Spinoff Rape Culture in Halacha/ Trigger Warning

marina

Mon, Apr 25 2016, 12:47 pm

Dolly Welsh wrote:

The Torah doesn't focus on a person's individual, personal, psychological, feeling, reaction to injuries and wrongs, in general, as far as I know. The psychological anguish of being raped is not addressed therefore.

Chazal have ruled that a child born to a Jewish woman is a member of the tribe, so rape can't give a Jewish woman a child who will not be accepted as a Jew. The rape of a Jewish woman does not create a nation-less person, or a now nation-less woman. In that way Halacha sides with the raped woman.

"He who takes a woman by force loses his place in the world to come" is not in Halacha because of the he-said, she-said problem. That problem is a real problem. There is no way to yell it out of existence.

Yes: in that way, Halacha protects men. It protects men from false accusation, which is also a permanent part of life. Joseph Ha Tzaddik experienced it.

There are a lot of obvious human realities Torah has decided not to discuss.

For instance, I am not aware Halacha says that you have to love or honor your children. Just your parents. I think there are obligations to teach your son to swim, and to teach him a trade. But love him? Honor him? Torah is silent. It leaves that up to people to figure out for themselves.

But humiliating people is severely prohibited by Talmud. Even just verbally. Marina, maybe what you are looking for is in there.

I think a man who would rape would not be concerned about his place in the world to come. This is not someone who cares about anything. Perhaps Torah does not waste instruction on people like that, who won't listen anyway. Perhaps Torah sees condemning rape as too obvious to need saying.

Perhaps Torah cannot think of any way to repair the psychological damage from rape, and so does not propose any. Rape's other consequences are pregnancy and loss of value as a wife. Torah does indeed address those things.

Torah also doesn't say one man should not assault another man. It only says don't kill. Rape is an assault. The practical consequences of assault are discussed.

Yes, there is an eye for an eye. But that is because loss of an eye is loss of sight, a practical loss. The loss of a tooth has a practical consequence: the man can't eat.

But the anguish and pain of assault or man or woman are not addressed. American law does speak of compensation for mental anguish as a thing unto itself, but Torah does not, or I don't know that part. I am certainly no scholar.

So, assaults on men and women are addressed in comparable ways, in Torah, Marina. Or so it seems to me. I have absolutely no education.

There wouldn't be a he said-she said problem if Rav Huna ( or anyone else) made the statement about losing your world to come if you take a woman by force. Because guess who knows whether you actually took the woman by force or if she made it up? That's right! The same guy who takes away your world to come - or not- Hashem! And presumably, He can figure out what really happened.

And look, it's fine to try and protect women from unfair accusations. But where are women protected from fair accusations? Where's that piece?

Pain and suffering are addressed in the links I gave in my first post. At least the father's pain and suffering. So I think the Torah knows how to do that.

In any case, you don't have to have a formula for pain and suffering to declare something to be really horrible as a separate act. Speaking gossip is clearly a part of violating veahavta lereacha kamocha, but we all know the statemtb of how - like a pillow of feathers- you can never take back your words and truly fix lashon hara. Why is there not something similar for rape?

ora_43

Mon, Apr 25 2016, 1:04 pm

marina wrote:

First of all, s-xual immorality is a big deal for women. For men, it's not, especially with a Jewish woman, because one way to marry a woman is biah. It's not a good idea to keep on "marrying" different women every night, but one or two is not a big deal at all.

I don't understand what you're saying here. How does that make s-xual immorality a bigger deal for women? How are you defining "bigger deal"? I can't think of a forbidden s-x act that isn't equally bad for both (consenting) parties, although of course gender can affect whether an act is forbidden in the first place.

Are you suggesting that raping a woman would be a way to "marry" her? But that's not how it works, as you mentioned in your original post. Also, I would think that marrying a woman would be a very big deal, no?

Quote:

The entire concept of pilagshim goes against your argument. You really think Sholom Hamelech had a full wedding with each of his concubines?

Goes against what argument, and how? And only kings were allowed to have pilagshim, although given the story of "pilegesh b'givaa" it seems there were times when the pilegesh relationship was more common.

Quote:

And the story in the Gemara has nothing to do with rape! No one said she was unwilling! And it's a lechatchila concept not an after the fact punishment.

I don't get how this makes the story less relevant. Weren't you looking for lechatchila condemnation? If it's not allowed if she *is* willing, wouldn't it be extremely obvious to any man who actually cared what halacha has to say that it's not allowed if she isn't?

Quote:

As for physical assault, yes it is mentioned in a few places. Is physical assault, say punching someone in the face, different than rape? Where's that source?

