Letter: Commentary on death penalty is wrong about Hebrew Bible
'Death penalty in keeping with principles of the Bible' (Reading Eagle, June 4), which asserts that the Hebrew Bible generally supports capital punishment, brings to mind comedian Lewis Black's advice that if you want to understand what the Hebrew Bible means, ask a Jewish person.
The letter is based on an understanding of the Hebrew Bible that is, forgive the pun, dead wrong. The Hebrew Bible is understood not simply by reading the text itself but through studying the Talmud, an explication of the biblical text by ancient rabbis and sages.
Wrestling with the text reveals its true meaning. The letter says Exodus 21:14 demands the death penalty for premeditated murder, but how is premeditation proven? To convict someone of premeditated murder under Jewish law, the court required two witnesses, according to Numbers 35:30. The Christian Bible accepts this principle in John 8:17.
In Jewish law, two witnesses must testify that they warned the assailant he could be sentenced to death if he commits murder. The witnesses had to testify they heard the assailant assent in case the assailant was deaf.
Premeditation under biblical law was extremely difficult to prove. Many other legal requirements were imposed. Historians doubt anyone was ever convicted of premeditated murder under Jewish law.
Marshall Dayan
Pittsburgh
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Federal judge blocks Trump effort to keep Harvard from hosting foreign students
A federal judge on Friday blocked the Trump administration's efforts to keep Harvard University from hosting international students, delivering the Ivy League school another victory as it challenges multiple government sanctions amid a battle with the White House. The order from U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs in Boston preserves the ability of Harvard to host foreign students while the case is decided. Harvard sued the Department of Homeland Security in May after the agency withdrew the school's certification to host foreign students and issue paperwork for their visas. The action would have forced Harvard's roughly 7,000 foreign students — about a quarter of its total enrollment — to transfer or risk being in the U.S. illegally. New foreign students would have been barred from coming to Harvard. The university called it illegal retaliation for rejecting the White House's demands to overhaul Harvard policies around campus protests, admissions, hiring and other issues. Burroughs temporarily halted the action hours after Harvard sued. Less than two weeks later, in early June, Trump moved to block foreign students from entering the U.S. to attend Harvard, citing a different legal justification. Harvard challenged the move and Burroughs temporarily blocked that effort as well. The stops and starts of the legal battle have unsettled current students and left others around the world waiting to find out whether they will be able to attend America's oldest and wealthiest university. The Trump administration's efforts to stop Harvard from enrolling international students have created an environment of 'profound fear, concern, and confusion,' the university said in a court filing. Countless international students have asked about transferring from the university, Harvard immigration services director Maureen Martin said. Trump has been warring with Harvard for months after it rejected a series of government demands meant to address conservative complaints that the school has become too liberal and has tolerated anti-Jewish harassment. Trump officials have cut more than $2.6 billion in research grants, ended federal contracts and threatened to revoke its tax-exempt status. In April, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem demanded that Harvard turn over a trove of records related to any dangerous or illegal activity by foreign students. Harvard says it complied, but Noem said the response fell short and on May 22 revoked Harvard's certification in the Student and Exchange Visitor Program. The sanction immediately put Harvard at a disadvantage as it competed for the world's top students, the school said in its lawsuit, and it harmed Harvard's reputation as a global research hub. 'Without its international students, Harvard is not Harvard,' the suit said. The action would have upended some graduate schools that recruit heavily from abroad. Some schools overseas quickly offered invitations to Harvard's students, including two universities in Hong Kong. Harvard President Alan Garber previously said the university has made changes to combat antisemitism. But Harvard, he said, will not stray from its 'core, legally-protected principles,' even after receiving federal ultimatums. ___ The Associated Press' education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Howard Levitt: A union should stand up for its members, not a foreign regime hostile to organized labour
Earlier this week, a flyer began circulating online promoting a June 22 rally against the war between Israel and Iran. 'Hands off Iran,' the flyer said, and invited protesters to gather outside the U.S. consulate in Toronto. An accompanying social media post called for 'building and preserving unity in confronting Zionism' and pledged support for the Palestinian and Iranian people, and 'all people across the world who continue to resist imperialist and Zionist domination.' The lead sponsor of the event, it turns out, is the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE). The union drew immediate criticism and condemnation from politicians, the media and many of its own members. The flyer was taken down, and CUPE issued a statement saying it was 'an early unapproved draft version' and that an approved flyer 'would be shared shortly.' However, they have issued no such new version, and the demonstration is going ahead. The mishandling of promotional material for such an obviously contentious event (if it was mishandled, which I question), should alone raise alarm bells about CUPE's leadership. But the fact that the union is involved in this event at all is beyond the pale. Iran has the world's worst human rights record, and a well-known history of torturing and murdering its dissidents, raping female prisoners, persecuting minorities and sponsoring terrorism around the world. It is also famously opposed to organized labour, and CUPE itself has previously condemned the Iranian regime for persecuting labour activists. So why is Ontario CUPE organizing a rally in support of Iran, a country recognized by Canada (and others) as a state supporter of terrorism? Does it hate Jews so much that it would ally itself with a regime that, other than antisemitism, opposes everything the union ostensibly stands for? For years, I have