Rape during battle

Look, a hundred people in a room and everyone will have a different perception of someone. There is no preaching or propaganda here. I write and say what comes to mind at that moment and don't filter words. I read attentively and with all that I wrote what I thought and I really don't understand what the connection is between the fate of war and the rape of prisoners of war, which is why I ask.

Who said there was a connection?
“Finally, let’s assume for a moment, just for the sake of discussion, the hypothetical assumption that the fate of the entire war really depends on soldiers being allowed to rape a captive…”
The statements I mentioned were called that because I explained well in the column you read why this is not so.

You write a complete hypothesis about this and ask who said there was a connection? You also bring a parallel example about paratroopers. Why do captives threaten victory if they are not raped? I did not see an explanation for 'why it is not so'. I saw justification.

A, the statement that if you were a stubborn snoozer then you would also write the way you did does not mean, God forbid, that you are a stubborn snoozer.

Another thing, I was a little taken aback by the disdain you display from time to time. I remember that perhaps I didn't establish myself on one question and you are in a hurry to write ‘always’. If you think I didn't give a reason, you are welcome to say what it is instead of saying what is wrong in general. No matter how you turn it around, even if it was in their time, it still comes off as chauvinistic and patriarchal. You say that I have a difficult problem with reading comprehension and I say that I wish the rabbis had reading comprehension like mine. Luckily, I am also sharp, if I weren't still stuck in laws from thousands of years ago.

In the sentence you quoted, I said that this was a hypothetical matter for the sake of discussion. I suggested assuming a situation where soldiers in the army would not fight motivatedly without being allowed to rape (this was the case in ancient times, by the way; rape and plunder were rewards for soldiers), and I wrote that in such a case rape could be considered justified. Do you agree?
Now the Torah says that if this is the case (and does not say that this is indeed the case) then rape is permitted. Is it reasonable?
Along with this, as I wrote, there can be criticism of the soldiers who have these needs. Furthermore, the Sages have criticism of such soldiers (they demand that the Torah spoke against the evil inclination).
In other words, there is no claim here that this is an ideal situation, nor even a claim that this is the actual situation (this is the meaning of the term “hypothetical” in my words. Check the dictionary). What is here is only an acknowledgement that in retrospect, if we are not on our side, there is a hypothetical situation in which the soldiers have such a need, and there is no choice but to allow them in order to win the war. That's all.
I fail to discern even a hint of chauvinism here. What is not clear here? What was not explained in the original column, and what subtle but profound question do you manage to raise here without me noticing it?
I will not now conduct a survey regarding the number of times you have raised unfounded questions. Even if there was one that you remember and another here, Dayani. After all, it is clear that you have raised an unfounded question here (and I am using very, very delicate words).
And I will sigh at the bizarre argument that you are repeating again regarding chauvinism, in which you are apparently determined to show the problems in reading comprehension that you deny. I explained that the Torah does not justify such a situation, not even in retrospect. It only says that victory in war rejects this value (if a hypothetical situation arises in which there are such soldiers). So what on earth is chauvinistic about this? Is acknowledging reality and not denying it (that this is the soldiers' situation) chauvinistic? If so, I will side with the chauvinists.

You ask who said there was a connection and then contradict yourself by explaining that there is a connection. Let's summarize it this way:
A. I disagree. Victory itself is a perfect motivation, you've heard of survival, right? You've heard of protecting those close to you, right? And unless you want to assume that the world stands on three things: evil, evil, and evil, because that's what motivates people. For me, that wouldn't be a motivation for victory.
B. The Torah doesn't say that. Prove it.
C. There can be all kinds of hypothetical situations, you can also come up with a hypothetical situation in which everyone wouldn't want to fight. Does that sound logical?
D. You won't do a survey, because you have nothing to do a survey on. It's clear to you that I raised an unfounded question, what's unfounded about not understanding the connection between the fate of war and the rape of prisoners?

