In the Talmud, why were animals given a more humane death than people?
Absoutely R J, people were stoned to death, whereas the animals slaughtered had their throats cut open and died much more quickly...all according to the law.
"the Talmud was written at a time when capital punishment was not practiced and was only studied in theory."
What a pleasant revision of history.
Zvi, you seem just as prone, if not more, to "pick and choose." He said that capital punishment was not practiced, and I called bullshit. Now you are opposing me, while giving me an the conditions upon capital punishment was practiced. Ridiculous.
Cher, I'm not sure why you are bringing up the prejudices of the middle ages. My question has nothing to do with that. I asked a specific question on why the method of killing live stock is (am I wrong to believe that we all agree on this?) more humane than the method of execution of criminals.
So far, I've been insulted by several of you for asking a question about the reasoning behind the disparity between the methods of execution of animal vs human. How typical of this place.
There are three reasons for killing an animal in the Talmud
1 - Kosher slaughter (either for food or sacrifice)
2 - Capital punishment such as for causing the death of a person
3 - Atonement ceremony when someone was murdered and the criminal is unknown
In addition, there is a requirement that animals that pose a danger be killed.
As per humans, the Talmud was written at a time when capital punishment was not practiced and was only studied in theory. Humans, unlike your words, must be quickly killed and die within instants, totally unlike most other cultures where death sentences were carried out slowly and with torture. Your words show that you are truly arrogant.
I see you only pick and choose what you want to hear.
In order to get the death penalty, the 'qualifications' were almost ridiculous. Read up on them. A court that killed (and they lasted 80 years) was considered a 'murderous' court, that's how rare it was.
(To give you an example, for everything there must be 2 witnesses, the accused has to have been forewarned in front of witnesses, and seen committing the act by witnesses. The witnesses were brutally cross-examined for hours in separate rooms. If they were found to be false, they'd get the penalty they were trying to give the accused. This is one reason why it rarely happened that anyone actually got killed).
Mr. Arrogant - if you'd read the Talmud, Aryeh isn't revisionist at all. The same source you claim, states how rarely capital punishment was used so keep reading.
It's much more used in the U.S. now than it was back then by the Sanhedrin. Then you needed two witnesses, the perpetrator had to be warned right before committing the act & acknowledge that warning, no one but no one had stood up for his life during the trial, etc.. The type allowed was limited to less cruel means, compare to Roman choices.
So where does this idea that Judaism was violent come from? Not from Jewish values, records in Talmud, or history. It comes from a revision of history by early Christianity to target Judaism a bit in it's political struggle to get acceptance & life from the Romans in that competition. In other words, that idea of JC replacing capital punishment is not consistent with Judaism's history & was a false slander at Judaism. (Doesn't make Christianity look good, but theme's the facts.)
To answer your obviously answerable question - the animals were for food. Punishment for acts of choice that harm others such as murdering, are punishment & meant to deter.
=======================
Edit:
First the prejudices weren't from middle ages, but started back in 200-500CE with writings of early Church fathers.
Second, I didn't bring them up. YOU did. You asked a question indicating a violence of Judaism that comes out of that image painted & is false... and has been hard to eradicate considering it's still taught to many Christians daily.
So - it's relevant to a question in the here & now based on this false teaching that caused you to go fishing for something to bang at Judaism with along it's lines.
See what I'm saying? I aimed under the question to the heart of it & it's source. We can explain from Talmud with counter info but it won't take away the real image you have that's inaccurate...you'll just go looking for the next proof of what's not true based on that still taught, current false image of Judaism. Unless you want to be prejudice this will interest you (I have no idea on you, many people don't & find it informative).
It's like when blacks were accused of being more violent. People didn't even realize it was part of prejudice & an image created to help keep them down, making it hard to debunk.
This site has more on a few common erroneously taught concepts about Judaism:
http://www.whatjewsbelieve.org
.....
You've been insulted for insulting us in a question that shows poor understanding of Judaism & reflection of intolerant views of it that you've learned. Maybe you didn't mean it that way at all. However, usually in YA when someone asks like this, oh boy do they mean it & nothing changes their minds. Humoring it as nice is the least effective thing to do. However, if you didn't then insulting wasn't necessary, just education. Hope at least that's come through. I'll know with your next response whether I own you an apology.
Beyond that - you don't include an obvious that would make your question more tolerant - recognition that animals killed for food (which is not execution) & humans for crimes (not just sins but actual crimes like murder) are different. So on 2ND read, that's where the communication occurred at least for me, if you meant this question genuinely...it just didn't appear that way when to me.
....
Come to think of it, you do know that Jewish courts ruled that calcification & several other common methods of the day by others were illegal as too cruel? Stoning too required the person be knocked out with the first stone (requirements to ensure that). It's not much different than modern methods like electrocution.
Everyone is arguing about religion on this one, when it is a simple question and answer. Capitol punishment is just that, PUNISHMENT. It's sole purpose is to PUNISH the person being executed. Animals are slaughtered for food, they did nothing wrong, so they are simply killed, as quickly and efficiently as possible. A person, tried and condemned, has committed wrongs against his fellow man. His execution should be painful and messy, to better deter others from committing the same crime. That is the reason behind having punishment, to deter criminal acts. If the punishment isn't severe enough, people are more willing to commit the crimes.
The Talmud was written around 200-500AD, hundreds of years after the Torah was written. Stoning was explicitly mandated in the Torah for certain offenses, so it was already "on the books", and the people who wrote the Talmud were stuck with it. They couldn't take it off the books because the books was the Torah, which to them was sacred and couldn't be altered by even one letter. The best they could do was set up so many legal obstacles that it would be virtually impossible to actually carry it out.
As to why the Torah mandated stoning, it depends on how you think the Torah was written. If it was written by God, then you should ask him. If it was written by ordinary mortals, then it probably had a very complex history, evolving from oral legends, moral paradigms, and stories written by many people, rewritten and rearranged by others, and collated into its final form by still others. So it was a collection of the world views of many people who lived around 400-1000 BC - probably kings, priests, gifted writers, visionaries, paranoid schizophrenics, and so on. Why should it surprise you that it would reflect some of the barbaric ethos of its primitive times? Or that, as others here have stated, capital punishment was viewed as a deterrent or as punishment, and was made severe for those reasons? If anything, it was a giant stride away from barbarity, introducing concepts of justice, charity, monotheism instead of paganism, not stealing, honoring ones parents, etc. So it wasn't perfect. So what? Why blame Talmudists who lived a thousand years later, who were simply trying to continue the progress towards a better system? The Torah says nothing explicit about how animals are to be slaughtered. The Talmudists introduced regulations to make animal slaughter as humane as possible, and introduced others to turn capital punishment into a legal fiction, on the books only for its deterrent value. This seems eminently reasonable to me, regardless of who wrote the Torah.
Are you aware of a case in which capital punishment was imposed by a Jewish court? I haven't been able to find an example. If you have a link, I'd appreciate if you'd provide it.
In the Talmud, why were animals given a more humane death than people?
