Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bizarre Talmudic Scenarios

talmudology.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 141 posts

Re: Bizarre Talmudic Scenarios

#91

Post by AaronFriel »

bradrn wrote: post #64
AaronFriel wrote: post #60

Whenever one finds an absurd "rule", there is, generally, a reason. You don't put up a sign that says "Don't stick utensils in electrical sockets" until someone's done it or thought about it. And if the rule is "don't juggle forks while riding a unicycle around electrical outlets", it's usually because someone lied about what happened. > Rabba said: One who fell from a roof and was inserted into a woman due to the fo…

> Whenever one finds an absurd "rule", there is, generally, a reason [that it was proposed]. ‘Generally’, but not always! Especially in the Talmud. As explained in the article, the Talmud has a strong tradition of using hypotheticals throughout to clarify edge cases in the laws. And not just here: I was taught a few pages of Talmud once (from Bava Metzia , as I recall), and most of the cases I learnt about were obvio…

This is a story of a rape occurring by an absurd sequence of events.

The Talmud concludes that the rape isn't the punishable offense, it's only whether the man injured the woman when he fell on her from the roof. Anyone who uses this excuse will obviously not have "fallen on her", and therefore if she has any injuries it's almost certainly due to the violent rape occurring. The Talmud rules this out as being intentional, and gives an excuse for would have rapists.

Your example is more like the first economists, before they called themselves that, wondering about sunk costs, opportunity costs, the value of time and effort, and so on.

It's possible for one book to both have appalling purposes and meaningful thought experiments That's the case here.

You don't have to renounce your faith to admit the text is flawed, human. That's all I ask that people learn.

Re: Bizarre Talmudic Scenarios

#92

Post by bradrn »

hash07e wrote: post #84
akyu wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does it make you tense up?

Quoted post unavailable.

Upon searching for a few words here, this list appears to have been copy-pasted between a bunch of antisemitic sites. It looks like ‘Hadarine’ isn’t even a real book — the only results are for very similar lists on the aforementioned antisemitic sites. There are also problems in translation: e.g. ‘filth’ is a highly misleading translation of niddah. Besides, this cherry-picked list leaves out any relevant context, which is supremely important in understanding or translating the Talmud. I wouldn’t give this post any credence as to what Judaism is actually about.

Re: Bizarre Talmudic Scenarios

#93

Post by bradrn »

AaronFriel wrote: post #91
bradrn wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Whenever one finds an absurd "rule", there is, generally, a reason [that it was proposed]. ‘Generally’, but not always! Especially in the Talmud. As explained in the article, the Talmud has a strong tradition of using hypotheticals throughout to clarify edge cases in the laws. And not just here: I was taught a few pages of Talmud once (from Bava Metzia , as I recall), and most of the cases I learnt about were obvio…

This is a story of a rape occurring by an absurd sequence of events. The Talmud concludes that the rape isn't the punishable offense, it's only whether the man injured the woman when he fell on her from the roof. Anyone who uses this excuse will obviously not have "fallen on her", and therefore if she has any injuries it's almost certainly due to the violent rape occurring. The Talmud rules this out as being intentio…

> The Talmud concludes that the rape isn't the punishable offense, it's only whether the man injured the woman when he fell on her from the roof. Anyone who uses this excuse will obviously not have "fallen on her", and therefore if she has any injuries it's almost certainly due to the violent rape occurring. The Talmud rules this out as being intentional, and gives an excuse for would have rapists.

Let me be clear here: this is a hypothetical case. It did not actually happen, nor has it ever happened. In fact, it is so obviously implausible that no-one would dare use this situation as an excuse, and if they did, the only possible conclusion is that they were lying. The Talmud does not condone this as an excuse.

So then, why do the scholars include this hypothetical if it’s useless for actual rape cases? It is to illustrate a particular legal point: namely, that in Jewish law, intention matters, but monetary compensation is just as important. They do this by considering this highly contrived case, which would never happen in practice but makes the point as clear as possible. Of course, it is nearly impossible to rape someone accidentally (though see below). But the principle sets a general precedent for other cases, in which a lesser crime might have been committed unintentionally.

(Curiously enough, a few years ago there was a high-profile case of ‘accidental rape’ in Australia. The man claimed he thought the woman had given him consent; the woman claimed she had never given consent. I can’t seem to find a link, but if I recall correctly, the judgement was eventually in favour of the man. Modern laws have edge cases too! And applying Rabba’s dictum here would actually have given a fairer result: the man would still have had to compensate the woman for any injuries.)

> You don't have to renounce your faith to admit the text is flawed, human. That's all I ask that people learn.

Of course! Texts are human, and the Talmud especially so: it’s literally a record of a bunch of people debating with each other and criticising each others’ legal interpretations. But this particular part of it is not problematic.

Re: Bizarre Talmudic Scenarios

#94

Post by AaronFriel »

bradrn wrote: post #93
AaronFriel wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a story of a rape occurring by an absurd sequence of events. The Talmud concludes that the rape isn't the punishable offense, it's only whether the man injured the woman when he fell on her from the roof. Anyone who uses this excuse will obviously not have "fallen on her", and therefore if she has any injuries it's almost certainly due to the violent rape occurring. The Talmud rules this out as being intentio…

> The Talmud concludes that the rape isn't the punishable offense, it's only whether the man injured the woman when he fell on her from the roof. Anyone who uses this excuse will obviously not have "fallen on her", and therefore if she has any injuries it's almost certainly due to the violent rape occurring. The Talmud rules this out as being intentional, and gives an excuse for would have rapists. Let me be clear he…

> But this particular part of it is not problematic.

