5 ms·

Whenever one finds an absurd "rule", there is, generally, a reason. You don't put up a sign that says "Don't stick utensils in electrical sockets" until someone

Whenever one finds an absurd "rule", there is, generally, a reason. You don't put up a sign that says "Don't stick utensils in electrical sockets" until someone's done it or thought about it. And if the rule is "don't juggle forks while riding a unicycle around electrical outlets", it's usually because someone lied about what happened. > Rabba said: One who fell from a roof and was inserted into a woman due to the force of his fall is liable to pay four of the five types of indemnity that must be paid by one who damaged another, and if she is his yevama he has not acquired her in this manner. He is liable to pay for injury, pain, loss of livelihood, and medical costs. However, he is not liable to pay for the shame he caused her, as the Master said: One is not liable to pay for shame unless he intends to humiliate his victim… This is a description of a rape, and the person who committed it came up with a story to explain it away, and the Talmud has codified this excuse as justifying a modest penalty, and it's recorded in such a way that others may use it. "Ah, sorry [your honor or equivalent], I fell off a roof, you see, and ...". Awful. The only thing one should learn from this is that the Talmud can be wrong, that sometimes, people lie and cover up their crimes, and that whoever recorded this case abetted the criminal. That's wrong and we should do better.

bradrn 4y ago
> Whenever one finds an absurd "rule", there is, generally, a reason [that it was proposed]. ‘Generally’, but not always! Especially in the Talmud. As explained in the article, the Talmud has a strong tradition of using hypotheticals throughout to clarify edge cases in the laws. And not just here: I was taught a few pages of Talmud once (from Bava Metzia, as I recall), and most of the cases I learnt about were obvious hypotheticals aimed at systematically exploring each and every legal possibility. In this particular instance, absolutely everyone, from modern-day readers to Rabba when he imagined such a case, knows that the described situation would be utterly implausible; anyone who claimed this happened in real life would be obviously lying. But it is useful in elucidating the law to figure out the consequences if it actually had happened in reality. EDIT: Perhaps [0] (Bava Metzia p21a) is a better example of what I mean. The text systematically describes various situations where scattered kernels are dispersed across a large area: a half-kav scattered over 2×4 cubits, one kav over 4×4 cubits, two kavs over 8×4 cubits, and so on, until all the possibilities are exhasted. None of these are necessarily real cases which have occurred in real life — they’re just enumerating the possibilities to iron out all the edge cases. The hypothetical you quoted accomplishes the same task, albeit less obviously. [0] https://www.sefaria.org/Bava_Metzia.21a.14?ven=William_Davidson_Edition_-_English&vhe=Wikisource_Talmud_Bavli&lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en https://www.sefaria.org/Bava_Metzia.21a.14?ven=William_David...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- AaronFriel 4y ago
  This is a story of a rape occurring by an absurd sequence of events. The Talmud concludes that the rape isn't the punishable offense, it's only whether the man injured the woman when he fell on her from the roof. Anyone who uses this excuse will obviously not have "fallen on her", and therefore if she has any injuries it's almost certainly due to the violent rape occurring. The Talmud rules this out as being intentional, and gives an excuse for would have rapists. Your example is more like the first economists, before they called themselves that, wondering about sunk costs, opportunity costs, the value of time and effort, and so on. It's possible for one book to both have appalling purposes and meaningful thought experiments That's the case here. You don't have to renounce your faith to admit the text is flawed, human. That's all I ask that people learn.
  - bradrn 4y ago
    > The Talmud concludes that the rape isn't the punishable offense, it's only whether the man injured the woman when he fell on her from the roof. Anyone who uses this excuse will obviously not have "fallen on her", and therefore if she has any injuries it's almost certainly due to the violent rape occurring. The Talmud rules this out as being intentional, and gives an excuse for would have rapists. Let me be clear here: this is a hypothetical case. It did not actually happen, nor has it ever happened. In fact, it is so obviously implausible that no-one would dare use this situation as an excuse, and if they did, the only possible conclusion is that they were lying. The Talmud does not condone this as an excuse. So then, why do the scholars include this hypothetical if it’s useless for actual rape cases? It is to illustrate a particular legal point: namely, that in Jewish law, intention matters, but monetary compensation is just as important. They do this by considering this highly contrived case, which would never happen in practice but makes the point as clear as possible. Of course, it is nearly impossible to rape someone accidentally (though see below). But the principle sets a general precedent for other cases, in which a lesser crime might have been committed unintentionally. (Curiously enough, a few years ago there was a high-profile case of ‘accidental rape’ in Australia. The man claimed he thought the woman had given him consent; the woman claimed she had never given consent. I can’t seem to find a link, but if I recall correctly, the judgement was eventually in favour of the man. Modern laws have edge cases too! And applying Rabba’s dictum here would actually have given a fairer result: the man would still have had to compensate the woman for any injuries.) > You don't have to renounce your faith to admit the text is flawed, human. That's all I ask that people learn. Of course! Texts are human, and the Talmud especially so: it’s literally a record of a bunch of people debating with each other and criticising each others’ legal interpretations. But this particular part of it is not problematic.
notsureaboutpg 4y ago
leoh 4y ago
Please, no. Do you think a bird really laid eggs in a woman’s hair and a decision needed to be made? This is a really arrogant and frustrating assertion you are making.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
narag 4y ago
And if the rule is "don't juggle forks while riding a unicycle around electrical outlets", it's usually because someone lied about what happened. Next thing that happens is smoking is forbidden while you're driving.
thaumasiotes 4y ago
> And if the rule is "don't juggle forks while riding a unicycle around electrical outlets", it's usually because someone lied about what happened. > This is a description of a rape, and the person who committed it came up with a story to explain it away, and the Talmud has codified this excuse as justifying a modest penalty This conclusion is unwarranted. This is a description of a sex act which the parties were not willing to admit to. But nothing about the story indicates that it's a rape. If consensual sex between the man and the woman would be forbidden by the local culture, it has just as much need to be explained away as a rape would. (And since in this case the woman's shame is public -- and explicitly commented on in the ruling -- the woman wouldn't have much to lose by contradicting her rapist's account of falling off a roof.)
- AaronFriel 4y ago
  > the woman wouldn't have much to lose by contradicting her rapist's account of falling off a roof Hello there, interesting that you say that. What's it like in a different universe where women have always been able to safely point out an abuser?
golergka 4y ago
I don't think you understand how hypotheticals work and why they're useful. This particular example is about a sex act that happened by accident. While falling down is a ridiculously improbable, similar instances are not. Once at a party in dark corridor I grabbed a woman who I thought was my girlfriend (whom, I confirmed previously, was liked being surprised in this way) but turned out it was someone else. I was mortified and ashamed, and had I been religious, this would have been exactly the example I would have reached for.
AaronFriel 4y ago
It is revolting to me that people are replying to me with "let's not get too hasty, what if the woman wanted him to fall from the roof and become 'inserted' into her."
- aaron695 4y ago

