5 ms·

> 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 hypotheti

> 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.
- AaronFriel 4y ago
  > and if she is his yevama he has not acquired her in this manner. This is whether or not the rape makes the woman his, yes? And the word is unfamiliar to me, but I believe "his yevama" here means that if the woman is his widowed, childless sister-in-law, that this act of rape "doesn't count" for consummating the marriage which was a custom. But, if the woman is not his yevema, he "acquires" her? It's not clear to me, but since the scholars and the blog post strive to avoid discussing what is actually described here, it's hard for me to say. I didn't decide on "acquires" for the translation, but it seems you'll talk about anything except what this passage literally describes.
  - bradrn 4y ago
    Sorry, you’re quite right; they did indeed use that word. My apologies for the misreading. (Still, it’s a bit of a misleading translation on their part… women aren’t property in Jewish law, as I already said.) > And the word is unfamiliar to me, but I believe "his yevama" here means that if the woman is his widowed, childless sister-in-law, that this act of rape "doesn't count" for consummating the marriage which was a custom. Yes, I believe this is correct. > But, if the woman is not his yevema, he "acquires" her? It's not clear to me I think the idea would be that ‘acquisition’ in this context is relevant for yevamot, but it is irrelevant if she is not his yevama. > the scholars and the blog post strive to avoid discussing what is actually described here, it's hard for me to say … it seems you'll talk about anything except what this passage literally describes. We are talking about what the passage literally describes: Rabba’s discussion of the consequences according to Jewish law when ‘one who fell from a roof … was inserted into a woman due to the force of his fall’. But what it literally describes is absurd, so the blog post talks about the next most reasonable interpretation — that this is a hypothetical case, exactly like many others in the Talmud. As far as I can see, it is you who is trying to claim that this text is some sort of special attempt to let men have an excuse for rape in general, which it isn’t.
    - mannykannot 4y ago
      I feel the odd specificity of "his yevama" adds credence to AaronFriel's claim that this has its roots in a real case. On the other hand, the story is so unbelievable that I am unable to imagine a circumstance in which this specific fabrication, and not some other, had any chance of being believed. One possible resolution, perhaps, is that this has its roots in a real rape case where the "accident" was more plausible, but involved the accused already intentionally doing something he should not, so it was changed to falling off a roof in order to remove this side-issue.

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.

AaronFriel 4y ago
> and if she is his yevama he has not acquired her in this manner. This is whether or not the rape makes the woman his, yes? And the word is unfamiliar to me, but I believe "his yevama" here means that if the woman is his widowed, childless sister-in-law, that this act of rape "doesn't count" for consummating the marriage which was a custom. But, if the woman is not his yevema, he "acquires" her? It's not clear to me, but since the scholars and the blog post strive to avoid discussing what is actually described here, it's hard for me to say. I didn't decide on "acquires" for the translation, but it seems you'll talk about anything except what this passage literally describes.
- bradrn 4y ago
  Sorry, you’re quite right; they did indeed use that word. My apologies for the misreading. (Still, it’s a bit of a misleading translation on their part… women aren’t property in Jewish law, as I already said.) > And the word is unfamiliar to me, but I believe "his yevama" here means that if the woman is his widowed, childless sister-in-law, that this act of rape "doesn't count" for consummating the marriage which was a custom. Yes, I believe this is correct. > But, if the woman is not his yevema, he "acquires" her? It's not clear to me I think the idea would be that ‘acquisition’ in this context is relevant for yevamot, but it is irrelevant if she is not his yevama. > the scholars and the blog post strive to avoid discussing what is actually described here, it's hard for me to say … it seems you'll talk about anything except what this passage literally describes. We are talking about what the passage literally describes: Rabba’s discussion of the consequences according to Jewish law when ‘one who fell from a roof … was inserted into a woman due to the force of his fall’. But what it literally describes is absurd, so the blog post talks about the next most reasonable interpretation — that this is a hypothetical case, exactly like many others in the Talmud. As far as I can see, it is you who is trying to claim that this text is some sort of special attempt to let men have an excuse for rape in general, which it isn’t.
  - mannykannot 4y ago
    I feel the odd specificity of "his yevama" adds credence to AaronFriel's claim that this has its roots in a real case. On the other hand, the story is so unbelievable that I am unable to imagine a circumstance in which this specific fabrication, and not some other, had any chance of being believed. One possible resolution, perhaps, is that this has its roots in a real rape case where the "accident" was more plausible, but involved the accused already intentionally doing something he should not, so it was changed to falling off a roof in order to remove this side-issue.