Read on Twitter
Torah doesn& #39;t force a girl to marry her assaulter against her will (A THREAD!)
(bc too many people spread this idea in order to denigrate the Torah/Hebrew bible as evil/bad/primitive, and the text is WAY more nuanced)
(bc too many people spread this idea in order to denigrate the Torah/Hebrew bible as evil/bad/primitive, and the text is WAY more nuanced)
Exodus 22:16-17 "If a man seduces a betulah who isnât engaged and lies with her, he has to pay for her to be his wife. If her father absolutely positively refuses to give her to him, he shall pay silver like the payment of betulot."
The run-up to the Exodus passage is an entire section on restitution, for cases of both intentional and unintentional damages/loss.
Deuteronomy 22:28 "If a man discovers a girl betulah who isnât engaged & manipulates her & lies with her and they are discovered, then the man who lay with her shall give her father 50 silver, & she shall be a wife to him--
"--instead of being anah, and he is not able to send her away all his days."
The preceding verses in Deuteronomy regard a man ruining the reputation of a wife by claiming she wasnât a betulah when they consummated their marriage.
What is a betulah?
The word in question is usually translated as âvirgin.â The root word ××Ş× means, âto sever/separate,â so the idea is that a betulah is someone separated from men or a man.
The word in question is usually translated as âvirgin.â The root word ××Ş× means, âto sever/separate,â so the idea is that a betulah is someone separated from men or a man.
The same word is used in reference to Rebecca, saying that she was both a betulah and that âno man had intimate knowledge of herâ (ie. sexual relations). This can emphasize her as a virgin, or it can mean that she wasnât part of the âmarriage pool.â
What is engagement?
Today, we think of engagement as a declaration of intent. But this wasnât the case in ancient Israel. The term was closer to betrothal, in that the person was promised to their future spouse legally but not yet physically consummated.
Today, we think of engagement as a declaration of intent. But this wasnât the case in ancient Israel. The term was closer to betrothal, in that the person was promised to their future spouse legally but not yet physically consummated.
Erusin (××ר×ץ××) is the stage where a young woman is legally tied to the man but they donât yet live under one roof and have not physically consummated the relationship. This had the same legal status as a marriage!
Today we can simply verbally break off the engagement, because no legal documents are involved, but if the couple back then wanted to break off their âengagementâ, they had to get a legal divorce document (get).
The betrothal period could be a year, could be longer. Brides-to-be might be too young, the fiancee might not be $ ready to support her yet, or might need longer to build the house for her.
Regardless, she was legally his wife in every way save for the physical union and cohabitation. Which is why the penalties for intercourse during this engagement period was treated the same as adultery.
While only one primary scenario is mentioned in Exodus, the expanded passage in Deuteronomy lays out four scenarios of a man having intercourse with a woman, and what the penalties are for each:
1. Man + married woman. Both die.
2. Man + betrothed betulah (city). Both die.
3. Man + betrothed betulah (countryside). Only man dies.
4. Man + not betrothed betulah. No one dies.
2. Man + betrothed betulah (city). Both die.
3. Man + betrothed betulah (countryside). Only man dies.
4. Man + not betrothed betulah. No one dies.
The first category wonât need much explanation, since the plain meaning is understood as adultery. Consensual from both parties, hence the penalty.
The 2nd is clarified that because people are around to intervene, but the maiden didnât cry out for help, itâs consensual. Problematic assumption? YES! But the sages understood that as a principle of *wanting* intervention, not as a physical location limit.
The 3rd category clarifies this, by showing if a woman is in a place where people arenât around to intervene, sheâs not at fault. The sages understood that both as an obligation for passers-by to intervene, and that the woman wanted help but couldnât get it.
Fun fact: the imperative for people to intervene when a woman is being assaulted is to the point of even killing the assaulting man, if necessary! Rape is considered on par with premeditated murder!
If the same thing happened in a city but the woman couldnât be heard when she cried out, she would still not be at fault!
The 4th category is the one where most people focus. While the first 3 applied to a woman who was legally married, the last is concerning a woman who is legally not bound to anyone. Legally, sheâs available for marriage, unlike the first three.
The two passages in Exodus and Deuteronomy are referring to the same scenario: unengaged betulah. But this isnât the same language as a man seizing by force, itâs the language of seduction, manipulation, and enticement.
The word used in Exodus is ×¤×Ş× patah, âto be spacious/enlarge.â The same verb is a blessing (Japeth, broad descendants and territory) and descriptive of seduction (Delilah and Samson). Think someone with their arms wide open, beckoning you.
The word used in Deut is תפ׊ tafas, âto manipulate,â as one does with a thing theyâre skilled at like a sword or musical instrument.
English translations render this as âseizeâ in the same way someone would snatch a thing to steal it, when the verb tafas is used both for lyre players and soldiers taking hold of captives in war.
Why the semantics? Because the language is describing someone who is skilled at enticing others. It isnât like the man who uses force to lay with his victim, itâs *cunning*.
That brings us to the consequences. No matter what, the man has to pay a fine for what he did.
Now, the victimâs father comes into play here-- is it sexist? Yeah, but this is a legal scenario that involves an issue of consent.
In antiquity the legal status of a woman was tied to her father til she married, then to her spouse.
Sexist? Yeah. But keep reading.
Sexist? Yeah. But keep reading.
The language for the father declining to allow the man to marry his daughter isnât just a simple ânah.â Itâs a repetitive, emphatic NO. Not just no, but hell no, no way, absolutely not.