I can only marvel at the difficulties of the rear. I'm not sure that anything I explain will be useful to me, but I'll try again.
I said there is no connection and I repeat that there is no connection. The Torah speaks of a hypothetical situation that is not necessarily practical, in which there could be a connection. In practice, if there is no connection, there would be no permission either.
I'll explain more. The Torah's statement is a principled statement. It states that if it is necessary to go over something in order to win, it is permissible. Is it really necessary in practice - this is a practical question that can change between times and places. And even if it never happens and it doesn't make sense, there is no difficulty in that. The permission is in principle and not necessarily practical.
But you are also wrong about the facts, of course. Even if you insist until tomorrow. Soldiers received awards of this kind to give them motivation, such as loot and plunder and also captives. The fact that victory in itself was not enough for them.
The rest of your arguments are even more unfounded.
A. It is possible that victory itself is a perfect motivation. In such a case, there will indeed be no permit for a beautiful woman. But in the event that victory itself is not enough, there is the permit. I am repeating myself for the thousandth time, and my throat (or my keyboard) is already sore.
B. Since when do I have to prove whether I am the one answering and you are the one making it difficult. I have already heard of “one must settle in a hurry”, but I have not heard of “one must make it difficult in a hurry”. I understand that you are suggesting that you are reading the Torah as encouraging the rape of captives. And now I have to prove that this absurd reading is incorrect. Certainly interesting logic, but I am sure you will forgive me if I do not agree with it.
C. If everyone does not want to fight, then we will lose. I already explained here at the beginning the meaning of hypotheticals and will not return to it here. I also explained that in the past this was definitely the case.
D. I have already explained to the point of blood why your question here is absurd. And indeed, I will not conduct a survey.
All the best. I think we have exhausted it.

In a previous message, I noted that the claim “if A is a stubborn snoozer then he would have written exactly what he wrote” does not imply that A is indeed a stubborn snoozer. I am now honored to say that here in the discussion it became clear that A is indeed a stubborn snoozer (and therefore, according to the above correct claim, it is well understood why he wrote what he wrote).

B’ Fly me out of the corner of my eye. Thanks.
To our point. True, I am stubborn and one more thing, I can't be fooled. I didn't write that the Torah encourages, I wrote about your words that you will prove to me from the scriptures. The Torah commands a series of conditions and restrictions, but ultimately permits. There are rishonim who permit rape from the beginning, so what good was the Torah in regulating it? I know all kinds of interpretations about a beautiful woman, but this does not convince me that the Torah permits both rape and the possibility that the captor and her rapist will be with her forever and, according to your hypothesis, so that they can win the war. Did I say chauvinistic?

This is the place to say goodbye as friends.

Nice little clown
You can't be fooled because you are entrenched in mistakes. To remind you, your question was what is the connection between the fate of the war and the rape of prisoners. That was answered by saying that even if there is no connection in practice, a theoretical discussion was held in that column about a distant and strange world in which there is a connection. And there in the column it is claimed that in the aforementioned distant world it is morally permissible to allow soldiers to take prisoners without choice. First question: Do you disagree with the aforementioned moral claim?
In addition, it is claimed that this distant world is unfortunately the real world (at least in ancient times). Second question: Do you disagree with the aforementioned historical claim?
In addition, it is claimed that the permission in the Torah is only in such situations. Third question: Do you disagree with the aforementioned interpretive claim? If the entire debate is solely interpretive in terms of the intent of the Torah (not a moral debate nor a historical debate), then your entire heated debate almost fades away.

B’ flew out of the corner of my eye.

And if Miki admits to your claims, will you be satisfied?
What is your purpose in asking defiant questions in the spring?

Defiance is fine. The problem is that he simply is not interested in receiving an answer.
To Rabbi Mikhi, I remember you once wrote about the story in which a Rabbi told his student who had gone to a bad culture that he had answers to questions, but not to answers that were evasive or irrelevant (I may be wrong). In any case, I thought so. A person like A proves to me that sometimes there are things in the body

I showed a religious and educated woman the discussion here and she said that everyone here is stupid.
So I thought to myself, that's how you take sides and I, on the other hand, don't take sides. If your God and his representatives were to allow you to be raped and enslaved and that you were halachically nothing more than an object, let's see how you would react. The Torah spoke against the evil inclination and implemented the evil inclination.

Elhanan, my goal is to ask and receive answers and I didn't get an answer.
C’ I'm interested in receiving an answer and I didn't get one. It feels like I was discussing an extreme porn film and its implementation.
It's true that in the past I was a yeshiva student and I left, but I left for a bad culture, like a sagi nehor, and I feel a little like the discussion is giving me divine scents in that I am more moral than the Torah itself.

Goten Shabes.

