Recently I have seen several posters trying to highlight "silly" biblical laws in order to show that the Torah is full of nonsensical rules. It may have some appeal to those who don't think very deeply about such matters, and probably plays well to those atheists who get great joy out of mocking believers, but it is not really a very valid argument¹.

First, let me say I do not intend to get into an argument about the existence of G-d, or even about whether or not the Torah is the word of G-d, or whther it is literal truth or allegory. All I intend to do is show how pointless this single line of argument is.

The first line of attack these arguments usually make is to assault by anachronism. They point out laws relating to slavery, for example. Of course, the practices common to the era in which the Torah was delivered to Moses² are ignored, as is the fact that G-d provided rules concerning slavery but did not command anyone to own slaves. (I picture these people hearing a doctor say "If you must drink, do so in moderation" and immediately accusing the doctor of promoting alcoholism. It is the same logic. If G-d made rules concerning slavery He must be telling everyone they have to own slaves.)

The truth, of course, is that slavery was a fact of life at the time pretty much everywhere on earth where agriculture and civilization had advanced enough for slavery to be feasible (hunters and gatherers receive no benefit from slaves, for example). The fact that divine law regulated slavery does not mean G-d endorses slavery, nor that he commands it, simply that he knew man would own slaves so he decreed certain rules to regulate the practice.

In other words, I don't see why this is seen as something that proves the Torah is silly or nonsensical.

The second approach is the criticism of brutality. As so much of Leviticus decrees death for this infraction or that they ask if they should kill their neighbor for shaving his beard or stone their daughter to death for dating. This actually seems a bit of an argument form anachronism as well. If you read any statutes from the past, say, for example, the Corpus Iuris Civilis, you will find that the punishments are exceedingly harsh by modern standards. You will also notice that our preferred punishments (imprisonment and fines) are nowhere to be seen for the most part. Why? Well, most people in largely agrarian societies surprisingly do not have any cash, so fining them is impossible. And, as far as imprisonment is concerned, that is a purely modern invention. In the past prisons were used largely to keep criminals until they were punished, or as places to detain important political figures. Criminals were rarely imprisoned as a punishment. Punishments almost always took the form of physical disfigurement, suffering or death. That the laws decreed by G-d carried punishments consistent with the customs of the times does not exactly make me doubt their validity.

However, there is a second part of this argument that makes it even more foolish. Some of the laws laid down in the Torah are for the nation of Israel. Not knesset Israel, but eretz Israel, that is the nation of Israel in the land of Israel, not just Jews wherever they may be. Many of the laws apply everywhere, but not all. Some of the laws that these people mock ceased to apply after the Diaspora, so asking if your neighbor should be killed for violating the law of first fruits, for example, is foolish, as it applies only to eretz Israel³.

Actually, it is even more foolish than that, as most of the Mosaic laws apply specifically to Jews alone. The Noachite covenant and the laws applied to Adam are binding on to everyone, most of the laws given to Moses are not. So I suppose that makes a third incorrect assumption in the question about killing your neighbor.

The third approach is to point out laws that "make no sense". Two favorites are shatnez (the prohibition against mixing linen and wool) and the law against mutilating the corners of the beard. Now, there are many scholars who have made an effort to explain these rules, but let us just ignore those for now. Let us suppose that mankind as a whole has found no good reason for the law of shatnez. So what? A child does not know why you tell him not to eat all his Halloween candy at once. Your teenager does not understand why he shouldn't sleep with the first girl who consents. There are good reasons you tell them these things, but they do not understand them, sometimes even once you explain your rules, they still do not understand. But that does not make them senseless. Likewise, just because G-d's reasons are not obvious to man it does not follow that the rule is nonsensical. The fact that someone cannot find an explanation does not prove a rule senseless..

Now, obviously, none of this is meant to prove that the Torah is the word of G-d, nor that G-d even exists. In fact, I know I am not up to such a task at the present. All I wanted to do was point out that showing that the Torah imposes laws that seem strict by modern standards, embraces customs that we no longer accept, and has laws which some cannot understand in no way proves anything either.

I am quite open to a reasonable atheist or agnostic's arguments⁴, but when people think they are proving something with these sneering little "witty" questions, I feel the need to point out that they are really not proving anything.

------------------------------------------

1. Atheist or not, simply saying "there are rules I don't understand" is hardly the best argument against the existence of G-d.

2. To keep from cluttering the text, I am assuming the Torah is a divine revelation. If you think it was written by man, then where I say "delivered to", just read "written by". It makes the text much easier to read if I don't have to always write "delivered to Moses or written by Moses or compiled over centuries by a number of scribes or forged by the Piso family..." and so on to take into account every possible belief concerning the book.

3. The modern state of Israel is not coterminous with eretz Israel as defined in the Torah. Most of the modern state of Israel is also part of the biblical eretz Israel, but there are regions which are not part of  eretz Israel for purposes of Mosaic law.

4.  I do want to warn any atheists or agnostics that there is really no logical proof or disproof of G-d. Nor do I see Occam's razor as cutting one way or the other on this. (Also, Occam's razor does not prove anything, it can only be used as evidence to support other arguments. Simplicity itself is not a proof.)  I tend to think arguing the existence or non-existence of G-d is pretty foolish. Barring personal experience, belief will always be a matter of faith, but as he is not subject to proof, G-d is also impossible to disprove due to the terms of the debate, so the point is a rather futile one to argue.

-----------------------------------------------------

ADDENDUM

Actually, the argument is more foolish than I suggest.

As it is almost always trotted out to mock Christians rather than Jews, the argument makes even less sense. As I understand Christian theology, most of the Mosaic law was abrogated by the incarnation/death/resurrection of Jesus, making mocking of Mosaic law to insult Christians an even more futile gesture. Then again, my Christian theology is not so strong, as I learned most of it for purposes of understanding history, and my assumptions may be centuries out of date.

Still, as Christians are clearly (for the most part) not living by the full Mosaic laws, I think laughing at them due to laws only obeyed by Jews (and a few sects of Christians), seems a strange thing to do.