User talk:JaveCantrell

Rape or seduction
As to this edit, and its edit summary. The intent of the Torah seems to be that she was seduced into following the man to a field, where she was subsequently raped. So there is an element of both here. Debresser (talk) 20:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no reference for field in 22:28-29. The reference for field in 22:27 is to distinguish that a (married) rape victim gets off the hook for not screaming if she's in a field because nobody can hear her screams. Jave Cantrell (talk) 20:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Rather, we assume she screamed (as specified in verse 27). Debresser (talk) 23:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's less a matter of assuming she screamed as it is a literary tool to demonstrate that we recognize the futility in screaming in the scenario. I think this can be emphasized by the fact that if she screamed in the city, she would be free from guilt as well (parallel with 22:24, where his crime is humbling a neighbor's wife, and her's is not crying for help, and thus adultery). I think in this case she's ok whether she cried out or not, which warrants the "field exemption". Jave Cantrell (talk) 07:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Since we anyway assume she screamed it doesn't matter whether she actually did that or not. If she would not have screamed, realizing the futility of it in the field, we would still have assumed she did. But I have a feeling a woman in her situating will not refrain from screaming. Debresser (talk) 09:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I can think of a lot of reasons a woman getting raped would not cry out, mostly involving the danger of doing so, physical restrictions from doing so, or purely being frozen in terror. But as you said, none of that is really relevant in the end with this verse Jave Cantrell (talk) 11:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Not married, but engaged to be married (as specified in verse 25). Debresser (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's possible that you are correct here (on the basis that she's a virgin), but I would warn against applying modern Judaic concepts to people described in the Tanakh. Deut 20:7 also uses the word betrothed in a manner clearly depicting a scenario in which the man has full leave to have sex with her, which would imply full marriage by modern standards, it's very possible that there is no engagement period at this time, and that 22:23-27 is simply the case of a man not consummating his marriage. Even imparting more modern standards, from a legal perspective erusin is depicted as the first stage of marriage, rather than a precursor to it, the fact that they are treated as married under law (like adultery) is evidence of this. Jave Cantrell (talk) 07:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Deut. 20:7 talks about a woman who has been betrothed but not yet married, and no sex. Here you are wrong about the meaning of these concepts in the Tanakh. Debresser (talk) 09:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I think the context clearly demonstrates a married man in Deut 20:7. I'd ask before you make declarative statements like "you are wrong" you might want to consider your own lack of omniscience. The Tanakh describes betrothal as acquiring the right to the woman (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Encyclopaedia_Biblica/Manius-Mash#MARRIAGE) at which point he may immediately consummate his marriage if he pleases. They are referred to at the point of betrothal however as husband and wife, and are considered married in the eyes of the law. This does not seem to in any way parallel our modern conception of engagement, this is more like consummating a modern marriage (which obviously occurs after the ceremony).


