Saturday, August 3, 2013

Rabbi Rapoport's clarification regarding the Levy abuse case

Rabbi Rapoport just issued a clarification of his widely misunderstood statement regarding the Levy case
My statement about the ‘arbitrariness’ of the age of consent (News, July 26) has been terribly misrepresented. In no way did I intend to minimise the severity of a sexual relationship with someone underage or to defend the perpetrator. On the contrary, I emphasised that even if sexual contact began when Goldsobel was over the legal age of consent, Levy still transgressed Jewish law, it was an ethical misdemeanour and may well have been exploitative. 

Confidential propriety and moral integrity prevent me from providing an adequate explanation for my involvement in this case. However, lest my position be misconstrued as acquiescence to the widespread injustice to abuse victims, I state unequivocally: Sexual predators are a threat to society and must be incarcerated. Those with reasonable suspicion of abuse must inform legal authorities. I condemn those who belittle the plight of victims or ostracise them and show support for their abusers. I applaud and actively assist institutions that support victims.
Rabbi Chaim Rapoport

32 comments :

  1. You seem to put consensual sex out of marriage on par with sexual abuse. And this is where you are wrong, and you do not seem to change your opinion in this article. So I still think your views are immoral.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Was not inherently exploitative, but "may well have been exploitative."

    Not a serious offence, but "a misdemeanour."

    "Moral integrity" prevents him from clarifying.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Et vahav besufoEt vahav besufoAugust 4, 2013 at 6:09 AM

    @ tzoorba of "Et vahav besufo",
    July 26, 2013 at 8:45 PM etc.

    Since you vanished without a trace after I responded to you in several tshuvot. Read
    "Rabbi Rapoport's clarification regarding the Levy abuse case".

    Boruch shekivanti. When everything considered, it is not the splitting of the two hairs of ketana, Naarah or Bagrut. VLVO Veda"l


    ReplyDelete
  4. Quoting Rabbi Rapoport:

    "However, lest my position be misconstrued as acquiescence to the widespread injustice to abuse victims, I state unequivocally: Sexual predators are a threat to society and must be incarcerated."

    That is however, with the exception of when an influential, wealthy and well connected member of the community like Menachem Levy is found to be a sexual predator because in that instance I will waltz into court and tell them that under Jewish law there should be no incarceration because Jewish law does not recognise the concept of a 'child' under the age of 16 years of age. I will also tell the court that in Jewish Law there is no arbitrary age of when a child becomes a consenting adult. I will also ensure that the court does not become aware that under Jewish Law there is no punishment meted out on anyone under the arbitrary age of 20 who had sex out of wedlock.

    Ha ha, Rabbi Rapoport - you don't fool us!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. E why do you keep repeating this falsehood that there is no punishment under the age of 20? A 12/13 year old does in fact get punished by a human beis din.

      See this discussion of the matter

      http://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/8629/why-does-earthly-punishment-start-at-13-and-divine-punishment-at-20

      Delete
    2. Rav Eidensohn,
      Saying something is false does not make it false.

      How many times do you need to be reminded that the Levy/Goldsobel affair has nothing to do with a human beis din as it is 'merely' a relationship outside of wedlock. The maximum it could be is an Issur Niddah which is a Kores. If not then it is 'only' an Issur D'rabonnon of Chupa & Kiddushin.

      There are many sources stating that there is no heavenly punishment until 20 years old. Perhaps you should take a look at Rashi in Bereshis 16:27 (from prior to Matan Torah) and Rashi in Bamidbor 23:1 (from post Matan Torah).

      Delete
    3. E you can't have it both ways. You stated,

      "I will also ensure that the court does not become aware that under Jewish Law there is no punishment meted out on anyone under the arbitrary age of 20 who had sex out of wedlock."

      You made no distinction between a human court and a Heavenly court. That failure makes your statement false. If you bothered reading the link I provided you would see that distinction was clearly made.

      The issue raised by this case is whether psychological pressures on a young girl should also mitigate the sin from the point of view of a human court.

      Please carefully read the other comments including my own rather than creating your own version of the discussion which is clearly inaccurate.

      Delete
    4. Rav Eidensohn,
      Your comment above is incorrect and your criticism unjustified.

      There is no difference between the punishment of a person under the age of 20 who had sex out of wedlock meted out by the Heavenly court and that meted out by the (Jewish) human court. The punishment is the same, I.e. Nothing

      Regarding what the issue of this case is about, I disagree with you entirely.
      From a Jewish perspective, the issue is whether we utilise the civil court system to achieve a social outcome within the Jewish community. This is a Halachic issue. Using the civil system in this way is based on the Rashba (3:393)

      Once we have accepted that we are to use the civil system in this way then incarceration of offenders becomes inevitable.