If you compare it to other punishments, say for being mechallel Shabbos or speaking lashon hara, the contrast becomes even more stark. There is a whole Sefer on punishments- Shaarei teshuva. I'm going to look and see what it has on rape. But apparently none of us know it.

Are you taking what we on imamother know about this halacha as a measure of how important the halacha is? Because I think that'd be a mistake for many reasons. Most of them reasonable ones (for example, I don't think it's a bad thing that my daughters' school spends more time teaching them about lashon hara than about violent rape).

marina

Mon, Apr 25 2016, 1:07 pm

ora_43 wrote:

Now to get into more questions.

That's not the pshat.

That's rashi. We can't just dismiss rashi like that, can we?

As for your other points( dk why it's not quoting them):

1. I would like to see a source for what fine a person pays for raping a non-virgin or a 2 year old. This would conflict with other rambam halachos I have seen, so it would be very interesting to me. Plse post.

2. Again, if we are going to say, " well, that's how it was" or "this was progressive for its time," that is fine, but I'm trying to look at it from the perspective of people who consider the rambam relevant and important nowadays. The people who, for example, learn daily rambam. Are they studying ancient history when they read this? Or something insightful for their lives? Why are they reading these chapters? What do they gain from reading about how women's fathers received a higher fine depending on their daughter's beauty and lineage?

3. I understand it's usually either lashes or a fine. I'm saying that a fine is a lesser punishment and why not give lashes for something as horrible as rape? Adultery is death by stoning. And rape is a fine? And if you're going to say that if he got lashes, she wouldn't have financial compensation, I'm sure Hashem could have thought of a way around that. Say by decreeing that a woman who was raped is still counted as a virgin and is given same financial equity in a marriage. Or something similar.

4. The shulchan aruch is the closest thing we have to a general consensus. It is what our boys study to get smicha and it is where our rabbonim look first for answers to our questions. It can't be dismissed that easily. And the shulchan aruch wasn't written before prisons were around. It could have said, report the rapist to the authorities and that's it.

ora_43

Mon, Apr 25 2016, 1:19 pm

marina wrote:

Yes, I am judging this by my culture. Like I said, if I want to dismiss this as ancient history, understanding this is easy. I'm trying to understand from the perspective of people who read daily rambam, from people who find wisdom in this today.

I think I wasn't very clear. I think you're misjudging this by your culture.

I'll give an example (and since you know Russian culture better than I do IIRC, you can let me know if it's not a good one):

I live in an area where a lot of people are from Russia or Ukraine. People from small-town America, like me, smile at everyone, even complete strangers. It's what you're supposed to do; to do otherwise would be rude. Russians don't. Most Russians only smile at their friends, and certainly wouldn't smile at strangers in the street.

If I said "I don't like this aspect of Russian culture. I think smiling at people is nice, and makes them feel good, and should be the norm" - that's judging based on my own culture, but it's an OK kind of judging. Everyone gets an opinion.

If I said "Not smiling is rude, and Russians don't smile, therefore Russians don't care about being well-mannered" - that's misjudging based on my own culture.

Another example - it would be a mistake for someone who thinks abortion is murder to say "Most Americans think abortion is OK in at least some circumstances, therefore, Americans think murder is OK."

I'm not trying to be patronizing here, just giving an example to make my earlier statement clearer.

Quote:

We compensate our victims- that's what civil lawsuits are for.

Sometimes. But that's pretty recent, AFAIK it doesn't happen in most cases, and it's not the top concern. If a person can either go to jail or compensate their victim, they'll go to jail. I'm not saying that's wrong, but I still think it'd be disturbing to someone who's used to a restitution-based model of justice.

Quote:

And all of your examples of rape have one thing in common - s-xual act by force. Where is there anything about that? We definitely have information about murder - accidental and purposeful- in Halacha. So it's not like we can't make distinctions.

Where is there a statement in halacha on killing that includes all forms of killing?

marina

Mon, Apr 25 2016, 1:39 pm

ora_43 wrote:

We know the punishment for failing to bring Korban pesach on time, even though that is literally irrelevant to everyone on the planet. But we do not know the punishment for rape. Even though it happens every day. That's my point.

The term "s-xual immorality" has different connotations for men and women. A man can have more than one wife and can marry a woman through intercourse. Therefore, just throwing out s-xual immorality as a way to know rape is not okay doesn't make sense. A rapist could legitimately be like " yeah, she wasn't so into me when I first married her, but then it all worked out."

And yes, I think that ultimately the God I worship probably condemns rape. And that we can probably extrapolate from
various other rules and tanach stories that Hashem was not a fan of s-xual assault. I am asking why we have to extrapolate anything in the first place.

