I'm chewing on it Galen. I have great concerns about religion and politics mixing and they are very very mixed in the current events taking place. I worry about how far it will escalate and I worry that the side that is right will cross the line and become wrong.
So yeah, I think there is a very valid point to the article. However, I think the point could have been made without bringing religion into it. To me, fighting terrorism doesn't need some spiritual or religious context to support it because logic says you have to stand up and fight or lay down and die.
So that is my initial gut reaction, but I'll chew it over some more.
Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."
The difference is whether it is US doing it or THEM - ;)
Sorry, I couldn't resist. Well seen as how there is very little happening here at work today, but I am stuck here on the off chance that the phone may ring once or twice - perhaps I will do a little digging on the verses the two of you posted and see what/if anything Rashi or the other sages of old say about them.
Well what I have found so far, reaffirms my belief that war backed by religous doctrine is a bad bad thing. It also reminds me of why I prefer the Chassidic view as opposed to the more traditional ones.
Here is what I found on Amalek so far:
"What is the incident (of Amalek) comparable to? To a boiling tub of water which no creature was able to enter. Along came one evil-doer and jumped into it. Although he was burned, he cooled it for the others. So, too, when Israel came out of Egypt, and G-d rent the sea before them and drowned the Egyptians within it, the fear of them fell upon all the nations. But when Amalek came and challenged them, although he received his due from them, he cooled* the awe of them for the nations of the world (Midrash Tanchuma, Ki Teitzei 9)."
Amalek represents irrational indifference of doubt. The people had just been freed from Egypt. They had witnessed the 10 plagues and the parting of the sea. Yet already they were doubting as to whether they made the right choice, doubting as to whether or not God would provide for them. It is said that it is this doubt that left them suseptible (sp) to Amalek's attack. Or, in another sense, this doubt WAS Amalek's attack.
The reason Amalek is to be remembered is because as humans capable of reason, we can work our way through rational problems and doubts. However, it is MUCH more difficult to work your way through an irrational problem or doubt - ESPECIALLY if you aren't aware that it is irrational. Likewise, if you are indifferent, you will not even care to work your way through it.
"Amalek does not challenge the truth with arguments, or even with selfish motivations -- he just disregards it."
And for you Bramble, the "internal" or spiritual view of what occured in Numbers 31 . .
The word Midian is related to the Hebrew word for strife and in this particular instance it is a strife resulting from our own selfishness or our rejection of others.
Moses, on the other hand, represents the exact opposite - selflessness.
The only people from Midian who were to be kept alive were basically those who were considered to be harmless.
It represents our internal battle to overcome our selfishness with selflessness - and yet we are to retain that selfish aspect that is necessary for our surivive - for our healthy boundaries, etc.
Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."
(Numbers 31:7-18, KJV)
I don't get it.
Well, those women who have had sex already can be pretty dangerous. Moses wants to make sure that when his soldiers go to rape them and whip out their little wee-wees, they don't know that wee-wee's are supposed to be much larger -- insulting and damaging their ego.
Only virgins are good enough to be Moses' soldiers's sex slaves. The rest get a sword driven through their belly.
Well, those women who have had sex already can be pretty dangerous. Moses wants to make sure that when his soldiers go to rape them and whip out their ...
Or to limit STDs [sexually Transmited Disease]. It was common to take all women as slaves and concubines, in this case they could only take the virgins.
Actually, Mosaic law forbid the raping of women. It was permissible to marry a captive, but that too was highly frowned upon, and if one did marry a captive he was not allowed to use her as a slave.
Numbers 21 deals with marrying a captive and the issue of rape is dealt with a few chapters later.
If you want to read it with Rashi's commentary (which helps make sense of some of the "customs" surrounding the marriage of a captive) you can find it Here
In addition, one tenant of the Mosaic law is to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". I am assuming most men would not want to be raped and therefore it would be wrong for them to rape someone else.
I am confused how could you marry a woman, and then make her your slave. These are two entirely different statuses [in my mind]?
They did marry women from among their captives [when permitted], and they also did take slaves [when permitted[. But I am confused over marrying AND enslaving the same person.
That is exactly the point Galen. The context is that if you married a captive and then later came to despise her, you could not treat her as a slave. You either had to free her and send her to wherever she wished to go (and by the wording it would appear it would have been the man's responsibility to pay for and see to her transportation), or you must continue to treat her with the respect and courtesy she deserved as a wife.
Actually, Mosaic law forbid the raping of women. ...
If a woman is married, then yes.
If a woman is betrothed, then yes.
