I sure as hell DONT ROLL ON SHABBOS!
I’m sorry, I just had to say it.
OK, to clarify somewhat…
Not resisting a rape MAY be a sin (it is a dispute among the Rishonim [Rabbinic sages from apx. the 9th to 14th centuries], as **IzzyR[/b pointed out).
Therefore, if one is raped (God forbid) but resisted, there is no sin whatsoever. If one did not resist, one may be liable to some degree (certainly not to the degree as if they did it willingly), as disputed by the Rabbinic authorities.
Zev Steinhardt
Actually, the prohibitions against certain sexual unions in the Torah far predate the Middle Ages. Even if you don’t hold the Orthodox position, most authorities would agree that these laws were in place by the time the Babylonian Exile came around (if not earlier).
Zev Steinhardt
If we assume, for purposes of argument, that a woman who’s raped but doesn’t resist does sin, then what does the level of her resistance have to be, to avoid the sin?? Does the resistance have to lead to her death, or is a lesser level of resistance acceptable? The Rashonim who argue that she isn’t responsible base it off Deut. 22, (and tractate Sanhedrin, but I can’t remember where right now) where it’s said that a woman raped in the field isn’t legally responsible because she’s like a murder victim.
Well, first of all, sometimes despite resistence the rape happens anyway. So, it doesn’t have to lead to her death. If she did everything possible to fight him off, but it was to no avail, then that’s all that can be asked of her.
With regard to the citation you made, the reason she isn’t guilty is because it’s assumed that she resisted but no one was around to prevent the rape. (Of course, if it’s provable otherwise, then matters would be different)
Zev Steinhardt
cm, thank you for being the first person to explain this in a way that makes sense to me.
Well, it’s assumed she cried out for help, just like in the other scenario (when it’s done in the city, and she is liable), it’s assumed she didn’t cry out for help and consented. I guess my question is, is crying out for help sufficient resistance in this case, or does the woman have to physically resist?
-
But a woman can have consensual sex without, technically, committing any action. Surely such a woman, if married, would be considered an adulteress.
-
What if she actively participates in it (again, out of fear of death)?
Then she’d be acting, even if she just lies there and lets herself be penetrated. She’s acting in the sense that she’s making a conscious choice to consent.
Well, that’s the debate, and opinion is divided on the topic, as you can see from the above discussion.
Oops. I didn’t quite remember it right. Here’s the original:
“By a rule ‘voted and passed . . . in Lydda’ at the time of the Hadrian persecution in 135 C.E., death–whether at the hands of an oppressor or as a consequence of disease–must be chosen if life could be purchased only by committing . . . idolatry, murder or incest. . . .The unconditional proscription of incest covers all incestuous, adulterous or other carnal relationships . . . But the offence must be of an active nature; hence, a woman forced to submit to illicit intercourse need not expose herself to martyrdom. . . . The practical meaning of these laws can be understood only in the context of the popular faith in the therapeutic value of illicit relationships. Several scholars have shown how common was the ancient belief in the medical efficacy of such relations against certain (mainly venereal) diseases, especially with virgins and children.” [I. Jakobovits, *Jewish Medical Ethics* Bloch Publishing, New York, 1959, pp. 53-56]
First of all, I wanted to thank you!
Second of all, I wanted to throw my two cents in on rape. I don’t know that physical struggle or lack thereof is a part of the sin, mostly because women who are being physically overpowered by a man may not actually be able to do anything, or fear and/or panic may shut down the nerves that would otherwise make her knee him in a sensitive place.
If I remember correctly, (acknowledging the fact that most men are stronger than most women) the sin is in a lady’s failure to call out. If a married woman or incest candidate is a rape victim “in a city,” or a place where it is likely that she would be heard if she called out, the lady has to call out, even at her mortal peril. That is her obligation to die rather than have the immoral relation. (That’s what is required, with the big three.)
If she is “in a field,” or a place where it is not at all likely that she would be heard if she called out, she has no obligation to call out, as it would be useless.