      In relation to the Levy/Goldsobel matter, under the civil system, a judge at sentencing will consider if there were any mitigating factors to reduce the length of jail time. It is at this point that Rabbi Rapoport made a submission to the court where he falsely stated that under 'Jewish law' there is no distinction between a 15 year old girl and an older woman who fully consented with sex out of wedlock. Now, the above is not the exact words of Rabbi Rapoport, because what he actually said was that there is no distinction between 15 years and 16 years, which at face value is a true statement, but under the circumstances where he was making this submission, he did not mean '16 years'. These words are a 'proxy' or 'handle' to the term "an older woman who fully consented with sex out of wedlock".

      This is why I have criticised Rabbi Rapoport. What he should have said is that Ms Goldsobel was very mature at the time and although she was only 15 years old, she had the maturity of a 16 year old person. I would have had no objection if he then said that the 15/16 year old distinction is 'arbitrary'. My complaint is because he said that under Jewish Law it is arbitrary. This is a falsehood because Jewish Law does have an arbitrary age in relation to sex out of wedlock which is 20 years.

      Delete
    5. E you are wrong. The human beis din provides punishment and it does not make a distinction between below or above 20 regarding sexual relations out of wedlock.

      For example this teshuva of the Rosh (18:13) regarding a widow who was having sexual relations with an Arab.

      שו"ת הרא"ש כלל יח סימן יג

      גדול העצה, וגבור המליצה, אדון השכל והחכמות, אשר מעשיו הנעימות, לא אוכל לנקוב אותם בשמות. עטרת ישראל, ראש גולת אריאל, רוח השם בקרבו, תל שהכל פונים בו. הרב הגדול רבי אשר, שצ"ו, השם יבשרך משמי עילות, אתה שלום וביתך שלום, כחשקך וחשק אני הבא בחתום, דורש טובתך ושלומך במפורש ובסתום. המודיע לכבודך, שבהיותי בקוקא עכשיו, עם דון גואן, שצ"ו, נודע לי ממקצת יהודים אשר הם שם, כי אלמנה אחת נתעברה מישמעאל אחד וכריסה בין שניה, וקלא דלא פסיק נפק עלה. ואני חקרתי ושאלתי הענין בכל יכלתי עם היהודים, לידע אם יש עדים ברורים על זה, כדי לאמת אותו על נכון. ולא מצאתי שום יהודי שיעיד עדות ברורה עליה, אבל אמרו לי, כי כן נודע בעיר בקלא דלא פסיק, ושהאלמנה הנזכרת נתנה רוב נכסיה לישמעאל שהיא חשודה עמו. ושאלו ממנה היהודים, כשראוה מעוברת, ממי נתעברה, והודתה בפניהם שמן הישמעאל שהיתה חשודה עמו; ומפני שיראתי שמא תתחלף לא נראה לי לדרוש ולחקור בפרהסיא על זה. וגם כן בא תרעומות זה ממני בקוקא, בפני דון גואן, שצ"ו, מהישמעאלי אשר שם, והוא השיב להם כי זה הדין אינו שלו, מאחר שהיא יהודית, אבל אנו שנדין אותה על פי משפטי תורתנו. ואח"כ, כשהלכנו לקוליאר, נודע לי שילדה זכר ונקבה, כ"ד לאייר, ומת הזכר והמירה הנקבה, שלקחוה הישמעאלים, על פי הדברים אשר אמרתי, שהישמעאלים אומרים כי כן הוא. על כן אני מחלה פניך היקרים והנעימים, שתנחני בעצתך הנכונה כיצד אדון אותה, כדי שלא יהיו משפטי תורתנו קלים ובזויים בעיני העמים. שמאת השם היה לתת כזאת בלב דון גואן, שצ"ו, להעמידנו על דתנו, יש לנו להחמיר הדין כפי שתיעצני, ולא להקל. וכמו שלמדתנו: מעשה באחד שרכב על סוס וכו'; ומעשה באחד שהטיח באשתו תחת התאנה. ושכל הקהלות אשר סביבות קוקא מרננין, כי יצא דבר הזונה על כל הגוים להבזות דתנו בעיניהם, ולמען תשמענ*ה כל הנשים ולא תעשינה כזמתה. ומה שעלה בדעתי, מפני שהענין כל כך מפורסם, ליסרה כדת /בדפוס ויניציאה שס"ז: מפורסם לחתוך חוטמה/, כדי לשחת תאר פניה שקשטה בפני הבועל, ושתפרע לאדוני העיר קצת ממון. ועתה, אם תרצה בעצתך להחמיר יותר, או לישאר בדיני, כן אעשה, ממנה לא אטה. והוצרכתי לשלוח לפניך זה הדין, כדי להעמידני על נכון, ובחסדך, שתאזור כח וחיל, לשלוח לי מענה מיד, ומאת השם יוסיפו לך מעלה על מעלתך וכבוד על כבודך. נאם החותם מ"ד לעמר שנת פ' לפרט. יהודה ב"ר יצחק נ"ע ואקר.

