lawtonfogle
My solace my terror, my terror my solace.
Having 'consensual' sex with a child, assuming you married them first.lSuch as?
Buying a child for the purpose of making her either your own, or one of your son's, or one of your slave's wife (and it never says she gets to consent to this).
The idea was that if they were married, it was consensual. But I'm avoiding the whole issue of what happened when the female didn't consent, and instead dealing with the issue of when the female did consent, but it would be a crime today because the female would not be able to consent.Besides, I would be very careful about saying what this means. God gave a narrow definition of what is sexually acceptable in Genesis 2:24. One man, one woman, within the bonds of marriage. They were both adults. They were husband and wife. It was consensual. That's God's will for sex. Any deviation from that is sin.
Not normally. I know of only two cases, one involving a genius, one in a similar culture (second world country, fought in the courts, was emancipated). Of course, the idea that some action is ok in some cultures, but not ok in other cultures, hints of cultural relativism unless we give a strict, cross cultural definition of what it means to be mature enough to consent to marriage, but no one seems to be able to do this, and most people end up relying almost solely on cultural relativism.A 13-year old in this culture isn't a functioning adult. Becoming a functioning adult isn't strictly a matter of age, but of maturity.
I pointed out what the Talmud says.But you're not looking at how Jews, who consider this law binding upon themselves, consider it. I'm not talking about liberal Reform Jews either, I'm talking about opinions that are hundreds of years old at the newest.
Wrong. It may have been, but the slaves master was allowed to give her to a son or a slave as a wife also.No. When a Hebrew man bought a Hebrew girl as a slave, that was considered a betrothal.
Where does it say that at? No really, does it say it somewhere in the Talmud, because I have not heard that before. It still leaves the issue of him being able to marry her before she hit puberty.She was his slave, but if she had not obtained her freedom by puberty, he was obliged to either marry her, give her to his son, let her father redeem her, or let her go free without demanding any compensation from her. He couldn't sell her has a "wife" to just anybody. He'd broken faith with the original terms of the contract.
If you noticed, it was talking about violating a minor who is under 3 years of age.That's a misinterpretation. Violating a minor is not condoned in any way in Judaism - rather, if a girl had been violated as a minor, the Talmud gives instructions as to what is to happen next. Violating a minor is a particularly nefarious form of sex outside of marriage, which the law condemns. Full answer here.
That does nothing to answer the objection I brought up about Niddah 44.
And so maybe the man will get a few lashes for having sex outside of marriage, then he will marry the girl.
And there is another Niddah which points out how long a pre-puberty virgin should be given between the first act of sex and any other (about 4 days if I remember correctly). This shows pre-puberty children were getting married.
And yes, to be very technical, the Talmud does not permit sex with a three year old, Niddah 44 say she must be three years and one day.
Upvote
0