 * According to Jewish laws that deal with "engagement" (erusin), they are not allowed to live together until after nissuin, and during that period he is forbidden to have intercourse with her. Also note that these are 2 stages of marriage, you still need a divorce to break from erusin. If you want to apply a tradition of engagement here, please demonstrate your source and the legal framework, as backporting later models seems to conflict with this situation. Jave Cantrell (talk) 11:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I do not understand you. Whatever you think, about my omniscience as well as about this subject, after a betrothal there may be no sex. Don't want to take my word for it, look it up... Debresser (talk) 19:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I know that according to modern standards of betrothal there may be no sex, I was pointing this out specifically: "he is forbidden to have intercourse with her". In Deut 20:7 however, the men are ordered to go home to their betrothed and have sex with them, which would be forbidden under modern standards of engagement and betrothal, seemingly demonstrating that the concept of betrothal at that time period was not one of engagement (at least not as we know it). But betrothal at this time seems to simply be the beginning of marriage, the point where a man has secured rights to a woman (this understanding is paralleled in the link I gave). The purpose of going home to consummate his marriage is to prevent his wife from becoming remarried after his death (likely because she will no longer be a virgin or it will be considered adultery). Jave Cantrell (talk) 00:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As a point of clarification, I take the phrase "taken her" in Deut 20:7 to mean have sex with her, not "marry her". I come to this conclusion based on the fact that all three of the verses in this region (Deut 20:5-7) have direct parallels in Deut 28:30, which reflects 20:7, 20:5, 20:6 respectively, and in 28:30 the reflection of "taken her" is "lie with her". I would also state that in the tanakh, betroth was not equivalent to engagement, because Hosea uses the term metaphorically in Hosea 2:19 as "And I will betroth thee unto me for ever", and this implies that betrothal is equivalent to marriage (as engagements end upon marriage). Jave Cantrell (talk) 02:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * So that is your mistake. "Take her" means "marry her", or in any case, no taking without marrying. Debresser (talk) 13:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not a mistake. I don't understand why you believe you're an authority here. It's open to interpretation, which is why I compare to latter verses. It can be interpreted as marry or consummate (Gen 2:24). I think the people who say it means marry might be projecting modern standards on an ancient people (like you seem adamant on). In almost every case where they discuss marriage in the tanakh there is no mention of an engagement period. The closest thing would be Rebekah, but there is no mention of betrothed, and neither he, nor his family took part in any bride price negotiation, and the "engagement period" lasted only until she got to where he was where he immediately consummated the marriage. I also take Gen 24:67 to use "took her" in the sense of sex. He brought her into the tent, "took her", and then she became his wife. This parallels with the 3rd way in which a man may acquire (betroth) a woman according to Kiddushin 1:1 (through sexual intercourse). Although this has since been looked down on in the modern era, this is a common way to take a bride in the tanakh.


 * Now that we're significantly off track from the initial point. I addressed the woman in 22:25 as married, and you attempted to correct me. The fact is, whether she has gone through a wedding ceremony or not, she is married according to Jewish law. The scripture addresses her as a wife, and Jewish law considers betrothed people to be married. So even if you're correct and this is the modern understanding of betrothed, you are incorrect in that they are not married. "The term 'betrothal' in Jewish law must not be understood in its modern sense... Betrothal or engagement such as this is not known either to the Bible or to the Talmud...it was definite and binding upon both groom and bride, who were considered as man and wife in all legal and religious aspects, except that of actual cohabitation." (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3229-betrothal). They are married regardless of the meaning of betrothal in the verse, and you are simply being obstinate.


 * I thought in commenting here that you considered yourself a scholar interested in dialogue with another party who has studied scripture extensively, but it seems you're only interested in presenting yourself to know everything already, in which case there's really no point in continuing this conversation. Jave Cantrell (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I very much do not believe in trying to understand the Bible in other ways from the traditional rabbinical exegesis. And I consider myself an authority since I am a rabbi. But I am willing not to continue the conversation. Debresser (talk) 15:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well this isn't a synagogue, it's an encyclopedia. And you are not the only religion that founds itself on the Abrahamic traditions. This is a neutral ground, for scholarly (not divine) discussions. And as I am not a practitioner of any of the Abrahamic religions, in the spirit of wikipedia (who's foundation is on a neutral point of view), my position as someone who has studied multiple interpretations is of just as much if not more authority than your own. So refrain from attempting to correct me in the future with your non neutral (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view) perspectives. You are also not a good representation of Rabbinical tradition. As every Rabbi I know (and some I've referenced here) state that betrothal is the first stage of marriage, and the woman in 22:25 would be considered married by law (which would make a solid justification for referring to her as wife). A wise rabbi would also caution (as the quote above) against considering ancient marriage ceremonies from the view of modern marriage law (Talmudic or otherwise), and would likely caution you about your attitude, and encourage you to have some humility ("The fear of the LORD is the instruction of wisdom; and before honour is humility."), as your arrogance does not present your faith very well. Jave Cantrell (talk) 16:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * But you are completely correct about verses 28-29 that they refer to a maiden, and no reference to seduction or a field, rather it says clearly in verse 29 that she was forced. Debresser (talk) 00:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)