had Jewish union members complaining to me about antisemitism in their unions, particularly public sector ones. This dramatically exacerbated after Oct. 7 when unions, along with universities and the radical left, organized and came out to support the pro-Hamas rallies that ubiquitously took over Canadian streets. Their Jewish members, unsurprisingly, felt discriminated against, disenfranchised by their unions' public position supporting groups calling for their extermination. Remember, CUPE's legal obligation is to represent its members, not discriminate against them. Similarly, as unions conducted DEI seminars, Jewish members felt excluded — not only because the seminars failed to recognize them as a group that, according to Statistics Canada, experienced dramatically more discrimination than any other, but because the DEI trainers characterized Jews as residing at the top of the hierarchical pyramid, part of the 'white oppressor class.' This is similar to the experience of Jewish employees compelled to attend corporate DEI seminars with the same anti-semitic messaging, but seemed even worse because their unions were ostensibly there to protect them against just such discrimination. Ontario CUPE's sponsorship of this weekend's rally supporting Iran takes this to ludicrous heights. Why are unions permitted to use their Jewish members' monies to oppress them and to organize around a regime that poses such an obvious existential threat? CUPE and its leader, Fred Hahn, are already being sued by Jewish members for antisemitic conduct. That lawsuit has obviously not dissuaded them. This is the same Fred Hahn who tweeted his support of Oct. 7 at the time, and the same CUPE that asked one of its locals at York University to hijack their classes and teach on 'Israeli oppression' instead. We do not see CUPE or other unions concerning themselves with states that have no democratic foundation at all and routinely violate human rights. If they did, the world's most egregious violator is Iran. What is telling is that, when it came time to put its foot on the scale to either fight discrimination or support antisemitism, CUPE came out unequivocally in favour of the latter. Unions receive taxpayer subsidies and compulsory union dues, ostensibly for the purpose of assisting them in their collective bargaining. One can understand how some expenses beyond those of strict collective bargaining can be justifiable, such as lobbying for worker-friendly political parties, or on behalf of causes supportive of workers' collective bargaining gains. But supporting Hamas or Iran, beyond discriminating against some of their members, cannot possibly assist unions in obtaining higher wages, benefits or other terms of employment for their members, which is a unions' legal purpose, Yet there is no legal restraint on unions' spending membership and taxpayer money on whatever their hearts desire. This is not only of concern to union members but to taxpayers, since we all subsidize unions. Union dues are tax deductible, and strike pay and union investment funds are not taxed. So, what can be legally done? Legislation should be passed limiting money obtained from compulsory union dues or government tax subsidies to non-collective bargaining purposes and have that be audited. If unions wish to spend money for other purposes, it should only use funds collected from their members voluntarily for those purposes. Ideally, CUPE would know that if it were the law, virtually no member would contribute their wages for such union picadilloes. As for the aggrieved union members, they should organize to decertify CUPE for a union that does not violate its obligations to them. In the meantime, expose the union's behaviour on social media, organize against it, make clear that they will not participate in its activities and will continue to work if CUPE calls a strike. They could also commence a lawsuit, potentially a class-action one, against the union for intentional infliction of mental stress, conspiracy to injure, intimidation and defamation. Another option is to petition the union to cease its activities, and, if they do not receive a response, publish the letters on social and other media. They could also file an application with the labour relations board, on the grounds that the union has breached its duty of fair representation in a manner that was discriminatory and in bad faith toward Jewish members. Howard Levitt: Is unionization good for employees? A side-by-side comparison Howard Levitt: When employers play games with severance packages, they often lose There are remedies. It is past time to utilize them and for government to pass the necessary legislation. Howard Levitt is senior partner of Levitt LLP, employment and labour lawyers with offices in Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. He practices employment law in eight provinces and is the author of six books, including the Law of Dismissal in Canada. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Alleged Jew hater arrested for trying to run Rep. Max Miller off road while showing Palestinian flag and using slurs
Ohio police have arrested a man for allegedly attempting to run Republican Rep. Max Miller off the road Thursday while using anti-Jewish slurs and flying a Palestinian flag. Miller, 36, said in a video posted to X that an 'unhinged, deranged man decided to lay on his horn and run me off the road when he couldn't get my attention to show me a Palestinian flag.' Feras S. Hamdan, also 36, was arrested and charged with aggravated menacing following an investigation, the Rocky River, Ohio, police department said in a Friday press release. 3 Rep. Max Miller says he was the victim of an anti-Jewish road incident Thursday. AP 3 Feras Hamdan was arrested after police investigated. A police report says Miller accused Hamdan of calling him a 'dirty Jew.' 'Congressman Miller reported he was driving on Interstate 90 [around 9:30 a.m. Thursday] when the suspect threatened him and his family along with making antisemitic slurs,' the department said. '[T]he second party to the road rage incident was identified as [Hamdan] from Westlake… Hamdan voluntarily turned himself in at the Rocky River Police Department, with counsel, and is awaiting a court appearance.' 3 Miller says Hamdan called him a 'dirty Jew.' X/@MaxMillerOH The First Amendment generally protects Americans' use of religious and racial slurs, but when used in the commission of a crime can result in hate-crime designations for enhanced punishment. It was not immediately clear if Hamdan will face more stringent prosecution as a result. Miller, who represents and area south of Cleveland, is one of four Jewish House Republicans and worked in President Trump's first administration as an advance and personnel office aide.
