# thou shalt cut off her hand



## Ed Walsh (Aug 14, 2016)

Friends,

This passage in Deuteronomy, which is my favorite Old Testament book, has always interested (troubled) me. I wonder if any of you have an idea of what it is all about. Thanks in advance.

Deuteronomy 25:11-12
11 When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets (genitals):
12 Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her.

Rushdoony says:

This is a startling law because it is the only instance in biblical law where mutilation is mandatory. [See publisher’s note on p. 426.] Although common in pagan law, it is normally banned in God’s law, which means that this exception requires careful attention.

Rushdoony, R. J. (2008). Commentaries on the Pentateuch: Deuteronomy (p. 423). Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books.

Also in his commentary:

Publisher’s note:
Dr. Rushdoony commented that the words translator and traitor have a common root, and that a translation of the Hebrew or Greek can fail to do justice to a text’s original meaning. He was not averse to adjusting his work in terms of the best conservative scholarship available. Three years after his death, a strong case for correcting the translation of Deuteronomy 25:12a was finally put forward. It is possible that Dr. Rushdoony would have embraced the newer translation and adjusted his comments accordingly. While we do not have the benefit of his having done so, given the time frame involved, the nature of the translation change is important enough to warrant mention here.
The words “cut” and “hand” in the translation “cut off her hand” are somewhat unusual (“hand” in particular). The word normally used for “hand” is the Hebrew yad, used in verse 11 immediately before this verse, but in verse 12 we find the more rare word kaph. Kaph, derived from kaphaph (“curve”), denotes the bowl of a dish, or the leaves of a palm tree, or even the socket of the thigh (used twice in this sense in Genesis 32), as well as the palm of a hand. Recent scholarship points out that this word is a circumlocution for the groin. The word “cut” (kawtsats, from kawtsar) is used in Jeremiah 9 and 25 for cutting off the beard, being based on an Arabic root for cutting the nails or hair, in addition to other ranges of meaning (including the reaping of a field). In sum, a defensible translation for Deut. 25:12a, in lieu of “cut off her hand,” would be “shave [the hair of] her groin.” As Semitic scholar Jerome T. Walsh phrased it, “She has humiliated a man publicly by an assault on his genitalia (presumably without serious injury to them); her punishment is public genital humiliation, similarly without permanent injury.” This translation, as Walsh points out, reduces “the severity of the punishment from the permanency of amputation to the temporary humiliation of depilation.” Consequently, the punishment addresses both the principle of the lex talionis (proportionality of punishment) and “the shameful nature of the woman’s deed.” Had actual injury ensued, the assault would have been covered by the well-known biblical laws concerning compensation for injury rather than this passage.
If Walsh’s thesis is borne out, there would remain no scriptural support for the idea that the Bible teaches mutilation as punishment anywhere. If Walsh’s view (despite very strong support on lexical and philological grounds) is ultimately rejected by conservative scholarship, the position Dr. Rushdoony advanced in the relevant two chapters of this commentary would stand as is. In either case, Dr. Rushdoony’s thesis that pity must always be subordinate to God’s law remains perpetually true: false pity always promotes lawlessness.


Rushdoony, R. J. (2008). Commentaries on the Pentateuch: Deuteronomy (p. 426). Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books.


----------



## Miss Marple (Aug 14, 2016)

I venture forward not as any sort of theologian but just to give a female perspective - consider that perhaps this is a protection for women? Perhaps sounds strange but hear me out. . . we are tempted, sorely tempted, to involve ourselves in fights between men. We want to "protect" our men. But in creation order this does not work. A severe punishment such as this is a strong disincentive. No ungodly husband/boyfriend/brother/ etc can say to a woman, why did you not join in and defend me? Well, because the law of God would have required that I have my hand cut off if so. For what it's worth.

I am not quite convinced by the 'shaving shaming,' I mean it's in a secret place, who would even know? So not very much shame there in my opinion. As opposed to having one's head shaved, for example, that would be very shaming.


----------



## earl40 (Aug 14, 2016)

This seems to me that the men in the fight were fighting in a fair way and the wife joined in a dirty way.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 14, 2016)

It seems the part she took hold of might be a part of the reason. 

And what about Exodus... Eye for eye, tooth for tooth? Life for Life
Exodus 21:22-25
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. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.


----------



## johnny (Aug 14, 2016)

Not having done any research, I still agree with Miss Marple.

Who would feel pity for someone who effectively has a brazilian cut under their garments. 
It would make more sense to have a head shaved but even this does not seem weighty enough.