We don't have to extrapolate anything about idolatry. Open almost any page in the Chumash and you'll find out how Hashem will smite you and your descendants for worshipping Baal. We don't have to extrapolate anything about killing or theft. It's right there in the 10 commandments. Why is rape not important enough to condemn explicitly and unequivocally and in the harshest terms?

marina

Mon, Apr 25 2016, 1:52 pm

Re: cultural judgment:

Are you saying that in the times of the rambam they truly took rape seriously and condemned it, as we do today? And I shouldn't conclude that just because there aren't explicit statements that this means they didn't care?

I understand your point. My point is that I am concluding this based on a comparison within the halachic framework of that era. The rules that were important are noted explicitly and the punishment is very clear and any different situations are discussed ad infinitum in the Gemara. Rape is not explicitly condemned and is not discussed in any significant detail as an issur. It is not one of the lavim, right? Why shouldn't I think it was/is considered less important than those explicitly mentioned?

ora_43

Mon, Apr 25 2016, 1:52 pm

marina wrote:

2. Again, if we are going to say, " well, that's how it was" or "this was progressive for its time," that is fine, but I'm trying to look at it from the perspective of people who consider the rambam relevant and important nowadays. The people who, for example, learn daily rambam. Are they studying ancient history when they read this? Or something insightful for their lives? Why are they reading these chapters? What do they gain from reading about how women's fathers received a higher fine depending on their daughter's beauty and lineage?

I think the take-away message is that the compensation for rape is based on that individual's suffering. Judges need to look not only at the suffering caused by rape in general, but also at specific individual losses.

(I'm not saying "well that's how it was" about the issue of compensation, I'm saying "well that's how it was" about marriage having a financial value and that value being based on looks, lineage, and virginity (to be fair, marriage still does have a financial value and looks at least still are part of it, although it's all unofficial these days).)

Quote:

3. I understand it's usually either lashes or a fine. I'm saying that a fine is a lesser punishment and why not give lashes for something as horrible as rape?

How would it be better to inflict some temporary physical pain on the attacker, while leaving the victim with nothing?

Also, why would lashes be a worse punishment than paying a massive fine? This wasn't just a parking ticket or something. More like buying a house. Marriage was a once-in-a-lifetime, maybe twice-in-a-lifetime-if-you're-rich deal. And the compensation for rape would cost that much or more. I mean, lashes would also be terrible, I just think it's not so obvious that one would be easier than the other.

Quote:

4. The shulchan aruch is the closest thing we have to a general consensus. It is what our boys study to get smicha and it is where our rabbonim look first for answers to our questions. It can't be dismissed that easily. And the shulchan aruch wasn't written before prisons were around. It could have said, report the rapist to the authorities and that's it.

Re: your last line, I think you may be unaware of how rape cases were (or more, weren't) handled in most places 200 years ago, let alone 500. Reporting it to the authorities wouldn't have done anything for the average woman except give her extra grief.

And "it is where our rabbonim look first" - that's not true. A rabbi who needs an answer about an issue that involves modern reality (ie, something that didn't exist 500 years ago) is going to look first to modern responsa. Like, if you ask your rabbi about something involving electricity on Shabbat, he's not going to be like "let me look at the Shulchan Aruch."

I'm not dismissing the Shulchan Aruch Confused

. It was never meant to be the final word on halacha for all people in all realities.

ora_43

Mon, Apr 25 2016, 2:24 pm

Quote:

The term "s-xual immorality" has different connotations for men and women. A man can have more than one wife and can marry a woman through intercourse. Therefore, just throwing out s-xual immorality as a way to know rape is not okay doesn't make sense. A rapist could legitimately be like " yeah, she wasn't so into me when I first married her, but then it all worked out."

Re: your last line, I don't understand how you could think that, given that the first thing you posted in this thread is about that situation... Rape doesn't create a marriage, regardless of the man's intention.

Therefore, any rape outside of marriage is s-xual immorality by definition. Also, in most cases it would be s-x with a woman in niddah, which is known to be a serious prohibition even if consensual.

marina wrote:

I disagree with this on a few levels.

For one thing - everyone knows the punishment for failing to bring Korban Pesach on time, really? I doubt one in ten people know that off the top of their heads.

I don't think it's irrelevant, either.

And - if someone doesn't know the punishment for rape, whose fault is that, exactly? The Torah is pretty explicit.

Quote:

And yes, I think that ultimately the God I worship probably condemns rape. And that we can probably extrapolate from
various other rules and tanach stories that Hashem was not a fan of s-xual assault. I am asking why we have to extrapolate anything in the first place.