      תשובה: הנכבד החכם רבי יהודה בן ואקר, ש"צ, יפה דנת, ליסרה כדת /בדפוס ויניציאה שס"ז: דנת וחתכו חטמה/ כדי שתתגנה על מנאפיה; ודבר זה יעשו פתאום, כדי שלא תצא לתרבות רעה; ולפי עושרה לקנסה בממונה. ואתה וכל אשר לך שלום, כנפש אשר בן ה"ר יחיאל ז"ל.

      Delete
    6. Rambam based on Kiddushin 81a say that a man who has yichud with an unmarried woman - they both are flogged. No distinction of whether she is above or below 20

      רמב"ם הלכות איסורי ביאה פרק כב הלכה ג

      כשאירע מעשה אמנון ותמר גזר דוד ובית דינו על ייחוד פנויה, ואף על פי שאינה ערוה בכלל ייחוד עריות היא, ושמאי והלל גזרו על ייחוד כותית, נמצא כל המתייחד עם אשה שאסור להתייחד עמה בין ישראלית בין כותית מכין את שניהן מכת מרדות האיש והאשה, ומכריזין עליהן, חוץ מאשת איש שאע"פ שאסור להתייחד עמה אם נתייחד אין לוקין, שלא להוציא לעז עליה שזינתה ונמצאו מוציאין לעז על הבנים שהן ממזרים.

      Delete
    7. Rambam also says that hugging and kissing with a prohibited woman (e.g. niddah) is punishable by the Torah with flogging. No distinction between below or above 20

      רמב"ם הלכות איסורי ביאה פרק כא הלכה א

      כל הבא על ערוה מן העריות דרך איברים או שחבק ונשק דרך תאוה ונהנה בקרוב בשר הרי זה לוקה מן התורה, שנאמר לבלתי עשות מחקות התועבות וגו' ונאמר לא תקרבו לגלות ערוה, כלומר לא תקרבו לדברים המביאין לידי גילוי ערוה.

      Delete
    8. Rambam says flirting is punishable by rabbinical flogging. No distinction is made below or above 20

      רמב"ם הלכות איסורי ביאה פרק כא

      הלכה ב
      העושה דבר מחוקות אלו הרי הוא חשוד על העריות, ואסור לאדם לקרוץ בידיו וברגליו או לרמוז בעיניו לאחת מן העריות או לשחוק עמה או להקל ראש ואפילו להריח בשמים שעליה או להביט ביפיה אסור, ומכין למתכוין לדבר זה מכת מרדות, והמסתכל אפילו באצבע קטנה של אשה ונתכוון להנות כמי שנסתכל במקום התורף ואפילו לשמוע קול הערוה או לראות שערה אסור.

      Delete
    9. There is a dispute between the Rambam and Ravad concerning sexual relations without marriage (apparently she went to mivke and wasn't a niddah). Rambam says that she is a kadesha and there is Torah flogging. Ravad says she is a pilegesh. No mention of distinction below or above the age of 20.


