5 ms·

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

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.
- AaronFriel 4y ago
  > But this particular part of it is not problematic. It absolutely is problematic. This is a description of rape, there is no point in discussing the hypothetical including whether the man "acquires" the woman (as if she were property), otherwise. The authors are entertaining this hypothetical because men have used absurd excuses for rape for a very long time. The Talmud is quite clear here that in this case, the rape is not the worst part of the events.
  - fastball 4y ago
    If you actually fall off a roof and land in a woman it's not rape in my book.
    - kosolam 4y ago
      That’s the point of the text. It doesn’t care if it’s rape or not. You still have to compensate for damages
  - bradrn 4y ago
    > This is a description of rape, there is no point in discussing the hypothetical including whether the man "acquires" the woman (as if she were property), otherwise. Huh? No-one said anything about ‘acquiring’ people. In Jewish law women are not property, nor should they be (as if it needs to be said). And as I said, it is wrong to assert that ‘there is no point in discussing the hypothetical’. The scholars quoted in the Talmud regularly discussed hypothetical, bizarre and impossible situations in order to set general guidelines and clarify edge cases in the law. This is but one of very very many examples of the practice, and I don’t see the need to give a special justification for why this one should be considered. One additional point which I should probably make clearer: here, we are considering a hypothetical case where the described scenario literally happened, as a matter of fact rather than imagination. (As in, say, the whole thing was witnessed by several other people who agree that the man did literally fall off a roof.) We are not considering it as an excuse, because that would be governed by a whole different set of laws.
SnowHill9902 4y ago
The mishnah brings the case as being exactly what happened. It does not say “a person comes and says that he fell” it says “one who fell”. So again, you are misinterpreting the text to find supposed flaws and discard it. Again: one is not supposed to read a translation and think that they can interpret it. It does not work that way and this is exactly why some commenter here said that he tenses up.

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.

AaronFriel 4y ago
> But this particular part of it is not problematic. It absolutely is problematic. This is a description of rape, there is no point in discussing the hypothetical including whether the man "acquires" the woman (as if she were property), otherwise. The authors are entertaining this hypothetical because men have used absurd excuses for rape for a very long time. The Talmud is quite clear here that in this case, the rape is not the worst part of the events.
- fastball 4y ago
  If you actually fall off a roof and land in a woman it's not rape in my book.
  - kosolam 4y ago
    That’s the point of the text. It doesn’t care if it’s rape or not. You still have to compensate for damages
- bradrn 4y ago
  > This is a description of rape, there is no point in discussing the hypothetical including whether the man "acquires" the woman (as if she were property), otherwise. Huh? No-one said anything about ‘acquiring’ people. In Jewish law women are not property, nor should they be (as if it needs to be said). And as I said, it is wrong to assert that ‘there is no point in discussing the hypothetical’. The scholars quoted in the Talmud regularly discussed hypothetical, bizarre and impossible situations in order to set general guidelines and clarify edge cases in the law. This is but one of very very many examples of the practice, and I don’t see the need to give a special justification for why this one should be considered. One additional point which I should probably make clearer: here, we are considering a hypothetical case where the described scenario literally happened, as a matter of fact rather than imagination. (As in, say, the whole thing was witnessed by several other people who agree that the man did literally fall off a roof.) We are not considering it as an excuse, because that would be governed by a whole different set of laws.

SnowHill9902 4y ago

The mishnah brings the case as being exactly what happened. It does not say “a person comes and says that he fell” it says “one who fell”. So again, you are misinterpreting the text to find supposed flaws and discard it. Again: one is not supposed to read a translation and think that they can interpret it. It does not work that way and this is exactly why some commenter here said that he tenses up.