re: #72 Obdicut

I

didn’t say you couldn’t say that. I said that that doesn’t make the text moot.

At which point we are taking the same evidence and drawing a totally different conclusion. The law about the poor Cohain Gadol’s daughter is moot in practice. Unenforceable means it would never even get to trial. Game over. I can have all kinds of things on the books that can never be acted on. Since they can’t be acted on, it is totally wrong to treat the system as if they were acted on, or if it was somehow clear they were meant to be acted on in the way you might assume from the plain text.

As to whether or not the text still has meaning in a larger sense of framework, those laws still have meaning. However those meanings become matters of philosophy, notions of G-d’s justice vs. mans’ justice and pure legal theory. That is not meaningless in the absolute sense. Far from it. However They are meaningless in the original context of the discussion as an example of odious and misogynistic laws because they are non starters, as far as actual practice is concerned from the get go.