If a woman is a virgin, then the man who layed with her must buy her and she becomes his wife.
Deuteronomy 22: 28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
So the blanket statement that The Law forbid 'rape', is in fact not correct. Sorry.
Marrying a captive? For one, the woman, who's father and mother has just been murdered by this person, now has no say in whether she is forced to marry the person who took part in their murder. And this only addresses when the conquering man wants the woman as a wife. From I can see from the context, the 30 day waiting period, shaving the girls head (I'm sure she appreciates that also), growing her fingernails, is only to discourage the man from taking her as a wife. It looks to me that the discouragement is merely meant for the man's benefit, so he doesn't end up with a foreign wife he later regrets having.
Is it me, or does that seem f***ed up?
Skimmed the remaining chapters. Didn't find anything on rape other than an Israelite raping an Israelite woman in the fields. Nothing on raping captives. It seems rather clear that the O.T. differentiated between Israelites and everyone else. I don't see anything that would change the expected outcome of giving a virgin woman to a conquering soldier for him to "have".
Galen, you really should read it with Rashi's commentary. And you misunderstand in part because you do not understand the basic culture and beliefs.
If rape was okay, why should the man then have to pay a dowery and marry her? Why couldn't he just be done and walk away?
A couple of paragraphs up, where it is dealing with the betrothed woman, it also deals with the concept of coersion in relation to sex and equates it with murder.
In addition, you may recall the laws regarding "spilling your seed on the ground'. Judaism views sex as a very spiritual event, not just for procreation but for the binding together of two souls. It was not intended beetween man and woman simply to be an animalistic act.
Finally, you may not be aware of the honor and esteem a Jewish man is to give to his wife. The man who "seizes" a girl and rapes her, must now marry her and give her the honor and esteem of a wife. So, there is a debt to be paid for the act.
And again, as I stated earlier - what man wants to be raped? (and I am asking that in a serious way). Because if men do not wish to be raped, than Mosaic law would forbid men from raping women.
There was always a dowry paid in a marriage, with rape or not. Daughters were the property of their father. They were not free to marry whom they pleased. They married who their father "sold" them to.
In the case of rape, since she was no longer a virgin and her value for being married off plumitting down to zero, the forced payment of the dowry and marriage is basically to compensate the father for his loss.
The woman was given time to grieve for the loss of her family and the man was very much discouraged from marrying her - both work to her benefit. Rashi's commentaries by and large are based on a literal interpretation of the O.T., which is why in my initial response to Bramble's post, I shared the Chassidic view on it and why I prefer the Chassidic view. However, I think Rashi's commentaries to offer further understanding of the text.
Remember too, that from Eve to Sarah, women were in subjection to man - a state we are still working towards overcoming even in this society and in this age. Therefore, almost any concession given to a women in Moses time was a move forward.
Finally, please see my response to Galen, which briefly outlines the Jewish view of sex. Sex was not intended merely for animalistic pleasure - such as might be gained from raping a captive. In fact, it is because of the binding of the souls that a man was discouraged from marrying a captive, who would have likely had very different religious views and a very different world view, thus decreasing the odds of a happy marriage and increasing the odds that she may persuade him toward a different faith (no big deal in our society now, but a HUGE deal in those days).
Yes, to some degree the Israelites viewed non-Israelites differently - as is still true in some Jewish sects today, and as is true in sects of almost any religion. However, most of the other nations were still viewed as "neighbors" even following a war. There were specific commandments requiring a waiting period of a certain number of generations (and the number varied depending on the country and war) before intermarriage could take place again. The point being, Israel was still to come to view even their enemies as their neighbors once again.
... Yes, to some degree the Israelites viewed non-Israelites differently - as is still true in some Jewish sects today, and as is true in sects of almost any religion. However, most of the other nations were still viewed as "neighbors" even following a war. There were specific commandments requiring a waiting period of a certain number of generations (and the number varied depending on the country and war) before intermarriage could take place again. The point being, Israel was still to come to view even their enemies as their neighbors once again.
Like the laws on Usury, charge fellow Israelites low rates, and charge others anything they are willing to pay.
Actually, they weren't to charge each other any interest at all. But in dealing with cultures that differ from your own, you have to adapt some - as the Jews have done and continue to do even today.
Let me ask you this Galen, if we are doing business with Mexico or Canada and they are placing tarrifs on our goods, would it not be in our own best interest to likewise place tarrifs on theirs? In fact, is it not the very concept of "free trade" verses "fair trade" that has played such a huge role in our current economic difficulties?
