Look, put a hundred people in a room and each one will have a different perception of someone. There’s no preaching or propaganda here. I write and say whatever comes to me at that moment and I don’t really filter my words that much. I’m an attentive reader, and even so I wrote what seemed right to me, and I truly don’t understand what connection there is between the fate of a war and raping female captives, so I’m asking.

Who said there is a connection?
“To conclude, let us assume for a moment, purely for the sake of discussion, the hypothetical assumption that the fate of the entire war really depends on permitting soldiers to rape a captive woman…”
The declarations I mentioned were called that because I explained well in the column you read why that is not so.

You write an entire hypothetical about it and then ask who said there’s a connection? You even bring a parallel example about paratroopers. Why would female captives threaten victory if they aren’t raped? I didn’t see an explanation for “why that is not so.” I saw a justification.

A, the statement that if you were a stubborn pest then you also would have written what you wrote does not, heaven forbid, mean that you are a stubborn pest.

One more thing: I was a bit bothered by the contempt you sometimes show. I remember that maybe in one question I didn’t substantiate myself, and you rush to write “always.” If you think I didn’t give a reason, you’re welcome to say what it is instead of saying in general terms what’s wrong. However you turn it, even if this was in their time, it still comes out chauvinistic and patriarchal. You say I have a serious problem with reading comprehension, and I say I wish rabbis had reading comprehension like mine. Luckily I’m sharp too; otherwise I’d still be stuck in Jewish laws from thousands of years ago.

In the sentence you quoted I said that this is a hypothetical matter for the sake of discussion. I proposed assuming a situation in which soldiers in the army would not fight with motivation unless they were allowed rape (incidentally, that was the situation in ancient times; rape and plunder were rewards for soldiers), and I wrote that in such a case the rape could be considered justified. Do you agree?
Now the Torah says that if that is the situation (and it does not say that this is indeed the situation), then there is permission for rape. Reasonable?
Along with that, as I wrote, there can be criticism of the soldiers that these are their needs. Moreover, the Sages criticize such soldiers (they expound that “the Torah spoke against the evil inclination”).
That is, there is no claim here that this is an ideal situation, and not even a claim that this is the actual situation in practice (that is the meaning of the term “hypothetical” in my words. Check the dictionary). What there is here is only retrospective recognition that if, Heaven forbid, there is a hypothetical situation in which soldiers have such a need, there is no choice but to permit it in order to win the war. That is all.
I cannot detect here even the slightest trace of chauvinism. What is unclear here? What was not explained in the original column, and what subtle yet profound question have you managed to raise here without my noticing it?
I’m not going to conduct a survey now about the number of times you raised unsupported questions. Even if there was one you remember and another one here, that’s enough for me. After all, it is obvious that here you raised an unsupported question (and I am using very, very gentle words).
And I’ll finish off with the bizarre argument that you keep repeating about chauvinism, in which you apparently are determined to display the very reading-comprehension problems you deny. I explained that the Torah does not justify such a situation, not even after the fact. It only says that victory in war overrides this value (if a hypothetical situation arises in which there are such soldiers). So what on earth is chauvinistic about that? Is recognizing reality and not denying it (that this is the state of the soldiers) chauvinistic? If so, may my lot be with the chauvinists.

You ask who said there’s a connection, and then contradict yourself by explaining that there is a connection. Let’s sum it up like this:
A. I don’t agree. Victory itself is perfect motivation; you’ve heard of survival, right? You’ve heard of defending those close to you, right? Unless you want to assume that the world stands on three things: evil, evil, and evil, because that’s what motivates people. That actually wouldn’t motivate me to victory.
B. The Torah doesn’t say that. Prove it.
C. There can be all kinds of hypothetical situations; you can also raise a hypothetical situation in which nobody wants to fight. Does that sound reasonable?
D. You won’t conduct a survey, because you have nothing to survey. It’s obvious to you that I raised an unsupported question—what exactly is unsupported about my not understanding the connection between the fate of a war and raping female captives?