We don't have to extrapolate anything about idolatry. Open almost any page in the Chumash and you'll find out how Hashem will smite you and your descendants for worshipping Baal. We don't have to extrapolate anything about killing or theft. It's right there in the 10 commandments. Why is rape not important enough to condemn explicitly and unequivocally and in the harshest terms?

I think it would be wrong to judge how serious a mitzvah is based on how often it's mentioned alone. Half the written Torah is about the specifics of constructing the mishkan (I may be exaggerating slightly). But those few verses where Hashem says (very loosely paraphrasing) "what is wrong with you people? why are you completely ignoring what I said about kindness to orphans and widows, and why on earth would you think I would care how many sheep you sacrifice if you ignore that part" seem to make it clear that ritual sacrifice isn't the most important thing.

There's very little in the written Torah about rape, but those few cases where it does happen, it's a sign that the rapist(s) is completely corrupt and is about to be on the receiving end of a whole lot of righteous smiting. To me, that makes it fairly explicitly clear that rape is not a minor crime, despite not getting much page time.

marina

Mon, Apr 25 2016, 2:56 pm

Quote:

These perakim are specifically about if marriage is off the table. If he doesn't want to marry her, but she does, too bad for him because he tanked her value. If she doesn't want to marry him, he pays a fine.

So what is the punishment for the rapist in the first example? Say he rapes her, and she feels like no one else will want her or her family convinced her of that because she is deaf or disabled ( those pple get less of a fine paid to them acc to rambam). So she marries him. Through whatever ceremony or none at all. What's the punishment for rape there? Being married to someone you don't like?

And no, we don't know the punishment for rape. That's what I keep saying. What is the punishment for rape, say in the above situation? Or rape of a 2 year old? Is it that your whole city now gets slaughtered? A fine for pain and suffering? Where's that citation? Not if she married you, I guess. And obviously it was counted as a rape even if she married him because that's how it is phrased here.

ora_43

Mon, Apr 25 2016, 3:02 pm

marina wrote:

Right, but the rape itself didn't create a marriage. Marriage is a two-sided commitment. So even if she chooses to marry him, the rape itself was still an act of s-xual immorality, in addition to violating several commands re: not physically hurting someone, not oppressing the weak, loving one's neighbor, etc.

Quote:

So what is the punishment for the rapist in the first example? Say he rapes her, and she feels like no one else will want her or her family convinced her of that because she is deaf or disabled ( those pple get less of a fine paid to them acc to rambam). So she marries him. Through whatever ceremony or none at all. What's the punishment for rape there? Being married to someone you don't like?

Again, the focus isn't on "what's the punishment" but on "how is he going to compensate for this." In that case, he would compensate by providing for her for the rest of her life.

Quote:

And no, we don't know the punishment for rape. That's what I keep saying. What is the punishment for rape, say in the above situation? Or rape of a 2 year old? Is it that your whole city now gets slaughtered? A fine for pain and suffering? Where's that citation? Not if she married you, I guess. And obviously it was counted as a rape even if she married him because that's how it is phrased here.

But we've already covered all those things on this thread, no?

marina

Mon, Apr 25 2016, 6:22 pm

Quote:

But we've already covered all those things on this thread, no?

No. I don't know what the punishment is for these things and I don't have a cite from you abt the fines which apply to rape of non-virgins.

As for the rapist who marries his victim, you can't have it both ways. You can't argue that rape is taken very seriously and punished severely and at the same time argue that it's not about the punishment, it's just about how he can compensate her.

I understand that there is a way to compensate virgins - and their dads- for rape, and that this way is by marriage or through money. I want to know what is the punishment for the rape. You have said over and over here that the Torah is very clear on the punishment and it's a very serious crime, but I don't know what is the punishment other than compensation.

Also it seems like you are setting up an either- or situation. Either the rapist gets a punishment or he pays you a fine. I understand that this is generally the rule with lashes, but I'm also saying that there are ways to avoid this choice:

1. You actually can make an exception and say: rape is so bad that yes, you get lashes and you have to pay a fine too.

2.You can have the guy get lashes and and the woman doesn't get any money for losing her virginity but it's okay because she is still considered a virgin since it was rape and not relations.

3. Easiest one: you can have the woman get a fine and the guy doesn't get lashes but at least you have Rav Huna who says "He who takes a woman by force, forfeits his world to come." Or "He who takes a woman by force meets an untimely death" or "God hates rapists they are an abomination to Him" or " Do not rape, sayeth the Lord Your God, for this is an evil sin,"

None of these exist.