Its the principle of placing blame on the female for the act of rape. Men, the superior figure in these religions are mostly exonerated of guilt in any of these proceedings. It would also be a detrimental blow to her family and ergo to eliminate shame, death.
2007-06-12 13:55:57
·
answer #1
·
answered by Drew K 2
·
1⤊
1⤋
Are you talking about the part where it says that if a woman is raped in a city, and she doesn't resist or cry out, that she should be punished? In those cases, unless there was a weapon or threat of harm involved (which I'm sure they would make exception for), there would be no excuse for a woman not crying out. It's not like they had guns back then, and knives were a LITTLE hard to come by. If a woman was being raped in a city and she screamed for help, people would be there instantly.
If people were around and yet she DIDN'T scream for help, and there was no weapon or threat of harm involved, then perhaps she was just trying to get the man in trouble, and keep herself from being punished for not being a virgin.
They had to have laws to protect the man from stuff like that.
2007-06-12 13:56:19
·
answer #2
·
answered by The_Cricket: Thinking Pink! 7
·
3⤊
0⤋
. It means what it says, obviously--in those days a betrothed woman was considered as if she were already married, hence the two committed adultery. Is your point that this seems barbaric? Of course! Same is true for the parents having the right to kill a child who dishonored them. However, what is missing is whether or not such sentences were ever actually carried out. A careful reading of Talmud indicates that such strictures were put around capital crimes that they were rarely, if ever, cardried out. A court which did sentence more than one person to death in a generation was called an "evil court".
2007-06-12 17:16:47
·
answer #3
·
answered by Mark S, JPAA 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
This is a law regarding CONSENSUAL relationships- the hebrew word used for sex in this passage is "ve'shachav"= 'lies with her" =consensual sex and not "arusah" = forced sex (yes, herew has specific terms for the two.)
The mishnah (oral law) clarifies this passage further by stating that if the woman wanted to but could NOT cry out because her mouth was blocked, because she feared for her life because the attacker was bigger than her or because she was unconscious- the woman is innocent and the man is guilty. This is contrasted to the woman who has sexual relations in the fields outside the city where the presumption is that the sex was forced and the man has to prove it was consensual as oppossed to the case in the city. Don't forget that cities then were not the cities of today or the medieval period, houses were tiny, privacy often preserved by only a curtain- somebody shouting would be very easily heard!
So what is being illustrated is the legal principle of whn someboduy is presumed guilty or innocent base don the crcumstances. Beyond that- the death penalty was very rarely carried out- the reason it is stated is to illustrate the seriousness of an act. Why? Lets show what is needed in a death penalty case in Judaism:
1) There have to be two kosher witnesses- in other words two people that nobody could accuse of having publicly sinned
2) They had to warn the people that the act they were about to engage in was acapital offense.
3) The people had to ACKNOWLEDGE the warning and then, in front of the witnesses, engage in the act.
4) The offense would be taken before a Sanhedrin (court) with at least 21 judges.
5) The witnesses would be cross examined seperately and neither was allowed to hear the other's testimony.
6) ANY discrepancy, no matter how small, was grounds for dismissal
7) Witnesses were reluctant to come forward since if the charges were dropped, you were tried for bearing false witness- and the penalty would be the one that would have been carried out on the people against whom you had testified (so in this case- death, in many other cases a monetary fine)
8) Due to the extreme difficulty in getting a verdict in a capital offense, the Talmud in masechta Sanhedrim remarks that a Sanhedrin that coinvicted more than two people to death in seven years was bloodthirsty and not allowed to judge in trials for capital offenses (there is a minority opinion there that two deaths in SEVENTY years invalidated a sanhedrin from hearing capital offenses).
So in this case- the chances of a man raping a woman in front of two witnesses, who have warned him and told him of the consequences of the act, he has acknowledged the act he is about to do, and then done it is exceptionally slim- especially since they would do their best to stop him or fetch additional people to stop him!
In the case of the disobedient child mentioned above, once again the death penalty is used to illustrate the seriousness of the crime and never really intended to be carried out. Firstly because there needs to be two kosher witnesses (and in a capital crime that means two men unrelated to each other- not a likely scenario in a private home with just family around) and secondly because most such acts are spontaneous and not planned- what, you know a child is going to be cheeky before he speaks or that he is about to hit his father (and the hebrew in this case is clear we are not talking about a light slap, but a proper beating)
Yep- if you don't know the original hebrew and the associated mishnayot, halachot and midrashim it is easy to misunderstand the Torah- but that is why orthodox jews study it as a single complete unit- the written law clarified and explained by the oral law.
2007-06-12 23:51:02
·
answer #4
·
answered by allonyoav 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
I think you are referring to the passage where a woman who lives in a city or town claims that she was raped and yet no one heard her cry out against her attacker. Apparently it means that a young woman who has sex outside of marriage and lies about it had to be put to death back when God was calling out a holy people from whom He was going to bring salvation to the rest of the nations. God doesn't fool around when He has a plan and people decide that they don't want to go along with it.
2007-06-12 14:00:47
·
answer #5
·
answered by Martin S 7
·
3⤊
1⤋
I'd rather not comment on something that I wouldn't live by, being a Christian. But I would think that the Jews have to turn their backs on the whole thing, while abstaining from pork.
2007-06-12 13:52:47
·
answer #6
·
answered by Christian Sinner 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
It means that Raped women without a partner must be stoned. The Bible says it so it is true and the way it should be.
2007-06-12 13:53:04
·
answer #7
·
answered by JimBob from 'Bama 2
·
1⤊
3⤋
I notice that you don't site a scripture reference. This is not in the bible. Victims of a crime don't pay the punishment for the crime.
2007-06-12 14:14:29
·
answer #8
·
answered by God's Child 4
·
1⤊
1⤋
Not to have another child to claim
I have no Father whose is in the heaven?
2007-06-12 13:52:11
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
And your scripture reference is..?????
2007-06-12 14:20:34
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