      רמב"ם הלכות אישות פרק א

      קודם מתן תורה היה אדם פוגע אשה בשוק אם רצה הוא והיא נותן לה שכרה ובועל אותה על אם הדרך והולך לו, וזו היא הנקראת קדשה, משנתנה התורה נאסרה הקדשה שנאמר +דברים כ"ג+ לא תהיה קדשה מבנות ישראל, לפיכך כל הבועל אשה לשם זנות בלא קידושין לוקה מן התורה מפני שבעל קדשה. +/השגת הראב"ד/ קודם מתן תורה אדם פוגע אשה בשוק אם רצה הוא והיא נותן לה שכרה ובועל אותה על אם הדרך והולך לו וזו היא הנקראת קדשה. א"א אין קדשה אלא מזומנת והיא המופקרת לכל אדם אבל המייחדת עצמה לאיש אחד אין בה לא מלקות ולא איסור לאו והיא הפילגש הכתובה, ובעלי הלשון דורשין פילגש מלה הפוכה ומורכבת בפי שגל עומדת לפרקים למשגל משמשת את הבית ופעמים למשכב, ויש ספרים שכתוב בהם (סנהדרין כא) פילגשים קדושין בלא כתובה, מ"מ אין איסור לאו אלא במזמנת עצמה לכל אדם, שאם כדבריו מפתה היאך משלם עליה ממון והלא לוקה עליה אלא ודאי משהוצרכה לפיתוי אינה קדשה.+

      Delete
    10. By your own admission, she is a Pilegesh (at least according to the Raaved) which is enough to stop a Beis Din giving her any punishment regardless of what the Rambam holds.

      Are we therefore in agreement now, that no distinction can be drawn between the heavenly court and the earthly (Jewish) court in the Levy/Goldsobel matter up until 20 years of age, that in both courts, there is no punishment?

      Assuming that Goldsobel was a Niddah, then Levy gets Kores and Goldsobel gets off scott free due to her being 'under-age'.

      Rapoport is therefore wrong when he says that under Jewish law there is no distinction between Levy & Goldsobel

      Delete
    11. Nope! Don't understand how you can read the sources I have provided above saying just the opposite of your conclusion and yet you continue to repeat your mistaken views.

      Delete
    12. I'm not sure which part of the following words you think that I don't understand:

      אבל המייחדת עצמה לאיש אחד אין בה לא מלקות ולא איסור לאו

      Your assertion that I have a mistaken view is clearly wrong.

      Delete
    13. I really don't understand what your problem is. I just provide a number of sources which clearly indicate that beis din does in fact punish prior to the age of 20.


      You have consistently said that there is no punishment by human beis din below the age of 20. That is categorically wrong. The age of 20 is only relevant for punishment by the Heavenly beis din. I have brought sources that the human court punishes for niddah, yichud, flirting and according to the Rambam (premarital sex). Your sole possible support for no punishment [but not just below 20] is the Ravad that you cite above - that holds that living together makes her a pilegesh and thus not liable for kadesha, yichud, flirting and however the poskim are concerned for possible nidda . However I don't think the Ravad would hold that a clandestine relationship makes a woman a pilegesh. In what sense was she in an exclusive relationship with him? They clearly were not living together. But even if the Ravad holds that she is a pilegesh - there is no basis for saying that beis din does not punish for sins if she is less then 20!


      In sum, you are wrong that a beis din does not punish before the age of 20. You have not provided a single source that says such a thing. Furthermore if in fact she is a pilegesh then there is no sin and it is irrelevant to the discussion since 20 years is not a parameter for pilegesh.

      Delete
    14. It is never a good idea to put words into other people's mouths. I have never said that there is no punishment by human beis din under 20 years nor did I ever say that an over 20 year old pilegesh gets a punishment.

      What I did say was that in this case there is no punishment by a human beis din regardless of the age of the persons involved. However, with regard to the heavenly beis din, there is a punishment because Levy will get Kores on the Issur Niddah but Goldsobel will not and in that aspect there is a difference between under 20 and over 20 years old.

      I do not agree with your view regarding the clandestine relationship aspect. The key issue is whether the woman involved is sleeping around town or whether only with a single man. There is no question that in this case she was in a relationship with one person only.

      Delete
    15. E wrote:

      It is never a good idea to put words into other people's mouths. I have never said that there is no punishment by human beis din under 20 years nor did I ever say that an over 20 year old pilegesh gets a punishment.

      What I did say was that in this case there is no punishment by a human beis din regardless of the age of the persons involved. However, with regard to the heavenly beis din, there is a punishment because Levy will get Kores on the Issur Niddah but Goldsobel will not and in that aspect there is a difference between under 20 and over 20 years old.

      =================
      .
      E it might be a good idea if you paid attention to what you actually wrote and in fact you have clearly stated that below the age of 20 there is no punishment


      "I will also ensure that the court does not become aware that under Jewish Law there is no punishment meted out on anyone under the arbitrary age of 20 who had sex out of wedlock.

      Ha ha, Rabbi Rapoport - you don't fool us!"


      ===========

      Rav Eidensohn,
      Your comment above is incorrect and your criticism unjustified.

