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

111–120 of 141 posts

Re: Bizarre Talmudic Scenarios

#111

Post by AaronFriel »

bradrn wrote: post #110
AaronFriel wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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. Huh? No-one said anything about ‘acquiring’ people. In Jewish law women are not property, nor should they be (as if it needs to be said). And as I said, it is wrong to assert that ‘there is no point in discussing the hypothetical’. The scholars quoted i…

> and if she is his yevama he has not acquired her in this manner.

This is whether or not the rape makes the woman his, yes? And the word is unfamiliar to me, but I believe "his yevama" here means that if the woman is his widowed, childless sister-in-law, that this act of rape "doesn't count" for consummating the marriage which was a custom.

But, if the woman is not his yevema, he "acquires" her? It's not clear to me, but since the scholars and the blog post strive to avoid discussing what is actually described here, it's hard for me to say.

I didn't decide on "acquires" for the translation, but it seems you'll talk about anything except what this passage literally describes.

Re: Bizarre Talmudic Scenarios

#112

Post by AaronFriel »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #100
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…

> the woman wouldn't have much to lose by contradicting her rapist's account of falling off a roof

Hello there, interesting that you say that. What's it like in a different universe where women have always been able to safely point out an abuser?

Re: Bizarre Talmudic Scenarios

#113

Post by AaronFriel »

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…

It is revolting to me that people are replying to me with "let's not get too hasty, what if the woman wanted him to fall from the roof and become 'inserted' into her."

Re: Bizarre Talmudic Scenarios

#114

Post by jaclaz »

roenxi wrote: post #56
wheels wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if I'm the only one reading that finds the term "gentile" as moderately offensive. It seems to map the world into Jewish ontology of "God's chosen people", and other. "Non-Jew" feels less abrasive since it only assumes the (obvious) existence of Judaism. I find Judaism super interesting historically (and have some Jewish ancestory and have spent a couple months in Israel), but still the term "gentile" in a m…

"Gentile" derives from Latin gentilis, which itself derives from the Latin gens, meaning clan or tribe. [0] I don't think you are in a position to get offended on this one. Doesn't seem to even be a Hebrew word. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentile#Etymology

Curiously in Italian "gentile" means normally (outside historical or religious matters) "kind" or "nice" or "friendly", the root/etymology is the same, as people belonging to a same gens (which can be translated to "lineage") has some duties of mutual assistance and tended to favour other members of the same lineage.

Re: Bizarre Talmudic Scenarios

#115

Post by bradrn »

AaronFriel wrote: post #111
bradrn wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Huh? No-one said anything about ‘acquiring’ people. In Jewish law women are not property, nor should they be (as if it needs to be said). And as I said, it is wrong to assert that ‘there is no point in discussing the hypothetical’. The scholars quoted i…

> and if she is his yevama he has not acquired her in this manner. This is whether or not the rape makes the woman his, yes? And the word is unfamiliar to me, but I believe "his yevama" here means that if the woman is his widowed, childless sister-in-law, that this act of rape "doesn't count" for consummating the marriage which was a custom. But, if the woman is not his yevema, he "acquires" her? It's not clear to me…

Sorry, you’re quite right; they did indeed use that word. My apologies for the misreading.

(Still, it’s a bit of a misleading translation on their part… women aren’t property in Jewish law, as I already said.)

> And the word is unfamiliar to me, but I believe "his yevama" here means that if the woman is his widowed, childless sister-in-law, that this act of rape "doesn't count" for consummating the marriage which was a custom.

Yes, I believe this is correct.

> But, if the woman is not his yevema, he "acquires" her? It's not clear to me

I think the idea would be that ‘acquisition’ in this context is relevant for yevamot, but it is irrelevant if she is not his yevama.

> the scholars and the blog post strive to avoid discussing what is actually described here, it's hard for me to say … it seems you'll talk about anything except what this passage literally describes.

We are talking about what the passage literally describes: Rabba’s discussion of the consequences according to Jewish law when ‘one who fell from a roof … was inserted into a woman due to the force of his fall’. But what it literally describes is absurd, so the blog post talks about the next most reasonable interpretation — that this is a hypothetical case, exactly like many others in the Talmud. As far as I can see, it is you who is trying to claim that this text is some sort of special attempt to let men have an excuse for rape in general, which it isn’t.

Re: Bizarre Talmudic Scenarios

#116

Post by kosolam »

fastball wrote: post #96
AaronFriel wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

That’s the point of the text. It doesn’t care if it’s rape or not. You still have to compensate for damages

Re: Bizarre Talmudic Scenarios

#117

Post by inglor_cz »

Poor rabbi Yirmeya was kicked out for being ahead of his time. As an IT security guy, he would have been spot on; these weird edge scenarios are where 0-days thrive. And some hacker from China will always find a way how to glue the chick with one leg here and the other one there.

Of course, King Solomon would just order the chick to be cloven in half. But that doesn't address the vulnerability in a systemic way.

Re: Bizarre Talmudic Scenarios

#119

Post by roenxi »

unmole wrote: post #98
roenxi wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 abhorre…

When it comes to 'gentile', the etymology of the word isn't important to you because you don't want people to use it. When it comes to AD, the etymology becomes important because you don't want people to use it. And I think I'm picking up a bit that the context and intent matter unless the context is innocent and the intent is mild, in which case there is some linguistic argument about why there is unintended problems with language.

I put it to you that this is making up reasons to be offended as the conversation goes along. There is no difference between calling people gentiles or non-Jews, except possible one shows that your in-group is more important than the orthodox Jewish in-group (or whoever it is who uses the word gentile). You aren't drawing meaningful reasons out to support this position. The two terms have the same intent, same implications and same meaning.

Re: Bizarre Talmudic Scenarios

#120

Post by mannykannot »

bradrn wrote: post #115
AaronFriel wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and if she is his yevama he has not acquired her in this manner. This is whether or not the rape makes the woman his, yes? And the word is unfamiliar to me, but I believe "his yevama" here means that if the woman is his widowed, childless sister-in-law, that this act of rape "doesn't count" for consummating the marriage which was a custom. But, if the woman is not his yevema, he "acquires" her? It's not clear to me…

Sorry, you’re quite right; they did indeed use that word. My apologies for the misreading. (Still, it’s a bit of a misleading translation on their part… women aren’t property in Jewish law, as I already said.) > And the word is unfamiliar to me, but I believe "his yevama" here means that if the woman is his widowed, childless sister-in-law, that this act of rape "doesn't count" for consummating the marriage which was…

I feel the odd specificity of "his yevama" adds credence to AaronFriel's claim that this has its roots in a real case.

On the other hand, the story is so unbelievable that I am unable to imagine a circumstance in which this specific fabrication, and not some other, had any chance of being believed.

One possible resolution, perhaps, is that this has its roots in a real rape case where the "accident" was more plausible, but involved the accused already intentionally doing something he should not, so it was changed to falling off a roof in order to remove this side-issue.

Post reply on HN