If the rape victim is not married, or is not in danger of an incestuous liason, the lady has a right to call out or not. Regardless, I believe there is a law that if the woman should choose (and Jewish law would permit the relationship), the rape victim could force a shotgun wedding on the man who violated her. I don’t know that this would apply in today’s world, but I think it is an interesting concept - he theoretically could be forced to take care of her financial and other marital needs for the rest of his life. If he wouldn’t, he could have been put to death, when the Jewish courts had the ability to issue capital punishment.
This is not correct.
I said “If I remember correctly,” and this time I’m not sure that I’m wrong.
I looked it up, and it says (in Deuteronomy 22:28,29) that if a man is caught (for) raping a virgin who is not engaged, then the rapist must give the girl’s father 50 silver shekels (which is an awful lot of money now). The rapist must then take the girl he violated as his wife, and he may not send her away as long as he lives.
However, it says in Masechet Katubot 38b, “Abaye said that if he (the rapist) came up to her (to pay the money and marry her) and he is exempt from the death penalty, as it says, ‘And he must give [the money to] the girl’s father,’ and not {'To the father death.” } I’m unsure of the meaning of the translation of the words inside the fancy brackets, but I am sure of the rest of the bit.
I could be wrong, because of the bit I didn’t understand, but I don’t think I’m too far off base.
I’m fairly certain you’re wrong Harmonious. I don’t have the Gemara in front of me (and I can’t pull up the page on Edaf), but, (1) raping a non-married, non-relative is NOT a capital crime and (2) there is no court-given death penalty that can be avoided by paying a fine. I will, however, check over your source on Shabbos (or, if IzzyR can do it before then…) and get back to you.
(BTW, just a minor point to clarify – the choice of whether or not the marriage took place was the victim’s. If she didn’t want to marry the rapist, she didn’t have to.)
Zev Steinhardt
Harmonious, I’m afraid that you’ve misunderstood the paragraph from the Talmud that you quote. A more correct translation of it would be:
“Says Abaye: if [the rapist] had relations with her* and then she died, he is exempt [from paying the fine], as it says, ‘He shall give [the money] to the father of the girl’ - [implying,] not to the father of the dead one.”
- The Hebrew expression is ba aleha, which does literally translate to “he came upon her” - but it’s actually the Talmud’s regular idiom for “he had relations with her.”
[From the ensuing discussion in the Talmud, and Rashi’s comments there, it emerges that Abaye’s point is that the girl’s death removes her from her father’s jurisdiction, so that he can no longer be said to be the plaintiff; and since she’s dead, she obviously has no standing in court either.]
In any case, there’s nothing there about the death penalty for the rapist. As IzzyR pointed out, if the girl was unmarried, then no death penalty is possible. [The maximum penalty would be lashes, in the case where he divorces her (in violation of Deut. 22:29) and is unable to remarry her, say because she dies in the interim (Mishneh Torah, Laws of a Virgin Maiden 1:7).]
By the way, too, this is not necessarily correct:
According to the Rambam (loc. cit. 1:2), if it’s in the city but the rapist threatens to kill her if she cries out, then she is considered an anusah - an unwilling participant - even if she doesn’t cry out.
(I don’t know whether any other authorities disagree with the Rambam on this point; presumably, this would get into the dispute among the Rishonim mentioned earlier in the thread. Furthermore, it’s possible that even the Rambam would agree that she is indeed obligated to call out even at the risk of her life - just that if she doesn’t, she’s not to be considered a willing participant with all that this entails.)
I don’t see how her conscious choice to do nothing is an action in one situation, and not in another.
PS Harmonious, any idea how you managed to have three posts but a post count of two?
I’m not understanding something here.
I can understand using banked coals: the process of the fire sustains itself with the fuel without human intervention. However, why is it permissable to use an electric oven if it’s left on? It requires a constant input of energy in the form of electricity for the oven to function, so shouldn’t that be considered another violation of the spirit of Shabbos?
No more so than a light bulb requires a constant flow of electricity.
The point is that the process is happening “by iteslf.” We are not doing any action on Shabbos that causes the extra electricity to be consumed.
Zev Steinhardt
Thank you for the clarification, Zev Steinhardt.
So if you leave a car on, can you drive it as long as you don’t press the gas pedal?