Most of the Durban (revised)

שו”ת › Category: Talmudic study › Most of the Durban (revised)

asked 5 years ago

(Due to Grandpa’s scathing criticism, I put my heart into my wayward keyboard, thanks Grandpa).
In the Sugiya in Kettubot, page 9, it is explained that rape has a voice. And most rabbis wrote there that the text is faded, and therefore it is not acceptable to the SS. (It is not said that rape is a form of rape, because if it were rape, there would be a voice).
My question is:
What does the majority of the rabbis have to do with it?! Either it is true that most women who enter have a voice or it is not true. After all, we are talking about facts here, whether or not the raped women tell, and this should be examined on the basis of statistics!

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave a ReplyCancel reply

0 Answers

0 Vote Up Vote Down

מיכי Staff answered 5 years ago

Thos brings an example of a baby on the side of the dough, in Kiddushin 5:1. And apparently there we find nothing on this matter. It seems that he meant the end of the issue there: The prophet Kotia, Rabbi Yochanan, said: There are two things in which there is no knowledge of asking, and the wise men, some of whom have knowledge of asking, and yet another, a child, did they say… We see that the baby in the Gal Lashean has the knowledge that we should have purified him with doubt, and yet the Sages took the extreme step of purifying the dough and not placing the dough and the baby in their possession. We see that there are situations in which from the Torah’s point of view there is no majority here and the Sages took the extreme step of making him a cherub. And such is the case with the Dammai, where most of the people of the land tithe, and yet the Sages gave him a boundary of doubt. Thos believes that this is also the case with us. According to the principle of law, there is no majority here in the will, but the Sages have made it stricter, seeing it as a majority. But in the matter of doubt, there is no need to be stricter about this. It should be remembered that a majority in will is not a simple empirical majority, but rather an assessment by the sages of the nature of women. There is no clear number here, and therefore the assessment of whether or not there is a majority is that of the sages. Therefore, there is no difficulty in the fact that there are situations that were made worse as if there was a majority but were not made worse by the SS…

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

תם. replied 5 years ago

The sages' assessment of women's nature is a psychological assessment, and to the extent that they understood that it is in the nature of a woman to try to tell almost anything, including an act of rape that she has experienced, then the relationship to this has a great deal of importance, doesn't it?
And why doesn't the sages' assessment require the given reality before us?

מיכי Staff replied 5 years ago

Who said it is not binding? Their assessment is that there is no clear majority, and therefore they have made it worse than the rabbis to refer to it as a majority.
Does this apply to our time? It depends on the reality of our time. If we too have doubts, I assume that the decree remains valid. If there is a clear reality, I assume that it no longer makes sense.

תם. replied 5 years ago

In the Torah, where we discussed the fact that the majority of rabbis did not include the Ss, since the majority is only rabbis.

מיכי Staff replied 5 years ago

Tam, have you decided to (continue) drive me crazy? That's where we started, and I've already answered that.

תם. replied 5 years ago

I really didn't want to go crazy and certainly not continue something I didn't start.

What I meant was that it is clear from the text that the majority is for the voice and not for the voice, and from the words of the rabbi it is clear that the majority is for the voice, as in the case of the dalit kamen.
These are your words.

“Who said it is not binding? Their assessment is that there is no clear majority, and therefore they made it worse for the rabbis to refer to it as a voice”

מיכי Staff replied 5 years ago

The majority is a serious matter. If it was willful, it is a serious matter. But in the matter of SS, it is not considered a majority and therefore it can be relaxed.
You asked why the majority is not binding. And I explained that it is binding and so I wrote earlier. Therefore, the question seems irrelevant to me.