The Pubic Hair Parsha

Discussion about the Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, pseudepigrapha, Philo, Josephus, Talmud, Dead Sea Scrolls, archaeology, etc.
Post Reply
semiopen
Posts: 471
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 6:27 pm

The Pubic Hair Parsha

Post by semiopen »

Ki_Teitzei which we just read in the synagogue, has a lot of odd laws such as the Beautiful Captive.

There is also a remarkable amount of commentary about pubic hair which I wasn't aware of before last Saturday.

It is impossible to talk intelligently about the Rebellious Son without discussing pubic hair:

Deut 21:18
If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, that will not hearken to the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and though they chasten him, will not hearken unto them;
The Mishnah interpreted the words “a son” in Deuteronomy 21:18 to teach that provision applied to “a son,” but not a daughter, and to “a son,” but not a full-grown man. The Mishnah exempted a minor, because minors did not come within the scope of the commandments. And the Mishnah deduced that a boy became liable to being considered “a stubborn and rebellious son” from the time that he grew two genital pubic hairs until his pubic hair grew around his genitalia.[111] Rav Judah taught in Rav’s name that Deuteronomy 21:18 implied that the son had to be nearly a man.[112]
Other than the technical issues involved in checking the son's pubic hair, the commandment is not easy to fulfill as the wiki discusses below the quote. For example, what if one or both the parents are mute or missing appendages.

Deut 22:5
A woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment; for whosoever doeth these things is an abomination unto the LORD thy God.
This is a well known difficult passage.

http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo ... rashi=true
nor may a man wear a woman’s garment: to go and abide among women. Another explanation: [In addition to not wearing a woman’s garment,] a man must also not remove his pubic hair or the hair of his armpits [for this is a practice exclusive to women]. — [Nazir 59a]
Chabad tends to stick opinions of the Rebbe into stuff without attribution so it is hard to trust them. In the above, the "[in addition..." seems to be an example of this. Nazir 59a and Rashi don't appear to have a problem with men wearing women's clothes.

http://www.come-and-hear.com/nazir/nazir_59.html
One who removes [the hair of] the armpits or the private parts infringes the prohibition, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment.
What interpretation does the first Tanna2 put on [the verse] 'neither shall a man put on a woman's garment'? — He requires it for the following that has been taught: Why does Scripture say, A woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man [etc.]?3 If merely [to teach] that a man should not put on a woman's garment, nor a woman a man s garment, behold it says [of this action] this is an abomination4 and there is no abomination here!5
Footnote 5 - The mere act of putting on the garments is not wrong.
My final example,

Deut 25:11-12
When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets;
then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall have no pity.
It is difficult to imagine this passage not being taken literally -

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.c ... qus_thread

Hector Avalos notes
There has been a shift in conservative biblical apologetics recently that attempts to de-literalize the Bible’s objectionable passages. In the past, conservative biblical apologetics was noted for its defense of the literal meaning of the Bible even when it seemingly endorsed violence or punishments we would call cruel.

Dr. Paul Copan follows this de-literalization campaign by claiming that Deuteronomy 25:11-12 should not be taken literally. He discusses this passage in Is God a Moral Monster? (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 2011), 121-122.
But actually Copan's idea isn't that bad.
“cut off her hand” (וְקַצֹּתָ֖ה אֶת־ כַּפָּ֑הּ) really means shaving her pubic hair.
REASON 1: “The word commonly translated ‘hand’ (kaph) can refer to the ‘palm’ of the hand or some rounded concave object like a dish or a bowl, or spoon, or even the arch of a foot. The commonly used word for ‘hand’ (yad) isn’t used here. It would be strange to cut off the palm of a hand!” (Is God a Moral Monster?, p. 121).
Avalos sort of refutes all this, but the modern Hebrew (Arabic) cuss word for vagina is Kus (cup).

FWIW, Copan replies to Avalos here http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2 ... or-avalos/

and Avalos replies here http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.c ... qus_thread

The discussion is quite interesting.

The ironic part here is that shaving a woman's pubic hair as a punishment is the opposite of the Talmudic view that women commonly do this. In fact, one could argue that a woman is commanded to shave her pubic hair - although I'm confused by whether this would be a negative (women must follow) or positive (optional for women) commandment.
A woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man...
Post Reply