates to the unborn being worthless? Or is this just making crap up?

exodus 21:22-25. which is a paraphrase of paragraphs 209 and 210 of hammurabi. it also wound up in all the other ancient middle east law codes we know of.

and the law doesn't say worthless - just worth less than a actual child, which is worth less than an adult.

sounds like the shariah (and pretty much like old testament law too)

Oppressive, but still of historcial significance. I can't say I would have liked to have lived with such laws, but at the same time, it's beneficial to us that they existed.

Those laws are very conservative, not sure I would've liked it.

Lol, you guys know that a save in that culture is not what we define one as today?
Back then a slave chose to be a slave, it was a good job as you got free food, and free housing. All you didn't get was pay.
That's the biggest problem people have with that code of laws.

Of course for the most part I have to agree alot of it was just crap.

Lol, you guys know that a save in that culture is not what we define one as today?
Back then a slave chose to be a slave, it was a good job as you got free food, and free housing. All you didn't get was pay.

that's false. while it was possible to sell yourself into slavery, you also could sell your children or your sister, whether they wanted to be slaves or not. and many slaves were the captured people of some other city-state

oh my god that would suck so bad. imagine this. you are a young child playing with your friends. you start wrestling and you accidentally push your friend into a stick and it goes in his eye. now remember you are only 7 or 8. imagine somebody gouging out your eyeball with a dull blade. and back in this day and age, there was no medicine or pain reliever. youd probably die of infection.

oh my god that would suck so bad. imagine this. you are a young child playing with your friends. you start wrestling and you accidentally push your friend into a stick and it goes in his eye. now remember you are only 7 or 8. imagine somebody gouging out your eyeball with a dull blade. and back in this day and age, there was no medicine or pain reliever. youd probably die of infection.

i'd imagine that would be covered under 206

If during a quarrel one man strike another and wound him, then he shall swear, "I did not injure him wittingly," and pay the physicians.

exodus 21:22-25. which is a paraphrase of paragraphs 209 and 210 of hammurabi. it also wound up in all the other ancient middle east law codes we know of.

and the law doesn't say worthless - just worth less than a actual child, which is worth less than an adult.

Could you actually show me the verse? All the translations I have seen say "pre-mature birth" in abortion commonly the baby is not premature... it is dead. Unless you've been to a clinic that delivers pre-mature babies and calls them abortions. Hell by that definition one of my friends was aborted.

Could you actually show me the verse? All the translations I have seen say "pre-mature birth" in abortion commonly the baby is not premature... it is dead. Unless you've been to a clinic that delivers pre-mature babies and calls them abortions. Hell by that definition one of my friends was aborted.


22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, Lev. 24.19, 20 · Deut. 19.21 · Mt. 5.38 hand for hand, foot for foot,

25 burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.


Don't see "pre-mature birth" there.

Don't see "pre-mature birth" there.
Right but as I said before that doesen't imply "death" either. Check here for literal translations.
http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/abortion/whatexod.htm

A post for a post!

Right but as I said before that doesen't imply "death" either. Check here for literal translations.
http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/abortion/whatexod.htm
Interesting article, but I don't think the Hebrews at this time used Webster’s New World Dictionary. Which wouldn't be a problem, yet it appears to me that the article sticks to this premise (it could of course be my sleep-deprived, caffeine addled brain though).

We studied those in Humanities a few weeks back. Them and the Egyptian Book of the Dead, which has all sorts of laws that we need more of today. For example and personal edificaton, some shining stars of wisdom below:
-I have not stolen the cakes of AAKHU
-I have not made hot my mouth
-I have not eaten my heart
-I have not put out a fire when it should burn
-I have not stopped the water's flow

Interesting article, but I don't think the Hebrews at this time used Webster’s New World Dictionary. Which wouldn't be a problem, yet it appears to me that the article sticks to this premise (it could of course be my sleep-deprived, caffeine addled brain though).

This is simply them defining miscarriage. The hebrew translations below have nothing to do with the Webster's New World Dictionary.
Their actually making the same point in their own article.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
At issue is the phrase translated “she has a miscarriage.” There is an assumption made about this word that is crucial. In English, the word “miscarriage” implies the death of the child. Webster’s New World Dictionary defines miscarriage as, “The expulsion of the fetus from the womb before it is sufficiently developed to survive.”[3] In the struggle, the child is aborted, and so a fine is levied.

Here’s the crux of the issue: Does the Hebrew word carry the same meaning? Is it correct to presume that the miscarriage of Exodus 21:22 produces a dead child, just like an abortion? This is the single most important question that needs to be answered here. If it does, the English word “miscarriage” is the right choice. If it does not, then the picture changes dramatically.

Isn't it in force today?

§ 109
If conspirators meet in the house of a tavern-keeper, and these conspirators are not captured and delivered to the court, the tavern-keeper shall be put to death.

This is basically "the War of Terror".

AN eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. ;)

A little known fact is that the "eye for an eye" thing, was originally put in there to prevent people from going further than that, as was frequently done in those days. It was not a "minimum sentence" but a maximum.

