We are all familiar with the commandments, “Thou shalt not steal” and “Thou shalt not kill”, but, as far as I know, there is no “Thou shalt not rape” commandment in the Bible. IIRC, the only “punishment” for rape in the Bible is that the man has to marry the victim. That sounds more like a punishment for the woman, doesn’t it? I know society was patriarchical in Biblical days, but this seems a bit extreme. What’s the straight dope? By the way, I am more familiar with the Old Testament than the New. ;j
According to Jewish law, the man had to marry his victim only if she wished it. If not, he had to pay a fine of 50 silver (no small amount).
The bit about marrying the rapist was for her protection and benefit if she wanted it. Virginity was a sought-after virtue. A woman who was raped may have had difficulty finding a husband in ancient times. Therefore, if she wanted, she could have a guarantee of matrimony (and, BTW, he could not divorce her).
Zev Steinhardt
This still doesn’t sound like a felony punishment. And if a man is wealthy it practically gave him free reign to rape without a second thought. Is there an actual commandment that says “Thou shalt not rape”? That might be more of a deterrent in those days than the monetary fine.
On the other hand, I don’t remember imprisonment ever being used as a punishment in the Bible, so maybe it was a choice between fines or stoning.
Seems like it would be covered under “Thou shall not steal”. After all, a rapist is taking something that doesn’t belong to him.
This site may be a bit biased…
Also, the 2nd point seems a little unclear on the difference between “seducing” and “raping.”
It could be covered under that.
It could also be covered under “Love your neighbor as yourself…”
It could also be covered under “Do not hate your neighbor…”
It could also be covered under the general prohibition against pre-marital sex.
Needless to say, rape is forbidden under Jewish law.
Zev Steinhardt
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by padabe *
**
**
Under Jewish law, that is correct.
**
To some extent this too is true. However, under Jewish law, the woman was NOT forced to marry the rapist. She could if she wished (but in doing so, the rapist/husband would not be able to divorce her).
**
You’re kidding on this one, right?
**
Not exactly true. A woman outside of marriage has a status of a niddah (menstruant). This would hold true from the time her period started until she went to the Mikveh. In addition, by Rabbinic decree, immersion in a Mikveh is ineffectual in removing the niddah status for an unmarried woman.
Zev Steinhardt
According to my annotated Torah (Everett Fox translation, very highly reccomended), Leviticus 18:22:
I don’t think there are many people who interpret that verse differently, though there are plenty who ignore it. 
Anyway, that knocks the credibility of that site down a bit in my view.
Leviticus 18 seems to forbid incest of various types, bestiality for both men and women, and gay sex for men.
Is Lesbianism ever disallowed in the bible? I’ve never seen it.
**
**
The weaselly technicality for this statement: no COMMANDMENT (i.e., one of the Ten; this commentary is in direct reference to the Seventh Commandment) that prohibits.
God did tell Moses that male-male relations were bad, but it’s not part of the Big Ten.
There is no specific prohibition explicitly stated. However, Rabbinic authorities say that it is covered under “…the abominable acts of Egypt…” prohibition of Leviticus 18:3.
Zev Steinhardt
To get an understanding of how ancient Jews viewed rape, read the story of the rape of Dinah in the book of Genesis.
Dinah, the daughter of Jacob, was raped by a local bigwig. The bigwig decided he liked her, sent word to her brothers that he wanted to marry her, and asked them for their price.
Now, IF ancient Israelites regarded women merely as property, IF they regarded rape as merely a property crime, IF they didn’t really care about the harm/trauma done to their sisters/daughters… well, then, Jacob’s sons should have said, “No problem! No harm done! Sure, he raped her, but he’s willing to marry her and take her off our hands. So, everything’s fine and dandy.”
In reality, Jacob’s sons were furious at what this man had done to their sister. So, they pulled off a clever, hilarious, and utterly disgusting scam! They told the man, “Sure, you can marry our sister, but not until you and all your men are circumcised.” The bigwig agreed… but while he and his men were still in agony from the circumcision (and in no shape to fight back), Jacob’s brothers killed him! When their father expressed dismay at their action, her brothers snarled “Should our sister have been treated like a whore?”
In short, Dinah was not punished, nor was she forced to marry her victimizer. Her brothers loved her enough to want justice (which meant, of course, death for the rapist).
Now, this is a horrible story in many respects. But it SHOULD put to rest the notion that ancient male Jews were quick to overlook rape, so long as they were paid off.
You’ve never been married, have you?
To a woman you wronged, no less! In Proverbs it says (paraphrasing) that a contentious wife is like a drippy faucet…just imagine how miserable a vengeful wife who you raped could make your life (can you say Lorena Bobbitt?).
None for me, thanks!
Simeon and Levi did not enforce “justice” on Dinah’s rapist. They killed not only Shechem, but “every male in the city.” Then, they “carried off all their wealth and all their women and children, taking as plunder everything in the houses.” (emphasis mine)
Sounds like they thought that the appropriate punishment for raping “one of theirs” was to do the same to “all of Shechem’s.”
Deuteronomy 22:23-25 contains a special punishment for a raped virgin – depending on where the rape occurs.
Of course, those city girls kick a lot more, what with the death penalty hanging over them. 
–Grump “In space, no one can hear you scream” y
The difference implied by the verse, of course, is not merely the geographical location of the rape, but rather the type of place. In a “city”, there is reasonable hope that she would be rescued, and in a “field” there is not, due to lack of passersby. The middle of Central Park at 3am would likely have the law of a field - a cornfield in Kansas in broad daylight with 1000 harvesters within earshot would likely have the law of a city. The screaming, where it would help, serves as an indication that she is being forced against her will, enabling someone to rescue her.
The Dinah story is a complex one. Astorian’s point was that rape was viewed as a serious offense, not merely a commercial transaction. The fact is that the Bible (Old Testament) lists very few punishments for infractions – death, of course, for some crimes. But otherwise, it’s pretty much a fine. They didn’t have prisons, they didn’t have “community service” or halfway houses, there wasn’t much alternative.
[Aside] Rape is a crime that doesn’t leave physical marks. In those early days, without DNA evidence and microscopes, the evidence of wrong-doing was pretty much physical. If a person had bruises or scars, that was evidence of abuse. However, if there were no physical signs of rape, how would a judge (pre-jury days, remember) decide whether the accusation of rape was valid? [/Aside]
The Dinah story makes other points, as well. The actions of Simon and Levi, in killing the entire town rather than just the offender, are condemned in the Bible text. And Jacob’s inaction – shrugging his shoulders when he hears what his sons have done, rather than condemning them – is viewed as a shameful behavior on Jacob’s part. So the story has a great deal of complexity to it beyond the simple rape/punishment aspect.
This is not correct.
There is an unrelated prohibition on unmarried sex however. Authorities differ as to whether it is Biblical or Rabbinic.