re: #9 LudwigVanQuixote

OK, provided that if you accept the oral law, that “modern” Judaism you are talking about is at least 2200 years old.

The interpretation and practice of the oral law also changes with time as they become more liberal in order to fit better with modern realities. In fact it happens in all religions. This, however, is irrelevant to my initial point, which is, rabbinical Judaism is one thing, and the Old Testament/Tanakh is another and they can be dealt with separately. When someone says “Old Testament harsh” - the Judaic oral law is quite irrelevant, because the person means the text itself, not its subsequent interpretations. There is no requirement for someone who is not a religious Jew to look at the written Torah through the perspective of the oral Torah.

Really, you seem to be missing the most important parts of the Law here. What does it take to convict? You will find that it is essentially impossible to do. Such verses are often relegated to a spiritual punishment because the court can’t enforce the Law. There are dozens like that.

No, I’m not missing anything. Whether or not it is easy to convict (and it’s not hard if there are 2-3 witnesses, see Deut. 17:6) is irrelevant to the point of whether or not the Torah laws are misogynistic. It is only relevant to the question of whether these particular laws were put into practice, and I’m not arguing about this. (This applies to the rest of the comments.)

Only to one who comes into it with fully formed prejudices.

Not really, because the texts are quite plain.