This thing is cool, but I'd rather not live under it. Too restrictive.

Here’s the crux of the issue: Does the Hebrew word carry the same meaning? Is it correct to presume that the miscarriage of Exodus 21:22 produces a dead child, just like an abortion? This is the single most important question that needs to be answered here. If it does, the English word “miscarriage” is the right choice. If it does not, then the picture changes dramatically.

Shemot - Chapter 21 (http://www1.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=9882)

rabbi a.j. rosenberg's translation in the judaica press complete tanach uses the word "miscarries".

and since this same law shows up in most of the ancient middle eastern codes of law and always refers to a miscarriage, i think it fairly safe to say that it meant exactly that in this case too. especially considering hammurabi's code is several hundred years older than the bible claims moses is, and mosaic law is clearly influenced by it and other similar codes of law.

Shemot - Chapter 21 (http://www1.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=9882)

rabbi a.j. rosenberg's translation in the judaica press complete tanach uses the word "miscarries".

and since this same law shows up in most of the ancient middle eastern codes of law and always refers to a miscarriage, i think it fairly safe to say that it meant exactly that in this case too. especially considering hammurabi's code is several hundred years older than the bible claims moses is, and mosaic law is clearly influenced by it and other similar codes of law.

Here are the words he actually translates on commentary.
And should men quarrel with one another, and [one] intended to strike his fellow, and [instead] struck a woman. [From Sanh. 79a]
and hit a pregnant woman Heb. נְגִיפָה וְנָגְפוּ is only an expression of pushing and striking, as [in the following phrases:] “lest you strike ךְתִּגֹף your foot with a stone” (Ps. 91:12); “and before your feet are bruised (יִתְנְַָפוּ) ” (Jer. 13:16); “and a stone upon which to dash oneself (נֶגֶף) ” (Isa. 8:14).
but there is no fatality with the woman. -[From Sanh. 79a, Jonathan]
he shall surely be punished to pay the value of the fetuses to the husband. They assess her [for] how much she was valued to be sold in the market, increasing her value because of her pregnancy. -[From B.K. 49a] I. e., the court figures how much she would be worth if sold as a pregnant slave when customers would take into account the prospect of the slaves she would bear, and her value as a slave without the pregnancy. The assailant must pay the difference between these two amounts. -[B.K. 48b, 49a]
he shall surely be punished Heb. יֵעָנֵשׁ עָנוֹשׁ. They shall collect monetary payment from him, like וְעָנְשׁוּ [in the verse] “And they shall fine (וְעָנְשׁוּ) him one hundred [shekels of] silver” (Deut. 22:19). [From Mechilta]
when the woman’s husband makes demands of him When the husband sues him [the assailant] in court to levy upon him punishment for that.
and he shall give [restitution] The assailant [shall give] the value of the fetuses.
according to the judges Heb. בִּפְלִלִים, according to the verdict of the judges. -[From Mechilta]

Never once do I see the word miscarry justified. Check for yourself.

Shemot - Chapter 21 (http://www1.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=9882)

rabbi a.j. rosenberg's translation in the judaica press complete tanach uses the word "miscarries".

and since this same law shows up in most of the ancient middle eastern codes of law and always refers to a miscarriage, i think it fairly safe to say that it meant exactly that in this case too. especially considering hammurabi's code is several hundred years older than the bible claims moses is, and mosaic law is clearly influenced by it and other similar codes of law.

The only people who dare define the two words come to the same conclusion. The only one that makes sense if you look to other uses of the word in the Bible.

Do a search on Yeled and Yasa.

Never once do I see the word miscarry justified. Check for yourself.

so because rashi, a rabbi who lived in the 11th century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashi), didn't think it worthwhile to justify the the word 'miscarries', this should be evidence that the choice is controversial?

I think your source says it well enough.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Unlike some other commentaries, Rashi does not paraphrase or exclude any part of the text, but carefully elucidates the whole of the text.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
But there is an explanation on there as well.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
There are a small number of commentaries that bear his name that were not authored by him, but by his students.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

If this is truly Rashi's translation? Why leave out the word that is most crucial? Why never mention the subtext Hebrew words. Perhaps you should read your sources before making an argument.
Your own sources discredit each other. That makes discrediting you very easy.

If this is truly Rashi's translation [w]hy leave out the word that is most crucial?

not translation, commentary. and are you seriously suggesting there is some sort of conspiracy to leave out the bit of the commentary that said "this clearly says that abortion is evil", perpetrated by his students nearly 1000 years ago? what would be the point?

and i'll tell you why. because that passage has always been read to mean miscarriage. it wasn't controversial.

Genesis 1:24 “Then God said, ‘Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind’; and it was so.”

Genesis 8:17 [to Noah] “Bring out with you every living thing of all flesh that is with you, birds and animals and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth....”

Genesis 15:4 “This man will not be your heir; but one who shall come forth from your own body....”

Genesis 25:25-26 “Now the first came forth red, all over like a hairy garment; and they named him Esau. And afterward his brother came forth with his hand holding on to Esau’s heel, so his name was called Jacob.”