bradrn 4y ago

> Whenever one finds an absurd "rule", there is, generally, a reason [that it was proposed]. ‘Generally’, but not always! Especially in the Talmud. As explained in the article, the Talmud has a strong tradition of using hypotheticals throughout to clarify edge cases in the laws. And not just here: I was taught a few pages of Talmud once (from Bava Metzia, as I recall), and most of the cases I learnt about were obvious hypotheticals aimed at systematically exploring each and every legal possibility. In this particular instance, absolutely everyone, from modern-day readers to Rabba when he imagined such a case, knows that the described situation would be utterly implausible; anyone who claimed this happened in real life would be obviously lying. But it is useful in elucidating the law to figure out the consequences if it actually had happened in reality. EDIT: Perhaps [0] (Bava Metzia p21a) is a better example of what I mean. The text systematically describes various situations where scattered kernels are dispersed across a large area: a half-kav scattered over 2×4 cubits, one kav over 4×4 cubits, two kavs over 8×4 cubits, and so on, until all the possibilities are exhasted. None of these are necessarily real cases which have occurred in real life — they’re just enumerating the possibilities to iron out all the edge cases. The hypothetical you quoted accomplishes the same task, albeit less obviously. [0] https://www.sefaria.org/Bava_Metzia.21a.14?ven=William_Davidson_Edition_-_English&vhe=Wikisource_Talmud_Bavli&lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en https://www.sefaria.org/Bava_Metzia.21a.14?ven=William_David...

