Yes, it does. I'm proud of what it says.
You're missing my point. Saying "Boo, I disagree" isn't a legitimate argument.
Which three? Remember, a witness must come forward and honestly testify about what they witnessed. Which three will do that? To whom will they give their testimony?
The husband witnessed it. The cheating wife witnessed it. Her lover witnessed her. Her lover's friends witnessed it. And I'm sure other people probably came over and saw the situation from time to time.
At any rate, the need for witnesses is to establish the matter of fact, and what I am currently talking about is, as I have said, "a grievous, public and ongoing" outrage against her husband. The matter of fact simply isn't in question.
At any rate, I'm simply not interested in having a discussion about the juridical practices of the Jews. Last I checked, I don't live in the middle east, nor was I engaging in a theological discussion.
I don't believe I offered it as an excuse. None the less, you failed to answer the question I asked. Are you conceding my point?
Again, you're simply misunderstanding me. Your point is irrelevant. Regardless of her motivations, the woman in question was guilty of committing, as I have said before, "a grievous, public and ongoing" injustice against her husband. There simply is no question as to whether the woman in question deserved to be beaten, perhaps even to death. It's clearly the case that she did.
And again, need I remind you of the results of the case? If I recall correctly, the wife and her lover murdered the husband.
Had the husband been legally enabled and encouraged to exact vengeance, everyone would have been better off. Society would have at least one less malefactor around, and would still have had a decent, hard-working citizen at its disposal.