Indeed, the law of the Hebrews is not in accordance with the morality of humanity. In every civilized society from Assyria to Egypt, and from the land of the Hittites to Elishah and Tarshish - it is customary for prisoners of war taken by the victors to be killed or enslaved, and it is certainly permissible for the legal master to demand that his family satisfy his desires. This is the moral recompense that she owes to her captor for having been so kind and gracious to him.

In contrast to this healthy moral principle, the obligation of the slave and the slave girl to their masters, came the savages of the Hebrews, a mob of slaves who rebelled against their legal masters, and invented a barbaric law, according to which the master must put the captive in isolation for thirty days so that she may mourn her parents, and not only that he must free her from slavery and make her his wife or free her completely. Such conduct violates the natural right of the master to his property.

Even in modern humanity, which has been emasculated by the ‘slave morality’ of the Hebrews, the reality is that soldiers give vent to their passions on the battlefield. Only the Hebrew soldiers refrain from doing this, whether because of their racism or because of the ‘barbaric slave morality instilled in them by their Torah, which, according to a significant portion of their sages, was not permitted at all on the first pretext during wartime, and even for those who permitted it on one pretext before being placed in isolation for the liberation. All of this burdens the soldier with pangs of conscience until he realizes that he has done something wrong.

Until when will the Hebrews emasculate the proud morality of their masters?

With greetings, Azdrobael the Sidonian

In paragraph 1, lines 4-5
… For in His goodness and great mercy He willed to keep her alive

In this context of Shchel, see my article:

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

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

In the book of Esau and all the women who are carrying a burden, we will give them wisdom

And so it is in the plain text of the Bible that it is not said, ‘and afterwards you shall go to her and take her and she shall be your wife’ except after the month of the days of weeping. And the order of things is: if he sees the captive and desires her, he shall put her into a ’period of isolation’, and only after that he shall take her as his wife. And so is the opinion of Rabbi Yochanan and the Ramban.

The only thing that hints at rape is what the Torah says later: ‘And if you do not desire her and send her away… you shall not mistreat her instead of what she has answered’. It is possible that the text here raises the possibility that the captor acted unlawfully and tortured the captive, in which case the Torah imposes a sanction on him and obligates him to send her away, just as someone who knocked out his slave's tooth is obliged to send her away "under his own fault".

It seems that even for those who disagree with Rabbi Yochanan and the Ramban, the first visit during wartime is not "permissible", but rather a retrospective acceptance of the reality that there is a situation in which the warrior does not stand his ground.

The Torah not only punishes the master by sending his slave away even for a minor injury such as knocking out his slave's tooth; the Torah even justifies the commandment of the Sabbath by saying "that your servant and your wife may rest like you", a defiance of the modern morality of the days of the giving of the Torah.

With the blessing of Shabbat Teva, Sh”t

M, I read here and there from your article. And as I wrote, it only shows that the Torah is a human creation, even if morally advanced in its time, and simply does not belong in our time.

So, just because I showed that educated religious woman who responded the way she did does not mean I agreed with her. I just wanted to provoke a little, what if men were on the other side of the equation. Still, I think that was not where I wrote it.

Shabbat Shalom to everyone.

The explanation there is twofold –
1. There is, in the Torah of Israel, an exponential and linear change in everything related to morality, which at the very least adds to the issue of its divinity.
2. Since the moral world of the Torah was very shallow, there is a limit to how much can be done at one time. It took several hundred years to uproot idolatry from Israel. In my opinion, this is a valid assumption.

* and not
* referring to the moral world surrounding the Torah

1. Joins the laws that are a reflection of human fragility.
2. Prove it. This is not about animals but about people. In my opinion, it was possible to be a little more refined in their time and prohibit slavery and rape.

1. I'm glad you're adding your conclusion as an argument to a discussion whose essence is to discuss the very validity of that conclusion. Great. (And in fact, your future answer – No, if you read my words correctly you'll see that I didn't do that).
2. You're the one making a positive claim that if there were legislators, it would be up to the people – and therefore the burden of proof is on you, of course. Regarding idolatry or people – This is exactly the difference between tactical and strategic thinking.
Tactically, rape is indeed more important. Strategically, it's clear that idolatry is much more substantial because it is from it that the lack of morality stems … look at my article.

In any case, I have no interest in entering into a discussion with you because experience here shows that you're not interested in listening anyway …

All the best.