4 Cleaned up errors
source | link

This passage does not approve anything. The perpetrator is still guilty of the grave sin of sexual relations outside of marriasexuEhatmarriage. What the rabbis are saying here is that the girl should not be forbidden from mairagemarriage later because she has been abused; they must treat her as though she had been injured by something else and not hold the pedophylia against her because it isnt her fault. She is to be treated as a marraigable virgin while the punishment for the man who harmed her is discussed in another part of the Talmud. The same is true for a young boy who is molested. He is not to be considered as though he had had intercourse, but is to be allowed to marry later withoit holding the rape against him; again, the pedophile's punishment is discussed in another section of the Law...

This passage does not approve anything. The perpetrator is still guilty of the grave sin of sexual relations outside of marriasexuEhat the rabbis are saying here is that the girl should not be forbidden from mairage later because she has been abused; they must treat her as though she had been injured by something else and not hold the pedophylia against her because it isnt her fault. She is to be treated as a marraigable virgin while the punishment for the man who harmed her is discussed in another part of the Talmud. The same is true for a young boy who is molested. He is not to be considered as though he had had intercourse, but is to be allowed to marry later withoit holding the rape against him; again, the pedophile's punishment is discussed in another section of the Law...

This passage does not approve anything. The perpetrator is still guilty of the grave sin of sexual relations outside of marriage. What the rabbis are saying here is that the girl should not be forbidden from marriage later because she has been abused; they must treat her as though she had been injured by something else and not hold the pedophylia against her because it isnt her fault. She is to be treated as a marraigable virgin while the punishment for the man who harmed her is discussed in another part of the Talmud. The same is true for a young boy who is molested. He is not to be considered as though he had had intercourse, but is to be allowed to marry later withoit holding the rape against him; again, the pedophile's punishment is discussed in another section of the Law...

3 Edited to further clarify the statements about the boy's injury being like a piece of wood and the girl's injury like a poke to the eye. These phrases are meant to intend that the molestation does not bind the child to the pedophile in marraige, but are an injury and cannot be held against the child
source | link

This passage does not approve anything. The perpetrator is still guilty of the grave sin of sexual relations outside of marriagemarriasexuEhat the rabbis are saying here is that the girl should not be forbidden from mairage later because she has been abused; they must treat her as though she had been injured by something else and not hold the pedophylia against her because it isnt her fault. ThereShe is to be treated as a marraigable virgin while the punishment for the man who harmed her is discussed in another part of the Talmud. The same is true for a young boy who is molested. He is not to be considered as though he had had intercourse, but is to be allowed to marry later withoit holding the rape against him; again, the pedophile's punishment is discussed in another section of the Law...

Now there is no doubt about whether it is a sin to have sex for lust only; it is as clear as day:

This passage does not approve anything. The perpetrator is still guilty of the grave sin of sexual relations outside of marriage. There is no doubt about whether it is a sin to have sex for lust only; it is as clear as day:

This passage does not approve anything. The perpetrator is still guilty of the grave sin of sexual relations outside of marriasexuEhat the rabbis are saying here is that the girl should not be forbidden from mairage later because she has been abused; they must treat her as though she had been injured by something else and not hold the pedophylia against her because it isnt her fault. She is to be treated as a marraigable virgin while the punishment for the man who harmed her is discussed in another part of the Talmud. The same is true for a young boy who is molested. He is not to be considered as though he had had intercourse, but is to be allowed to marry later withoit holding the rape against him; again, the pedophile's punishment is discussed in another section of the Law...

Now there is no doubt about whether it is a sin to have sex for lust only; it is as clear as day:

2 added 1874 characters in body
source | link

It is simply not true. Period. The citation to Yevamoth lead you no where relevant, and. Another false allegation is than usually brought further by falsely quoting Ketuvot 11b. I bring it here for the rounding out the question to the broader issue of people trying to use false quotation of the talmud to somehow prove it supports pedophilia. Ketovot11b describes a different situation than usually depicted: it describes the situation where a minor boy has relations with a female adult. Nowhere will you find a discussion about whether such a relation is permitted; the quote "Sexual intercourse with a little girl is permitted if she is three years of age." is completely fictional. the passage only deals with the consequence a-posteriori: IF such a thing has happened, what consequence does it have for: 1) the dowry and 2) whether such a female can marry a cohen.

The discussion is very technical, but ultimately not relevant to the issue raised against the talmud. Nowhere is it stated that such a relation is ever allowed. A translation of relevant passages from ketuvot 11b from sefaria:

A. Rav Judah said that Rav said: A young boy who has intercourse with an adult woman makes her [as though she were] injured by a piece of wood. When I said this before Shmuel he said: There is no such thing as “injured by a piece of wood” when done by flesh. Some teach this teaching on its own: [As to] a young boy who has intercourse with an adult woman: Rav said:... He makes her [as though she were] injured by a piece of wood; whereas Shmuel said: There is no such thing as “injured by a piece of wood” when done by flesh. Oshaia objected: When an adult has had sexual intercourse with a young girl, or when a small boy has had intercourse with an adult woman, or a girl who was injured by a piece of wood — [in all these cases] their kethubah is two hundred [zuz], the words of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: a girl who was injured by a piece of wood — her kethubah is a maneh Rava said. It means this: When adult man has intercourse with a young girl it is nothing, for when the girl is less than this, it is like putting a finger into the eye.... But when a young boy has intercourse with an adult woman he makes her as “a girl who is injured by a piece of wood.” And “a girl injured by a piece of wood” is a dispute between R. Meir and the Sages. Rami b. Hama said: The dispute is only when he knew that she was [a mukat etz], for R. Meir compares her to a mature girl, and the Sages compare her to a woman who had intercourse with a man. But if he did not know that she was a [mukat etz] , all agree that she receives nothing.