      There is no difference between the punishment of a person under the age of 20 who had sex out of wedlock meted out by the Heavenly court and that meted out by the (Jewish) human court. The punishment is the same, I.e. Nothing

      ================

      Delete
    16. Are we now in agreement that there is no punishment under Jewish law for Goldsobel who had sex outside of wedlock with Levy, with the reason being that at the time of that sin (which includes Niddah) she was under 20 years of age?

      Delete
    17. No! there is no basis for saying that the punishment of beis din for niddah, yichud, flirting, premarital sex doesn't apply for someone less than 20. See all the above sources.

      Don't understand why you keep repeating the same incorrect assertions over and over again. Show me one source that says that beis din does not punishment someone because they are less than 20 years old.

      Delete
    18. "I'm not sure which part of the following words you think that I don't understand:

      אבל המייחדת עצמה לאיש אחד אין בה לא מלקות ולא איסור לאו

      Your assertion that I have a mistaken view is clearly wrong."

      You're cherry picking. That's clearly about Eshet Ish, because we don't want to cause gossip that she is prostituing herself and that the kids might be mamzers. Otherwise, both get punished. No mention of age.

      Source, right before what you quoted:
      "שניהן מכת מרדות האיש והאשה, ומכריזין עליהן, חוץ מאשת איש"

      Delete
    19. In response to 'Daas Torah'
      Here are the 2 sources for my assertions - (repeatedly stating that they are incorrect is not going to change their validity):
      1) the Ra'aved mentioned above which relates to human punishment
      אבל המייחדת עצמה לאיש אחד אין בה לא מלקות ולא איסור לאו
      The Ra'aved states that there is no human punishment in the Levy Goldsobel matter - with this applying to both Levy & Goldsobel
      2) Rashi in Bamidbor 23:1 states that ordinarily there is no heavenly punishment to people under the age of 20 years old. Accordingly, in the Levy Goldsobel matter, Levy will receive Kores for the Issur Niddah but Goldsobel will not.

      Contrary to Rabbi Rapoport's assertion, the conclusion that can be drawn is that under Jewish law there is a difference between a person over 20 years old and a person under 20 years old in the Levy Goldsobel matter which involved sex outside of wedlock.

      In response to 'Ariel Dahan'
      You apparently are not familiar with the argument between the Rambam and the Ra'aved.
      The words that I quote are those of the Ra'aved. The words that you quote are those of the Rambam.


      Delete
    20. E you are simply being less than honest in your communication. You are now basing your repeated assertion that there is no punishment below the age of 20 on the assumption that she was a pilegesh and that the only issur was niddah and that is punished only after the age of 20. You never mentioned pilegesh until I cited the Ravad.

      However there are major problems with your assertions as you now present them. Clearly the Rambam would says she is not a pilegesh and thus would be punished by beis din even though she is less than 20? I am not aware of Rav Moshe Feinstein, Rav Eliashiv etc etc saying that pilegesh is a legitimate status today.

      Furthermore even if pilegesh exists today - who says that this is a case of pilegesh? In what sense did he set her aside for an exclusive relationship? Is there any evidence that he told her that she was his pilgesh or mistress? Do you know the procedure for making a woman a pilegesh? Is it generally agreed upon?

      You now have to establish that you have even a single posek who would declare a married man having a clandestine affair with a 14 year old as legitimate because she was his pilegesh. The poskim would say there is no pilegesh here and that therefore there is an issur of yichud, niddah, premaritalsex and therefore she would be punishmed by Jewish law.

      Please cite a single source in the last 200 years that views this relationship as being pilegesh!

      If you can not find one then it is clear that the relationship in fact is sinful by Jewish law and that they both would be punished by Jewish Law. Furthermore your ridicule of Rabbi Rapoport has no basis and you owe him an apologee.

      The sole question is whether a naive frum girl in our present society can be assumed to not understand what was happening and she was psychologically manipulated and thus should be viewed as free of sin because she had no free-will.

      Delete
    21. Rav Eidensohn, you have an irritating habit of putting words into other people's mouths and you should desist from doing this in the future.

      If you wish to assert that if something is sinful then there is a punishment under Jewish law then that is a matter for you. I do not however subscribe to that view.

      At no time did I say that the relationship between Levy and Goldsobel was that of a pilegesh nor have I said that this practice is extant today nor do I condone what has happened. I certainly do not owe Rabbi Rapoport any apology.