It absolutely is problematic. This is a description of rape, there is no point in discussing the hypothetical including whether the man "acquires" the woman (as if she were property), otherwise.

The authors are entertaining this hypothetical because men have used absurd excuses for rape for a very long time.

The Talmud is quite clear here that in this case, the rape is not the worst part of the events.

Re: Bizarre Talmudic Scenarios

#95

Post by roenxi »

unmole wrote: post #79
roenxi wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What changes if we call people negros instead of black? Well, they're a minority. If the majority loses control then they are at extreme risk of being hit by an ethnic cleansing or something. It can happen pretty much anywhere with only a relatively short lead-up. Picking a stupid act and making it compulsory is a classic way to keep tabs on how the wind is blowing. There isn't really any threat like that from the…

Negro and gentile are both Othering. You might think that insular attitudes amongst minority communities can't have a negative effect. I respectfully disagree: https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/11/anothe...

That doesn't make sense; "non-Jew" is also Othering. The only difference between the two is one is the term a Jew has used and one is the term you want them to use. That isn't a reasonable distinction; in fact given the lack of distinction the attempt to erode Jewish culture as a distinct thing may in itself be rather objectionable depending on who you ask. Mainly because it is pressuring a minority culture.

You aren't drawing a distinction here to show why your word is kosher and the term gentile isn't.

Re: Bizarre Talmudic Scenarios

#96

Post by fastball »

AaronFriel wrote: post #94
bradrn wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Talmud concludes that the rape isn't the punishable offense, it's only whether the man injured the woman when he fell on her from the roof. Anyone who uses this excuse will obviously not have "fallen on her", and therefore if she has any injuries it's almost certainly due to the violent rape occurring. The Talmud rules this out as being intentional, and gives an excuse for would have rapists. Let me be clear he…

> But this particular part of it is not problematic. It absolutely is problematic. This is a description of rape, there is no point in discussing the hypothetical including whether the man "acquires" the woman (as if she were property), otherwise. The authors are entertaining this hypothetical because men have used absurd excuses for rape for a very long time. The Talmud is quite clear here that in this case, the rap…

If you actually fall off a roof and land in a woman it's not rape in my book.

Re: Bizarre Talmudic Scenarios

#97

Post by blowski »

unmole wrote: post #90
dragonwriter wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What changes if we call people negros instead of black? I don't know, let's ask the United Negro College Fund, and it's work for African American youth, particularly at Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Within the actual community, there's differences as to the most-preferred term for the community, and there’s generational differences in the distribution of preferences, but unless you are using one of…

So, what you're saying is: > It's almost as if intent and context matters more than etymology. Which you'll notice is what I said earlier in this very thread.

I agree, intent and context are what matters. And the original use of “gentile” didn’t show any bad intent, and seemed appropriate within the context.

Re: Bizarre Talmudic Scenarios

#98

Post by unmole »

roenxi wrote: post #95
unmole wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Negro and gentile are both Othering. You might think that insular attitudes amongst minority communities can't have a negative effect. I respectfully disagree: https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/11/anothe...

That doesn't make sense; "non-Jew" is also Othering. The only difference between the two is one is the term a Jew has used and one is the term you want them to use. That isn't a reasonable distinction; in fact given the lack of distinction the attempt to erode Jewish culture as a distinct thing may in itself be rather objectionable depending on who you ask. Mainly because it is pressuring a minority culture. You aren…

Anno Domini and Christian Era both refer to the same system of reckoning. However, the former presupposes the Christian Lord while the latter only references the existence of Christianity.

Non-Jew only presupposes the existence of a Jewish people. Gentile on the other hand is a neologism which uses Jewish ontology to Other everyone else.

The idea that what is acceptable behaviour is dependent on membership is abhorrent to me. I don't see how gentile is different from barbarian, kaffir or mleccha.

Re: Bizarre Talmudic Scenarios

#99

Post by tux2bsd »

unmole wrote: post #79
roenxi wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What changes if we call people negros instead of black? Well, they're a minority. If the majority loses control then they are at extreme risk of being hit by an ethnic cleansing or something. It can happen pretty much anywhere with only a relatively short lead-up. Picking a stupid act and making it compulsory is a classic way to keep tabs on how the wind is blowing. There isn't really any threat like that from the…

Negro and gentile are both Othering. You might think that insular attitudes amongst minority communities can't have a negative effect. I respectfully disagree: https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/11/anothe...

Minority is thoroughly abused word. (You have used it correctly, this statement does not relate to your comment.)

You are spot on about "Othering".

Re: Bizarre Talmudic Scenarios

#100

Post by thaumasiotes »

AaronFriel wrote: post #60

Whenever one finds an absurd "rule", there is, generally, a reason. You don't put up a sign that says "Don't stick utensils in electrical sockets" until someone's done it or thought about it. And if the rule is "don't juggle forks while riding a unicycle around electrical outlets", it's usually because someone lied about what happened. > Rabba said: One who fell from a roof and was inserted into a woman due to the fo…

> And if the rule is "don't juggle forks while riding a unicycle around electrical outlets", it's usually because someone lied about what happened.

> This is a description of a rape, and the person who committed it came up with a story to explain it away, and the Talmud has codified this excuse as justifying a modest penalty

This conclusion is unwarranted. This is a description of a sex act which the parties were not willing to admit to. But nothing about the story indicates that it's a rape. If consensual sex between the man and the woman would be forbidden by the local culture, it has just as much need to be explained away as a rape would.

(And since in this case the woman's shame is public -- and explicitly commented on in the ruling -- the woman wouldn't have much to lose by contradicting her rapist's account of falling off a roof.)

Post reply on HN