It is very ironic that one of the great passages about mercy to the victims of pedophile rape has become the thing the enemies of the jewish people use against us.

This passage does not approve anything. The perpetrator is still guilty of the grave sin of sexual relations outside of marriage. There is no doubt about whether it is a sin to have sex for lust only; it is as clear as day:

Rambam, Mishne Thora, Sefer Nashim, Ishut, chapter 1, halacha 4:

Therefore, a person who has relations with a woman for the sake of lust, without kiddushin, receives lashes as prescribed by the Torah, because he had relations with a harlot.

It is simply not true. Period. The citation to Yevamoth lead you no where relevant, and Ketuvot 11b describes a different situation than usually depicted: it describes the situation where a minor boy has relations with a female adult. Nowhere will you find a discussion about whether such a relation is permitted; the passage only deals with the consequence a-posteriori: IF such a thing has happened, what consequence does it have for: 1) the dowry and 2) whether such a female can marry a cohen.

The discussion is very technical, but ultimately not relevant to the issue raised against the talmud. Nowhere is it stated that such a relation is ever allowed.

It is very ironic that one of the great passages about mercy to the victims of pedophile rape has become the thing the enemies of the jewish people use against us.

This passage does not approve anything. The perpetrator is still guilty of the grave sin of sexual relations outside of marriage. There is no doubt about whether it is a sin to have sex for lust only; it is as clear as day:

Rambam, Mishne Thora, Sefer Nashim, Ishut, chapter 1, halacha 4:

Therefore, a person who has relations with a woman for the sake of lust, without kiddushin, receives lashes as prescribed by the Torah, because he had relations with a harlot.

It is simply not true. Period. The citation to Yevamoth lead you no where relevant. Another false allegation is than usually brought further by falsely quoting Ketuvot 11b. I bring it here for the rounding out the question to the broader issue of people trying to use false quotation of the talmud to somehow prove it supports pedophilia. Ketovot11b describes a different situation than usually depicted: it describes the situation where a minor boy has relations with a female adult. Nowhere will you find a discussion about whether such a relation is permitted; the quote "Sexual intercourse with a little girl is permitted if she is three years of age." is completely fictional. the passage only deals with the consequence a-posteriori: IF such a thing has happened, what consequence does it have for: 1) the dowry and 2) whether such a female can marry a cohen.

The discussion is very technical, but ultimately not relevant to the issue raised against the talmud. Nowhere is it stated that such a relation is ever allowed. A translation of relevant passages from ketuvot 11b from sefaria:

A. Rav Judah said that Rav said: A young boy who has intercourse with an adult woman makes her [as though she were] injured by a piece of wood. When I said this before Shmuel he said: There is no such thing as “injured by a piece of wood” when done by flesh. Some teach this teaching on its own: [As to] a young boy who has intercourse with an adult woman: Rav said:... He makes her [as though she were] injured by a piece of wood; whereas Shmuel said: There is no such thing as “injured by a piece of wood” when done by flesh. Oshaia objected: When an adult has had sexual intercourse with a young girl, or when a small boy has had intercourse with an adult woman, or a girl who was injured by a piece of wood — [in all these cases] their kethubah is two hundred [zuz], the words of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: a girl who was injured by a piece of wood — her kethubah is a maneh Rava said. It means this: When adult man has intercourse with a young girl it is nothing, for when the girl is less than this, it is like putting a finger into the eye.... But when a young boy has intercourse with an adult woman he makes her as “a girl who is injured by a piece of wood.” And “a girl injured by a piece of wood” is a dispute between R. Meir and the Sages. Rami b. Hama said: The dispute is only when he knew that she was [a mukat etz], for R. Meir compares her to a mature girl, and the Sages compare her to a woman who had intercourse with a man. But if he did not know that she was a [mukat etz] , all agree that she receives nothing.

It is very ironic that one of the great passages about mercy to the victims of pedophile rape has become the thing the enemies of the jewish people use against us.

This passage does not approve anything. The perpetrator is still guilty of the grave sin of sexual relations outside of marriage. There is no doubt about whether it is a sin to have sex for lust only; it is as clear as day:

Rambam, Mishne Thora, Sefer Nashim, Ishut, chapter 1, halacha 4:

Therefore, a person who has relations with a woman for the sake of lust, without kiddushin, receives lashes as prescribed by the Torah, because he had relations with a harlot.

1
source | link