Q&A: Question
Question
Question
Hello Rabbi.
Just a comment. The Rabbi said that Maimonides' distinction between one who suppresses his inclination and one who is upright is learned from the saying of the Sages, "I do not wish to eat pork," since that is a revealed/divinely decreed commandment, and it follows from this that one who suppresses his inclination is preferable regarding such commandments.
But in that same passage it also says, "I do not wish to have relations with a forbidden woman," and forbidden sexual relations are an intellectual commandment…
Answer
No. According to Maimonides, that is a revealed/divinely decreed commandment (and according to me as well, even in the case of another man's wife so long as everything is consensual). By the way, the proof from the examples in the baraita is for Maimonides himself, not for me. So it is clear that for him sexual prohibitions are in that category.
Discussion on Answer
It doesn't harm anyone. It is a matter of a feeling of revulsion, not a moral problem.
I understand. Changing the subject somewhat: regarding the rape of the beautiful captive woman, the Rabbi said that there is certainly a halakhic / of Jewish law permission, but along with that there is also a moral prohibition.
If we take Meiri, whom the Rabbi often uses, that the Torah and the Sages spoke only about gentiles who were not bound by norms of civility, then it could still be explained that today there is a moral prohibition. *But back then there wasn't*… because there is no real "human being" here, essentially. No one to be harmed. (A somewhat extreme way of putting it.)
Does the Rabbi agree with that, or was there also a moral prohibition in the biblical period?
And according to this, in the Rabbi's view, would Meiri say that today there is also a *halakhic* prohibition against rape? (Since today they are bound by norms of civility…)
What I wrote was that the Sages did not address the moral problem at all. That is not what was permitted there; what was permitted was relations with a gentile woman. The moral prohibition remained in force then and remains in force today. Aside from that, one can discuss whether there is a moral prohibition against raping a woman who herself does not behave morally (like the gentiles then). I tend to think there is. After all, the Sages acknowledged that there is a prohibition against murdering a gentile. What does not exist in relation to them are only prohibitions involving extras/luxuries (withholding repayment of a loan, charging interest, returning a lost item).
Wait, so did I miss something? Forbidden sexual relations means first-degree relatives… his sister, his mother, etc….
According to Maimonides, if we had not been commanded, it would never have occurred to us that it is forbidden?
That's hard for me to accept; it doesn't seem to me like people's most basic intuition… even if we say it is consensual.