      What I have said is that there is no punishment under Jewish law for sex outside of wedlock except in relation to the Issur Niddah. I have based this on the Ra'aved and that is true whether you call her a pilegesh or whether she is a de facto one. The Ra'aved's rule applies as long as she is not a "Kedaisha" - i.e. someone who is a prostitute, someone who is ready to have sex with anyone.

      Furthermore, and in regard to human punishment, I do not have to establish that the relationship between Levy and Goldsobel was legitimate. All I have to establish is that under Jewish law there is no punishment.

      In relation to Rabbi Rapoport, he should not have supported Levy in the way he did. Furthermore, in this post he is justifying his view which is to 100% equate a 30 year old man to a 15 year old girl based on Jewish Law which is plainly wrong.





      Delete
    22. E you have made a number of assertion which are not supported in halacha. There clearly is punishment for having yichud with an unmarried woman, as well as sex outside of marriage or even flirting - as I have shown in the citation above.

      Your criticism of Rabbi Rapoport also is your own opinion unsupported by sources.

      It is simply a waste of time continuing this discussion.

      Delete
    23. We will have to agree to disagree then.

      Delete
  5. "@ tzoorba of "Et vahav besufo",
    July 26, 2013 at 8:45 PM etc.

    Since you vanished without a trace after I responded to you in several tshuvot. Read
    "Rabbi Rapoport's clarification regarding the Levy abuse case".

    Boruch shekivanti. When everything considered, it is not the splitting of the two hairs of ketana, Naarah or Bagrut. VLVO Veda"l"

    I didn't respond because nothing needed to be added to what I had already said and proved from sources.

    You still don't understand that whether or not there is an onesh of Koreis, this poor woman performed a Korais level aveira. Let a talmid chochom that you respect explain the difference to you. She therefore needs some level of teshuva. Tzadikim used to even do teshuva for chatos neurim.

    I don't subscribe to Rabbi Rapoport as my rov and especially since he is linked to the posul Chovivei Harisus Hatorah as far as I know.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hofach kol even al tilahAugust 6, 2013 at 7:56 PM

    As I explained, these sources have no relevancy here. At most, Esther karka olam hi. Whether she needs a kapara on shogeg /oness (tartei mashma) or not, it is beinah lebein konah, and does not diminish his culpability. In any which case, it is 'He', that is in the eye of the storm, obligated to compensate her, and beg for forgiveness, if only possible on such. May Hashem harofe lishvirei lev give her peace in life. Amen.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hofuch,

    Esther karka olam is only a sevara why she wasn't mechuyav in yehoraig v'al yaavor. That is not the situation or the issue here at all and has no relevancy.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mihepech lehepechAugust 7, 2013 at 4:45 PM

      Not a willing nor a consenting participant, in conjunction with ALL accumulative previously mentioned reasons, grooming not the least, it is big time relevant. This very same svara works perfectly and fits like a glove. Over n out.

      Delete
  8. The Torah only considers a Jew to have reached the age of responsibility at 20. The sages have lowered the age of responsibility to be from the production of visible signs of adolescence and for the sake of practicality and propriety have fixed this to be 12 for females and 13 for males.

    Regarding consensual sex for a women of 12 or above, the Torah only restricts this for a woman who is betrothed or married to a man, is of a specified familial kin or during menstruation. Non consensual sex, with a female of any age, has a prescribed punitive tariff,  which modern secular legal systems would consider inappropriate and barbaric. 

    For social reasons and for the maintenance of a pure community, the sages have laid down numerous statutes to distance people from all sexual activity out of wedlock. To enforce this, the sages have empowered the courts to mete out corporal punishment to people of either sex who behave immorally. However,  in these days of a long and dark exile, these courts have no authority,  beyond arbitration status.

    Setting aside the obligation to comply with the secular laws of the land, Rapaport  is correct in stating that there is no halachic difference if Miss G was 13 or 23, if it were consensual.

    Never the less, Rapaport's evidence was a futile attempt to pull the wool over the judiciary,  was rightly ignored,  and probably caused much pain to Miss G as well as a large desecration of The sacred Name. 

    Levy acknowledged a sexual relationship with her. The prosecution claimed she was not consenting and was under 16 - a minor - so consent has no bearing,  it is statutory rape. The defence maintain that she was over 16 and a consenting participant, thereby no illegal activity took place. 

    As at the time the relationship commenced Levy was non-observant, whether it was okay or verboten in Jewish law, biblical or rabbinical, was not a consideration he was likely to have had - even if he was aware of it.

    ReplyDelete

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED!
please use either your real name or a pseudonym.