All that remains for me is to marvel at the stubbornness. I’m not sure anything I explain will help, but I’ll try again.
I said there is no connection, and I repeat that there is no connection. The Torah speaks about a hypothetical situation that is not necessarily practical, in which there might be a connection. In practice, if there is no connection, then this permission also would not apply.
Let me explain further. The Torah’s statement is a principled one. It determines that if something must be violated in order to win, then it is permitted. Whether in practice this is really necessary—that is a practical question that can vary by time and place. And even if this will never happen and is not logical, there is not the slightest difficulty in that. The permission is principled and not necessarily practical.
But even regarding the facts, you are of course mistaken. Even if you insist until tomorrow. Soldiers were given rewards of this sort in order to motivate them, such as spoils and plunder and also female captives. So evidently victory as such was not enough for them.
Your other claims are even more unfounded.
A. It may be that victory itself is perfect motivation. In that case, indeed, there would be no permission of the beautiful captive woman. But in a case where victory itself is not enough, there is the permission. I repeat for the thousandth time, and my throat (or my keyboard) is already hoarse.
B. Since when do I need to prove things if I am the respondent and you are the challenger? I’ve heard of “this can be answered with difficulty,” but I haven’t heard of “this can be challenged with difficulty.” I understand that you are proposing to read the Torah as encouraging the rape of female captives. And now I need to prove that this absurd reading is not correct. Certainly interesting logic, but I’m sure you’ll forgive me if I don’t agree to it.
C. If nobody wants to fight, then we will lose. I already explained here at the outset the meaning of hypotheticals, and I won’t repeat it here. And I also explained that in the past this certainly was the situation.
D. I have already explained ad nauseam why your question here is unfounded. And indeed I will not conduct a survey.
All the best. It seems to me we’ve exhausted this.

In a previous message I noted that from the claim “if A is a stubborn pest, then he would write exactly what he wrote,” it does not follow that A is indeed a stubborn pest. I am now honored to say that here in the discussion it has become clear that A is indeed a stubborn pest (and therefore, according to the correct claim above, it is perfectly understandable why he wrote what he wrote).

B, get out of my line of sight. Thanks.
As for the matter at hand: right, I’m stubborn, and one more thing—you can’t twist me around either. I didn’t write that the Torah encourages it; I wrote about your words that you should prove them to me from the text. The Torah commands a whole set of conditions and restrictions, but in the end it permits it. There are medieval authorities who permit the rape from the outset, so what did the Torah gain by its enactment? I know various interpretations of the beautiful captive woman, but it does not set my mind at ease that the Torah permits both rape and also the possibility that the captive woman will belong forever to the one who captured and raped her—and according to your hypothetical, in order that they should win the war. Have I mentioned chauvinistic already?

This is the place to part as friends.

Nice little clown,
you can’t be twisted around because you dig in on your mistakes. As a reminder, your question was what the connection is between the fate of the war and the rape of female captives. The answer given was that even if in practice there is no connection at all, that column held a theoretical discussion about a distant and strange world in which such a connection does exist. And there the claim was made that in that distant world it is morally permissible, as a last resort, to allow soldiers to take female captives. First question: do you disagree with that moral claim?
In addition, it was argued that this distant world is unfortunately the real world (at least in ancient times). Second question: do you disagree with that historical claim?
In addition, it was argued that the permission in the Torah is only in such situations. Third question: do you disagree with that interpretive claim? If the whole argument is purely interpretive about the Torah’s intent (not a moral argument and not a historical argument), then almost all of your heated dispute evaporates.

B, get out of my line of sight.

And if Michi concedes your claims, will that satisfy you?
What is your goal in asking such provocation-laden questions in a thread?

Provocation is fine. The problem is that he simply isn’t interested in receiving an answer.
To Rabbi Michi: do you remember that once you wrote about a story in which a rabbi told his student, who had gone off the religious path, that he had answers to the questions, but not to the answers that “this is evasive” or “this is irrelevant” (I may be mistaken)? In any case, that’s what I thought. A person like A proves to me that sometimes there really is something to it.

I showed the discussion here to a religious and educated woman, and she said everyone here is stupid.
So I thought to myself, that’s how it is when people take sides—and I, by contrast, don’t take sides. If your God and His representatives were permitting people to rape and enslave you, and that halakhically you were no more than an object, let’s see how you’d react. The Torah spoke against the evil inclination and ended up implementing the evil inclination.
Elchanan, my goal is to ask and receive answers, and I didn’t get an answer.
G, I am interested in getting an answer, and I didn’t get one. My feeling is as if I discussed an extreme porn film and its realization.
It’s true that in my past I was a yeshiva student and I left, but I “went off to a bad culture” in the ironic sense, and I somewhat feel from this discussion a kind of divine aroma in that I am more moral than the Torah itself.
Good Sabbath.

