25:11-12 - If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.
While mutilation as a form of punishment is still to be found, especially in the Islamic world, as it was among the neighbours of ancient Israel,1 this is the only place in the Old Testament where it is required.2 The additional note to "show her no pity" underscores the seriousness of the offence, even if her intention to "rescue her husband from his assailant" may be considered legitimate. The severity of the punishment, however, raises important questions which commentators have not been able to resolve with satisfaction. Is her offence a matter of immodesty? Or is it because her action threatens the assailant�s ability to reproduce? Or is her crime perhaps the shaming of a man in public ("she grasps him bimbushayw, lit., "by his shameful thing")? Is the punishment an actual amputation of her hand? If so, why doe it require the cutting off of her kaph ("palm") when she had acted with her yad ("hand")? Since the only other possible application of mutilation as punishment is found in the lex talionis, is this a case analogous to such "mirror punishment"? If so, how does one cut off a kaph? Or is a euphemism involved here, in which kaph refers to the female genitalia, so that she is punished by the mutilation of her genitalia for her offending against the assailant�s genitalia ("hand for hand")?3 These questions we have no way to answer with certainty. The ruling, however, reminds us that, no matter what our intentions might be, a person must not be shamed inappropriately (on this see comments on vv1-3 above), or his life—or his potential for the procreation of life—be threatened. Either is displeasing to the Lord.
Low Chai Hok
©Alberith, 2017