... Let me ask you this Galen, if we are doing business with Mexico or Canada and they are placing tarrifs on our goods, would it not be in our own best interest to likewise place tarrifs on theirs? In fact, is it not the very concept of "free trade" verses "fair trade" that has played such a huge role in our current economic difficulties?
Loaning money between one person individually and another person; and international import tariffs are slightly different topics.
I see nothing there about modernising The Law.
The Law requires believers to treat each other on a different plane than they treat others. Did The Law retract that part somewhere?
If a fellow needs money for his business, make me a business partner so that I can also make a profit, since I am forbidden from charging interest on the loan to a fellow. But if your a Gentile, then I can charge interest on the loan and be happy with the profit. This mindset is from The Law, and very clearly sets the 'us' and 'them' mentality in business.
Import tariffs is something that nations do, not what you and I do.
Point taken, Galen. It might be educational some day to try to trace back the history of "interest" and where the concept originated, but it is not something I care to do today.
I do not deny there is an "us" v "them" in sects of Judaism, nor do I deny it is in the O.T. I think you would agree that, unfortunately, the "us" v "them" mentality is prevalent in most religions. I do not like it, I do not subscribe to it and I therefore try to ignore it.
But regardless of the "interest" issue - having studied Judaism for the past few years, I still stand by my initial statement that rape would not be condoned and was in fact condemned under Mosaic law, regardless of whether the victim was a Jew or not. I stand by this because I understand the Jewish perspective on sex and marriage.
You can pick apart the few verses I post here all you want, but there is a much larger context that cannot be shared in a verse or two. I was foolish of me to try. It is like trying to teach someone a foreign language in under an hour.
Perhaps this article will shed further light for the two of you.
I will post exerpts......
Torah knows sexuality to be incredibly powerful. Torah does not see these truths as negative, but as intrinsically positive forces. . . . . Our first commandment in the Torah is to be fruitful and multiply. Our very first mitzvah is about having physical relations. And yet, because of its capability to be so holy, it has the ability to be the most unholy act as well. . . .When physicality is misused or abused, the results are unbelievably powerful in the most negative of ways . . .If the goal of the physicality is not to create an everlasting bond and representation of the love that is shared between the man and the woman, if it isn't love expressed through physicality but rather love that is motivated by physicality, then it is a debasement, rather that a fulfillment, of our most G-dly power. . . .When we act G-dly, we are a nefesh chayah, a "living soul"; and when we do not, so we are only a chayah, a beast.
Recommended Posts
Abigail
I'm chewing on it Galen. I have great concerns about religion and politics mixing and they are very very mixed in the current events taking place. I worry about how far it will escalate and I worry that the side that is right will cross the line and become wrong.
So yeah, I think there is a very valid point to the article. However, I think the point could have been made without bringing religion into it. To me, fighting terrorism doesn't need some spiritual or religious context to support it because logic says you have to stand up and fight or lay down and die.
So that is my initial gut reaction, but I'll chew it over some more.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
Well, how was moses so different in his actions?
Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."
(Numbers 31:7-18, KJV)
I don't get it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
The difference is whether it is US doing it or THEM - ;)
Sorry, I couldn't resist. Well seen as how there is very little happening here at work today, but I am stuck here on the off chance that the phone may ring once or twice - perhaps I will do a little digging on the verses the two of you posted and see what/if anything Rashi or the other sages of old say about them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Well what I have found so far, reaffirms my belief that war backed by religous doctrine is a bad bad thing. It also reminds me of why I prefer the Chassidic view as opposed to the more traditional ones.
Here is what I found on Amalek so far:
"What is the incident (of Amalek) comparable to? To a boiling tub of water which no creature was able to enter. Along came one evil-doer and jumped into it. Although he was burned, he cooled it for the others. So, too, when Israel came out of Egypt, and G-d rent the sea before them and drowned the Egyptians within it, the fear of them fell upon all the nations. But when Amalek came and challenged them, although he received his due from them, he cooled* the awe of them for the nations of the world (Midrash Tanchuma, Ki Teitzei 9)."
Amalek represents irrational indifference of doubt. The people had just been freed from Egypt. They had witnessed the 10 plagues and the parting of the sea. Yet already they were doubting as to whether they made the right choice, doubting as to whether or not God would provide for them. It is said that it is this doubt that left them suseptible (sp) to Amalek's attack. Or, in another sense, this doubt WAS Amalek's attack.
The reason Amalek is to be remembered is because as humans capable of reason, we can work our way through rational problems and doubts. However, it is MUCH more difficult to work your way through an irrational problem or doubt - ESPECIALLY if you aren't aware that it is irrational. Likewise, if you are indifferent, you will not even care to work your way through it.