1 Kings 8:19 “Nevertheless you shall not build the house, but your son who shall be born to you, he shall build the house for My name.”

Jeremiah 1:5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

2 Kings 20:18 “And some of your sons who shall issue from you, whom you shall beget, shall be taken away; and they shall become officials in the palace of the king of Babylon.”

Tell me in all of these places... why the same hebrew subtext never means miscarry? Then explain why the only time a hebrew word for miscarry is used it is another one. Obviously there is a monumental shift in translation from multiple uses of "bring forth" to "miscarriage". You would think that might be explained in a thing that is called by your own sources as an full explanation of every word. Is freedom controversial? He (or whoever really wrote that) still explains how he came to that conclusion.

Buying something was also very controversial back then apparently going by your logic. So would be the words "the", "man", "married", and the list goes on and on. Why define seemingly mundane words like this and then not others? So much for the all conclusive translation.

Yasa is used 1,061 times in the Hebrew Bible. It is never translated “miscarriage” in any other case. Why should the Exodus passage be any different?

Must be lost in translation.

My bad the only thing to call to question is Rashi's commentary. Which says nothing to back up the use of "yasa" to your side. So I think ill go with the 1,061 other uses of "bring forth". Only an idiot would believe that it has a completely different meaning in this case. When Rashi has absolutely nothing to say that would make you think that.
BTW that thing that your looking at has nothing to do with Rashi. The commentary might... but the commentary doesen't support your viewpoint in the least.

Only an idiot would believe that it has a completely different meaning in this case.

eh, your argument is with centuries of jewish and christian scholars. don't blame me.

BTW that thing that your looking at has nothing to do with Rashi. The commentary might... but the commentary doesen't support your viewpoint in the least.

which thing i'm looking at? i provided a link to the text of an english translation of the tanach - a translation that is apparently considered authoritative - which also had rashi's commentary provided with it. the commentary is unnecessary to the point i was making; basically, look, here's an english translation of the hebrew by a rabbi who appears to be well respected that uses the word miscarries. i'm placing my bet on the rabbi.

One of many rabbis. I asked what "yasa" meant on their ask a rabbi sure enough he said "bring forth". Your "well-respected rabbi is not one rabbi but a conglomerate of scholars and rabbis. There is no reason to go this far however because at the point where there is contradiction you go to tie breaker points in text. At the point where a word is used 1,061 times. I think I can sleep sound knowing that one rabbi has more weight than another.

Your translation would openly contradict and warp other passages where it is used as "bring forth". Just as "Thou Shalt not Kill" makes no sense in the context of countless other verses. It is simply mistranslated from "Thou Shalt Not Murder."

You make this sound like every Christian Scholar and Rabbi supports your decision. Even Rabbis from your site do not uniformly support it. I support Rashi's conclusion, "Why even describe a word "yasa" as having a different literal meaning when it has been described 1,061 times before in another meaning?" The most logical conclusion is that Risha kept the original meaning "bring forth". Then again why listen to logic?

heres a hint then, dont go to singapore

It's not that bad. It's a "Fine" city. :p

-----------------------------------------------------------

Anyway, to some extent you can understand why these laws are such, because they are needed during those times. Not everybody is educated during those era's. And the only way for people to understand the consequences of their actions is to receive the same.

I support Rashi's conclusion, "Why even describe a word "yasa" as having a different literal meaning when it has been described 1,061 times before in another meaning?" The most logical conclusion is that Risha kept the original meaning "bring forth". Then again why listen to logic?

um, what are you talking about exactly? now you are just making things up. rashi's comments explicitly support the miscarriage interpretation.

he shall surely be punished to pay the value of the fetuses to the husband. They assess her [for] how much she was valued to be sold in the market, increasing her value because of her pregnancy. -[From B.K. 49a] I. e., the court figures how much she would be worth if sold as a pregnant slave when customers would take into account the prospect of the slaves she would bear, and her value as a slave without the pregnancy. The assailant must pay the difference between these two amounts. -[B.K. 48b, 49a]

and if you care to, you can check out the bits of the talmud he references at
http://www.come-and-hear.com/babakamma/babakamma_48.html
http://www.come-and-hear.com/babakamma/babakamma_49.html



in any case, back to the original topic. exodus 21:22-25 is clearly a paraphrase of the much older code of hammurabi, or one of its derivatives. as are a good number of the biblical laws.


209
If a man strike a free-born woman so that she lose her unborn child, he shall pay ten shekels for her loss.

210
If the woman die, his daughter shall be put to death.



22. And should men quarrel and hit a pregnant woman, and she miscarries but there is no fatality, he shall surely be punished, when the woman's husband makes demands of him, and he shall give [restitution] according to the judges' [orders].
23. But if there is a fatality, you shall give a life for a life,
24. an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot,
25. a burn for a burn, a wound for a wound, a bruise for a bruise.

My thread was hijacked by the discussion of Rabbis and biblical abortio. *sigh*

My thread was hijacked by the discussion of Rabbis and biblical abortio. *sigh*

sorry, it was my off-hand comment about fundies wanting hammurabi's code except for one part what done it.