Rape is a disgrace to soldiers. (Seventh Episode)
Is rape of a high order specifically said in a situation where the soldier is raped by anyone, for the sake of discussion, if we assume that the permission for rape of a high order is because the fate of the entire war depends on the permission for soldiers to rape a captive. Or is it a kind of concession to soldiers for some reason during battle, (what’s more, rape in the Torah is not that serious, except for the fact that here we are talking about a foreigner, which is explained in today’s Daf Yomi that the only ones who remain in hell are those who commit foreigner rape).
And if we really assume that what is at stake here is the fate of the war and the fate of all of us, versus the fate of our captives. In such a case, the Halacha instruction seems entirely reasonable and correct. That does not make the act moral, but any sane person understands that morality here must be rejected in the face of considerations of survival. Just as killing is not a moral act, and yet it is required to win the war, it is true that here we are not talking about soldiers but about uninvolved captives. So as far as I am concerned, if there is no choice, the ones who should bear the consequences are their uninvolved ones, not ours.
The question is why it is not stated in all the Picun in a situation where there is a prohibition on theft or sabotage, such as putting a friend to sleep and taking his kidney for the purpose of survival.
A. Is the permit for a good title only valid for this type of work?
on. If not, what is the logic in this?
third. If the principle of survival is what permits it, then why does one steal something from a fellow human being in order to save oneself?
D. Maybe it’s a crime per se, like with Yael, and yet we have a source for a crime per se, a kind of rejection and disallowance.
Git Shabes and Shaviyeh.
There is a difference between someone who belongs to the enemy even if not involved, and someone who is a third party. See my articles on the general and the particular and the defensive wall dilemma.
This is not a sin per se, for the Torah permitted it. Who hates any prohibition that is permitted in place of a fiqun? A sin per se is a decision that a person makes on their own, not a decision that was made in halakhic law. If Yael’s act is mentioned in the Shulchan Arash, it will cease to be a sin per se and become a halakhic permission.
By the way, as I wrote in the columns you quote (without mentioning), I mentioned that the problem the sages saw in a woman of good looks was not rape but rather a gentile offense. Therefore, offenses between one person and another are not the issue here.
First of all, thank you, I placed your suggestion in column 15 and asked, indeed I should have mentioned the aforementioned and wonderful column.
But regarding the matter that the reference is to the gentile without referring to a person to his fellow man as I think you did not refer to and that is why I asked, especially regarding the offense itself, even if the Torah permitted it in a deferred manner, the intention is that the damage was done and it is a lack of choice, a kind of compulsion, like firefighters breaking down a door to save a person, did the door not break? It would have been better if he had not done so.
In the book of Proverbs, you shall have a wife, and you shall have a son.
To you, peace be upon you,
The Torah considers rape to be murder, as it is written: For when a man rises up against his neighbor and murders a soul, so is this matter. Israelite society's attitude toward rape was like murder requiring blood atonement. Thus Shimon and Levi avenge their sister's revenge by killing the rapist and his accomplices, and thus Absalom avenge his sister's revenge by killing the rapist.
The Torah, just as it allowed for serious bodily injury to convert the physical punishment into financial compensation that would facilitate the rehabilitation of the injured party, It also allowed this in the case of the serious offense of rape, and imposed a heavy financial fine and the possibility of binding the rapist without the possibility of leaving to marry the raped woman if she wanted to, something she could have an interest in, since her chances of finding a partner were very slim.
In the case of the beautiful woman, the possibility of a coercive ground was not mentioned in the case at all. On the contrary, it is explained that the captor wants to marry the captive, and even this was not permitted to him until after she passes a ‘cooling off period’ of one month. And as Rabbi Yochanan and the Ramban truly follow the law.
Even for a man who was permitted on the first ground in war’, it is clear that this is an exceptional, one-time permit, with the goal being that he would marry her as a free woman, and if he decided not to marry – She demands permission from him to set her free, expressing her displeasure with this conduct, saying: “You shall not mistreat her in a place where she has been tortured” (and according to Rabbi Eliezer of Mitz, she was not permitted to be tortured on the first occasion of war, except with her consent).
In a world where a captive is a slave whom the master can exploit as he wishes, the Torah upholds the rights of the captive, and prohibits the master from touching her unless he wishes to free her and treat her as a free woman with all the rights of a free woman.
It is not without reason that Judge Salim Gubran was surprised, and said that he did not see a permit for rape in the Torah. See my response: “Judge Gubran is right” (to the column 15).
With best wishes, Sh.
Indeed, R’ Schatz, my intention was in the form of a ‘according to you’ opinion’ to a rabbi who claimed several times that one must make a great effort to find a prohibition of rape in the Torah, and in the aforementioned column he presented the side that the fate of the war depends on it, and to that I asked how it differs from taking a kidney since the fate of the recipient depends on the kidney of his friend. And I did not respond, I further asked that perhaps the aforementioned hypothetical side that our victory and future depend on it should be seen here as a kind of offense in its own right.
Let him speak again and I will argue that I am a fool.
I wonder if it's a vision problem or a reading comprehension problem. And alas.
There is no license to rape a beautiful woman.
You have to be a bad and sick person, and certainly not innocent, to understand anything from the verses about the permissibility of raping someone.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