"Amalek does not challenge the truth with arguments, or even with selfish motivations -- he just disregards it."
- by Yanki Tauber
Edited by AbigailLink to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
And for you Bramble, the "internal" or spiritual view of what occured in Numbers 31 . .
The word Midian is related to the Hebrew word for strife and in this particular instance it is a strife resulting from our own selfishness or our rejection of others.
Moses, on the other hand, represents the exact opposite - selflessness.
The only people from Midian who were to be kept alive were basically those who were considered to be harmless.
It represents our internal battle to overcome our selfishness with selflessness - and yet we are to retain that selfish aspect that is necessary for our surivive - for our healthy boundaries, etc.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GT
Well, those women who have had sex already can be pretty dangerous. Moses wants to make sure that when his soldiers go to rape them and whip out their little wee-wees, they don't know that wee-wee's are supposed to be much larger -- insulting and damaging their ego.
Only virgins are good enough to be Moses' soldiers's sex slaves. The rest get a sword driven through their belly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
Or to limit STDs [sexually Transmited Disease]. It was common to take all women as slaves and concubines, in this case they could only take the virgins.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Actually, Mosaic law forbid the raping of women. It was permissible to marry a captive, but that too was highly frowned upon, and if one did marry a captive he was not allowed to use her as a slave.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GT
Never saw that.
Is there a reference?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Numbers 21 deals with marrying a captive and the issue of rape is dealt with a few chapters later.
If you want to read it with Rashi's commentary (which helps make sense of some of the "customs" surrounding the marriage of a captive) you can find it Here
In addition, one tenant of the Mosaic law is to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". I am assuming most men would not want to be raped and therefore it would be wrong for them to rape someone else.
Edited by AbigailLink to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
I am confused how could you marry a woman, and then make her your slave. These are two entirely different statuses [in my mind]?
They did marry women from among their captives [when permitted], and they also did take slaves [when permitted[. But I am confused over marrying AND enslaving the same person.
:)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
That is exactly the point Galen. The context is that if you married a captive and then later came to despise her, you could not treat her as a slave. You either had to free her and send her to wherever she wished to go (and by the wording it would appear it would have been the man's responsibility to pay for and see to her transportation), or you must continue to treat her with the respect and courtesy she deserved as a wife.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
BTW Numbers 21 is not it.
Lev 21 talk about the laws for priests and who priests can marry.
But nothing about captives.
:)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
My mistake, it is Deut 21. On the chabad website it uses the Hebrew words for the names of the books and I got them mixed up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
If a woman is married, then yes.
If a woman is betrothed, then yes.
If a woman is a virgin, then the man who layed with her must buy her and she becomes his wife.
So the blanket statement that The Law forbid 'rape', is in fact not correct. Sorry.
:)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GT
Read the whole page.
Marrying a captive? For one, the woman, who's father and mother has just been murdered by this person, now has no say in whether she is forced to marry the person who took part in their murder. And this only addresses when the conquering man wants the woman as a wife. From I can see from the context, the 30 day waiting period, shaving the girls head (I'm sure she appreciates that also), growing her fingernails, is only to discourage the man from taking her as a wife. It looks to me that the discouragement is merely meant for the man's benefit, so he doesn't end up with a foreign wife he later regrets having.
Is it me, or does that seem f***ed up?
Skimmed the remaining chapters. Didn't find anything on rape other than an Israelite raping an Israelite woman in the fields. Nothing on raping captives. It seems rather clear that the O.T. differentiated between Israelites and everyone else. I don't see anything that would change the expected outcome of giving a virgin woman to a conquering soldier for him to "have".
Maybe I just don't see it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Galen, you really should read it with Rashi's commentary. And you misunderstand in part because you do not understand the basic culture and beliefs.
If rape was okay, why should the man then have to pay a dowery and marry her? Why couldn't he just be done and walk away?
A couple of paragraphs up, where it is dealing with the betrothed woman, it also deals with the concept of coersion in relation to sex and equates it with murder.
In addition, you may recall the laws regarding "spilling your seed on the ground'. Judaism views sex as a very spiritual event, not just for procreation but for the binding together of two souls. It was not intended beetween man and woman simply to be an animalistic act.
Finally, you may not be aware of the honor and esteem a Jewish man is to give to his wife. The man who "seizes" a girl and rapes her, must now marry her and give her the honor and esteem of a wife. So, there is a debt to be paid for the act.