Also, grabbing another mans genitals is a pretty big deal, even today, A man in a fight would never do it, but when women fight, (very rare, but I have seen it) they often grab at each other and pull each other's hair and slap scratch and pinch, they don't generally punch. And there is also the classic situation where a bystander might step in to defend a fighting couple, what happens next? The woman who was being attacked generally turns on the Good Samaritan. I always think of that when I hear this verse.

This was a rambling post, I apologise and reply regardless


----------



## johnny (Aug 14, 2016)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> It seems the part she took hold of might be a part of the reason.
> 
> And what about Exodus... Eye for eye, tooth for tooth? Life for Life
> Exodus 21:22-25
> 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. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.



Yes exactly, strange that Rushdoony would miss this obvious reference to mutilation as punishment.


----------



## Ed Walsh (Aug 14, 2016)

johnny said:


> Yes exactly, strange that Rushdoony would miss this obvious reference to mutation as punishment.



He did not miss it. He and many others do not think mutilation was called for in the eye of eye verses, but rather that the punishment should fit the crime. For example, can you think of even one time that literal mutilation was carried out in the Scriptures?


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 14, 2016)

The law in general is about sexual respect of women for men and men for women. If a woman is to show respect for a man's sexual space in extremis, then a fortiori, she is to show such respect in everyday situations and a man is, even more so, to show such respect to women who are of the weaker and fairer sex.

The judges - usually elders in consultation with the priests - would have to use godly wisdom in applying the case law example to situations which were significantly different e.g. if there was a fight to the death and the action was the best the woman could do to save the life of her husband, e.g. there was no knife available to stab an assailant or potsherd to smash over his head. What if her husband was murdered in the struggle subsequent to the wife's ordinarily illicit attempts to save him?

I'd heard of Walsh's interpretation of the punishment in Paul Copan's, "Is God a Moral Monster?" - a bad choice of title for a book. It's blasphemous to ask the question.

In the New Testament context, elders in the church, and civil courts, must deal with cases of sexual molestation.


----------



## MW (Aug 14, 2016)

Our Saviour's reference to cutting off the hand was not without a basis in the law. He made a metaphorical use of it. If we look at the context of the law it relates to the duty to marry a deceased brother's wife, which is intricately tied up with inheritance in the promised land, and was never intended to be a moral and perpetual law for all nations. See also 1 Cor. 9.


----------



## johnny (Aug 14, 2016)

Ed Walsh said:


> johnny said:
> 
> 
> > Yes exactly, strange that Rushdoony would miss this obvious reference to mutation as punishment.
> ...



Thanks ED 

Only the adultery test in Numbers Five as that seems like it can be seen outwardly by a swollen stomach.

KJV Numbers 5:7
And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people. 28 And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed.

Again, I'm just shooting off the top of my head and I'm sure that Rushdoony has an answer for this too.


----------



## bookslover (Aug 15, 2016)

I wonder if that law is a reflection of what Paul will say, centuries later, about a wife's body belonging to her husband and a husband's body belonging to his wife. In the Deuteronomy passage, perhaps the woman is punished because she touched the man's genitals - those genitals being the property (so to speak) of that man's wife. 

Strictly a guess on my part.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Aug 15, 2016)

I've never heard tell—in Scripture, or Jewish writings—of the punishment being applied, perhaps because of the threat. Damaging the "family jewels"—and the continuation of the line down through the years—would have severe consequences. This is Gill's somewhat mitigating take.


----------



## rookie (Aug 15, 2016)

MW said:


> Our Saviour's reference to cutting off the hand was not without a basis in the law. He made a metaphorical use of it. If we look at the context of the law it relates to the duty to marry a deceased brother's wife, which is intricately tied up with inheritance in the promised land, and was never intended to be a moral and perpetual law for all nations. See also 1 Cor. 9.



This is where I was going with it. God's view of your descendants has such a high estimation, that if a woman grabbed a man by his genitals and risked making him fertile, was a huge no no. God views men having a line of descendants more important than a woman trying to protect her man by rendering his opponent fertile.

As mentioned above, nearly all the fights you see between men, no matter how brutal, seems there's an unspoken rule about not attacking the jewels. There are always exceptions, however this is almost always respected.


----------



## Ed Walsh (Aug 15, 2016)

rookie said:


> fertile...fertile



You mean infertile (sterile) right?


----------



## rookie (Aug 15, 2016)

Ed Walsh said:


> rookie said:
> 
> 
> > fertile...fertile
> ...



Absolutely a typo, nice catch.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 15, 2016)

I know this. I was kicked in the balls in grade school while standing in line before school. I was being provocative to the person. Let me tell you that that life after mine was considered. I had a swollen area like I have never experienced since. That child's father and family got a visit from my family. And it wasn't to defend my smarty attitude. There is something in the scriptures concerning the next generations and life that many don't seem to get now days. Liberal theologians don't understand that now days.


----------