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
AaronFriel 4y ago
This is a story of a rape occurring by an absurd sequence of events. The Talmud concludes that the rape isn't the punishable offense, it's only whether the man injured the woman when he fell on her from the roof. Anyone who uses this excuse will obviously not have "fallen on her", and therefore if she has any injuries it's almost certainly due to the violent rape occurring. The Talmud rules this out as being intentional, and gives an excuse for would have rapists. Your example is more like the first economists, before they called themselves that, wondering about sunk costs, opportunity costs, the value of time and effort, and so on. It's possible for one book to both have appalling purposes and meaningful thought experiments That's the case here. You don't have to renounce your faith to admit the text is flawed, human. That's all I ask that people learn.
- bradrn 4y ago
  > The Talmud concludes that the rape isn't the punishable offense, it's only whether the man injured the woman when he fell on her from the roof. Anyone who uses this excuse will obviously not have "fallen on her", and therefore if she has any injuries it's almost certainly due to the violent rape occurring. The Talmud rules this out as being intentional, and gives an excuse for would have rapists. Let me be clear here: this is a hypothetical case. It did not actually happen, nor has it ever happened. In fact, it is so obviously implausible that no-one would dare use this situation as an excuse, and if they did, the only possible conclusion is that they were lying. The Talmud does not condone this as an excuse. So then, why do the scholars include this hypothetical if it’s useless for actual rape cases? It is to illustrate a particular legal point: namely, that in Jewish law, intention matters, but monetary compensation is just as important. They do this by considering this highly contrived case, which would never happen in practice but makes the point as clear as possible. Of course, it is nearly impossible to rape someone accidentally (though see below). But the principle sets a general precedent for other cases, in which a lesser crime might have been committed unintentionally. (Curiously enough, a few years ago there was a high-profile case of ‘accidental rape’ in Australia. The man claimed he thought the woman had given him consent; the woman claimed she had never given consent. I can’t seem to find a link, but if I recall correctly, the judgement was eventually in favour of the man. Modern laws have edge cases too! And applying Rabba’s dictum here would actually have given a fairer result: the man would still have had to compensate the woman for any injuries.) > You don't have to renounce your faith to admit the text is flawed, human. That's all I ask that people learn. Of course! Texts are human, and the Talmud especially so: it’s literally a record of a bunch of people debating with each other and criticising each others’ legal interpretations. But this particular part of it is not problematic.

notsureaboutpg 4y ago

leoh 4y ago

Please, no. Do you think a bird really laid eggs in a woman’s hair and a decision needed to be made? This is a really arrogant and frustrating assertion you are making.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

narag 4y ago

And if the rule is "don't juggle forks while riding a unicycle around electrical outlets", it's usually because someone lied about what happened. Next thing that happens is smoking is forbidden while you're driving.

thaumasiotes 4y ago

> And if the rule is "don't juggle forks while riding a unicycle around electrical outlets", it's usually because someone lied about what happened. > This is a description of a rape, and the person who committed it came up with a story to explain it away, and the Talmud has codified this excuse as justifying a modest penalty This conclusion is unwarranted. This is a description of a sex act which the parties were not willing to admit to. But nothing about the story indicates that it's a rape. If consensual sex between the man and the woman would be forbidden by the local culture, it has just as much need to be explained away as a rape would. (And since in this case the woman's shame is public -- and explicitly commented on in the ruling -- the woman wouldn't have much to lose by contradicting her rapist's account of falling off a roof.)

AaronFriel 4y ago
> the woman wouldn't have much to lose by contradicting her rapist's account of falling off a roof Hello there, interesting that you say that. What's it like in a different universe where women have always been able to safely point out an abuser?

golergka 4y ago

I don't think you understand how hypotheticals work and why they're useful. This particular example is about a sex act that happened by accident. While falling down is a ridiculously improbable, similar instances are not. Once at a party in dark corridor I grabbed a woman who I thought was my girlfriend (whom, I confirmed previously, was liked being surprised in this way) but turned out it was someone else. I was mortified and ashamed, and had I been religious, this would have been exactly the example I would have reached for.

AaronFriel 4y ago

It is revolting to me that people are replying to me with "let's not get too hasty, what if the woman wanted him to fall from the roof and become 'inserted' into her."

aaron695 4y ago