And again, as I stated earlier - what man wants to be raped? (and I am asking that in a serious way). Because if men do not wish to be raped, than Mosaic law would forbid men from raping women.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GT
There was always a dowry paid in a marriage, with rape or not. Daughters were the property of their father. They were not free to marry whom they pleased. They married who their father "sold" them to.
In the case of rape, since she was no longer a virgin and her value for being married off plumitting down to zero, the forced payment of the dowry and marriage is basically to compensate the father for his loss.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Greasey Tech,
The woman was given time to grieve for the loss of her family and the man was very much discouraged from marrying her - both work to her benefit. Rashi's commentaries by and large are based on a literal interpretation of the O.T., which is why in my initial response to Bramble's post, I shared the Chassidic view on it and why I prefer the Chassidic view. However, I think Rashi's commentaries to offer further understanding of the text.
Remember too, that from Eve to Sarah, women were in subjection to man - a state we are still working towards overcoming even in this society and in this age. Therefore, almost any concession given to a women in Moses time was a move forward.
Finally, please see my response to Galen, which briefly outlines the Jewish view of sex. Sex was not intended merely for animalistic pleasure - such as might be gained from raping a captive. In fact, it is because of the binding of the souls that a man was discouraged from marrying a captive, who would have likely had very different religious views and a very different world view, thus decreasing the odds of a happy marriage and increasing the odds that she may persuade him toward a different faith (no big deal in our society now, but a HUGE deal in those days).
Yes, to some degree the Israelites viewed non-Israelites differently - as is still true in some Jewish sects today, and as is true in sects of almost any religion. However, most of the other nations were still viewed as "neighbors" even following a war. There were specific commandments requiring a waiting period of a certain number of generations (and the number varied depending on the country and war) before intermarriage could take place again. The point being, Israel was still to come to view even their enemies as their neighbors once again.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
Like the laws on Usury, charge fellow Israelites low rates, and charge others anything they are willing to pay.
:)
Edited by GalenLink to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Actually, they weren't to charge each other any interest at all. But in dealing with cultures that differ from your own, you have to adapt some - as the Jews have done and continue to do even today.
Let me ask you this Galen, if we are doing business with Mexico or Canada and they are placing tarrifs on our goods, would it not be in our own best interest to likewise place tarrifs on theirs? In fact, is it not the very concept of "free trade" verses "fair trade" that has played such a huge role in our current economic difficulties?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
Loaning money between one person individually and another person; and international import tariffs are slightly different topics.
I see nothing there about modernising The Law.
The Law requires believers to treat each other on a different plane than they treat others. Did The Law retract that part somewhere?
If a fellow needs money for his business, make me a business partner so that I can also make a profit, since I am forbidden from charging interest on the loan to a fellow. But if your a Gentile, then I can charge interest on the loan and be happy with the profit. This mindset is from The Law, and very clearly sets the 'us' and 'them' mentality in business.
Import tariffs is something that nations do, not what you and I do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Point taken, Galen. It might be educational some day to try to trace back the history of "interest" and where the concept originated, but it is not something I care to do today.
I do not deny there is an "us" v "them" in sects of Judaism, nor do I deny it is in the O.T. I think you would agree that, unfortunately, the "us" v "them" mentality is prevalent in most religions. I do not like it, I do not subscribe to it and I therefore try to ignore it.
But regardless of the "interest" issue - having studied Judaism for the past few years, I still stand by my initial statement that rape would not be condoned and was in fact condemned under Mosaic law, regardless of whether the victim was a Jew or not. I stand by this because I understand the Jewish perspective on sex and marriage.
You can pick apart the few verses I post here all you want, but there is a much larger context that cannot be shared in a verse or two. I was foolish of me to try. It is like trying to teach someone a foreign language in under an hour.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Perhaps this article will shed further light for the two of you.
I will post exerpts......
Torah knows sexuality to be incredibly powerful. Torah does not see these truths as negative, but as intrinsically positive forces. . . . . Our first commandment in the Torah is to be fruitful and multiply. Our very first mitzvah is about having physical relations. And yet, because of its capability to be so holy, it has the ability to be the most unholy act as well. . . .When physicality is misused or abused, the results are unbelievably powerful in the most negative of ways . . .If the goal of the physicality is not to create an everlasting bond and representation of the love that is shared between the man and the woman, if it isn't love expressed through physicality but rather love that is motivated by physicality, then it is a debasement, rather that a fulfillment, of our most G-dly power. . . .When we act G-dly, we are a nefesh chayah, a "living soul"; and when we do not, so we are only a chayah, a beast.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.