Indeed, the religion of the Habiru is not suited to the morality of humanity. In every civilized society, from Assyria to Egypt, and from the land of the Hittites to Alashiya and Tarshish—it is accepted that prisoners of war taken by the victors are killed or enslaved, and certainly the lawful master is permitted to demand that his household supply his desires. This is the moral recompense she owes her captor for his kindness and great mercy.
In contrast to this healthy moral principle, the obligation of the male and female slave to their masters, came the savage Habiru, a rabble of slaves who rebelled against their lawful masters, and invented a barbaric law: that the master must put the captive woman into thirty days of isolation so that she may mourn her parents, and not only that, but he must free her from slavery and make her his wife or release her entirely. Such conduct harms the master’s natural right to his property.
Even in modern humanity, which has been neutered by the Habiru’s “slave morality,” the reality is that soldiers give outlet to their urges on the battlefield. Only Habiru soldiers refrain from doing so, whether because of their racism or because of the “barbaric slave morality” instilled in them by their Torah—according to a substantial number of their sages, the first intercourse was not permitted at all during the war, and even according to those who permitted one act before the isolation period leading to release, all this burdens the soldier with pangs of conscience until he understands that he has done something wrong.
How long will the Habiru keep neutering the proud morality of masters?”
With blessings, Azdrubal the Sidonian

In paragraph 1, line 4–5
… for his having kindly and mercifully consented to leave her alive

In this context of what Shatz should have said, see my article:

http://www.sup.co.il/40812379

Sorry, this is the correct version –
http://www.sup.co.il/90935431

With God’s help, eve of the holy Sabbath, and all the women whose hearts moved them with wisdom, 5780

And this is the plain meaning of the text, since it does not say, “And afterward you may go in to her and have relations with her, and she shall be your wife,” until after the month of mourning. The sequence is: he sees the captive woman and desires her, he brings her into an “isolation period,” and only afterward marries her. Such is also the view of Rabbi Yohanan and Nachmanides.
The only thing that points in the direction of rape is what the Torah says afterward: “And if you no longer desire her, you shall send her away as she wishes… you shall not abuse her, because you have violated her.” It may be that here the verse raises the possibility that the captor acted unlawfully and violated the captive woman, and then the Torah imposes a sanction on him and obligates him to send her free, just as one who knocks out his slave’s tooth must send him free “for his tooth.”
It seems that even according to those who disagree with Rabbi Yohanan and Nachmanides, the “first intercourse during wartime” is not a permission, but rather a retrospective coming to terms with the reality that sometimes the fighter does not overcome his inclination.
The Torah not only punishes the master by sending his slave free even for a minor injury such as knocking out his slave’s tooth—the Torah also explains the commandment of the Sabbath with “so that your male and female slave may rest as you do,” a challenge to the modern morality of the days of the giving of the Torah.
With Sabbath blessings, Shatz

M, I read here and there from your article. And as I wrote, it only shows that the Torah is, all in all, a human creation, even if morally progressive for their time, and simply not relevant to our time.
By the way, the fact that I showed it to that educated religious woman who reacted the way she did doesn’t mean I agreed with her. I just wanted to shake things up a bit—what if the men were on the other side of the equation. Still, I think it was out of place that I wrote that.
Sabbath peace to everyone.

The reasoning there is twofold—
1. In the Torah of Israel there is an exponential and not linear change in everything connected to morality, which at the very least contributes to the question of its divinity.
2. Since the moral world surrounding the Torah was very shallow, there is a limit to how much can be done all at once. See how many hundreds of years it took to uproot idolatry from Israel. In my opinion this is a valid argument.

* and not
* I mean the moral world surrounding the Torah

1. It contributes to laws that are a reflection of human fragility.
2. Prove it. We’re not talking here about idolatry but about human beings. In my opinion they could have done a bit more than just soften the treatment in their time, and forbidden enslavement and rape.

1. I’m glad you’re adding your conclusion as an argument to a discussion whose whole point is to discuss the very validity of that conclusion. Wonderful. (And as for your future response—not so; if you read my words correctly you’ll see that I didn’t do that.)
2. You are the one making the positive claim that if such laws had been legislated they would indeed have been observed by the people—and therefore the burden of proof is on you, of course. As for idolatry or human beings—that is precisely the difference between tactical and strategic thinking.
Tactically, rape is indeed more important; strategically, idolatry is clearly far more essential, because from it immorality follows… see my article.
In any case, I have no interest in entering into a discussion with you, because experience here teaches that you aren’t interested in listening anyway…
All the best.