Aderet (Me’ane Eliyahu #32 1895): A disgusting event occurred here in the Mir community. A young man, the son of the tailor, fell in love with a servant…however she was not interested in him and rejected him. One Shabbos night after the meal, she went for a walk with one of her relatives outside the city and he accompanied them. When they were far from other people, they were suddenly attacked by two young men. These assailants threatened to stab the two men who had accompanied her - if they attempted to put up any resistance. Out of fear for their lives the two men who had accompanied her ran away – and she was left alone with the assailants. They grabbed her and raped her – despite her struggling against them with all her strength they overpowered her. They severely beat her despite her screams for help. After the brazen assailants fled, the two young men returned to her and brought her wounded and beaten to a doctor for treatment. The community was outraged by this act. Her relatives wanted to press charges with the police so that the assailants should be properly punished. They came to me and I spoke with them to quiet the matter so that it should not disgrace the Jews in the eyes of the non‑Jews by the wanton act of our youth that they would rape, transgress Shabbos and threaten to kill. There was also the danger that could result from going against these brazen youth. The relatives listened to me and did not go to the police. However it seemed that the whole thing was plotted by the youth that was in love with her. He apparently hoped that by degrading her she would finally accept him. Therefore an agreement was worked out with the relatives of the girl, this youth and the relatives of her assailants. The rapist would pay 100 rubles as a dowry, the youth who loved her would marry her as soon as possible lest he find her disgusting because of the rape. Finally the father of the youth signed a promissory note to provide two hundred ruble only after they got married. However a question arose how she could get married immediately since the halacha seemed to require that she needed to wait 3 months to make sure that she wasn’t pregnant from the rapist….
Rabbi E.,
ReplyDeleteI sent you an email with an urgent question regarding abuse. Please check your inbox (I sent it to yadmoshe address, I think at Yahoo.) If you do not see this email, please post a comment to let me know.
phineas- i believe his email address is at gmail- yadmoshe@gmail.com
ReplyDeleteThis article brings up the issue of how to halachically cope with changing social mores.
ReplyDeleteIn those days the woman had few rights. Today, women are members of equal standing. Today, could the whole case be turned around and allow this woman to sue the young man in bais din?
In those days perhaps the father could sue for the value of her virginity. Today, she could go to the police and have the leader/fiancee put in jail rather than live with him for the rest of her life, after he established the terms of their relationship.
Could she today sue for nezek, tzaar, repui, sheves and boishess? Do today's accepted social mores get applied to cases in bais din? Do we care that otherwise it would seem to the umos haolam that frumme yidden are lacking in social development?
I have heard both sides of this argument and have not heard any consensus. Perhaps someone can chime in to give opinions of those who post here.
"Do we care that otherwise it would seem to the umos haolam that frumme yidden are lacking in social development?"
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely not. We don't bend halacha to fit the social mores of the umos haolam.
Who is, and when was it published, the Aderet - Me’ane Eliyahu?
ReplyDeleteBen Torah said...
ReplyDelete"Do we care that otherwise it would seem to the umos haolam that frumme yidden are lacking in social development?"
Absolutely not. We don't bend halacha to fit the social mores of the umos haolam.
=============
not true. there are a number of halachos which have been changed because of what the goyim think. See the Rosh on blasphemy where he agree to kill him because that is what the goyim do. Rav Moshe's rejection of the Mishna Berura concerning aiva because what the goyimm will think. A ger marrying relatives etc etc
What was the overidding element in the eitza not to go to the police? Was it the chillul Hashem issue or the danger that it posed?
ReplyDeleteThis post also needs a bit of clarification. Was the man in question involved in the rape or did he use those other two youths as guns for hire?
ReplyDelete" there are a number of halachos which have been changed because of what the goyim think. See the Rosh on blasphemy where he agree to kill him because that is what the goyim do. Rav Moshe's rejection of the Mishna Berura concerning aiva because what the goyimm will think. A ger marrying relatives etc etc"
ReplyDeleteplus, most prominently, the ban of rabbi Gershon...
Bartley Kulp said...
ReplyDeleteWhat was the overidding element in the eitza not to go to the police? Was it the chillul Hashem issue or the danger that it posed?
===========
It seemed that the chillul hashem was the main factor - though it might simply be his writing style.
Even describing it as an issue of chillul hashem is not accurate in that if Jews got a reputation as thugs then it might cause life threatening consequences in other situations. This was written while he was still in Europe in the late 1800's
It actually say "that it would cause a degradation of the reputation of the Jews by reporting the lawlessness of their youth"
Bartley Kulp said...
ReplyDeleteThis post also needs a bit of clarification. Was the man in question involved in the rape or did he use those other two youths as guns for hire?
=============
he was suspected of hiring the others - but was not directly involved in the rape
plus, most prominently, the ban of rabbi Gershon...
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what ban you are discussing.
If you are talking about Rabbeinu Gershom declaring that Jewish men can only have one wife (and all the decrees that followed from this), I was under the impression that its reason was a matter of pikuach nefesh. That the celibate Crusaders were killing Muslim families in fits of frustration and fury, seeing their multiple wives, and that Rabbeinu Gershom felt that the crusaders would do the same to Jews.
Reading each other's mail was a matter of parnassah. Are you discussing someone else and/or another ban? I'm not up to speed on most modern matters.
>Even describing it as an issue of chillul hashem is not accurate in that if Jews got a reputation as thugs then it might cause life threatening consequences in other situations. This was written while he was still in Europe in the late 1800's<
ReplyDeleteJust read a book on the Jewish Partisans in WWII. Author made the point of stating that until the group got guns, the local population would not take them seriously at all.
It goes without saying that hopefully the three fellows are roasting in hell somewhere...
ReplyDeleteAnother example of halacha changing because of "Ma yomru haGoyim" is a convert who is forbidden midrabbanan from marrying his sister if she converts too, even though mid'oraysa, they're both ben/bas Avraham and not really connected l'halacha.
ReplyDeleteIt goes without saying that hopefully the three fellows are roasting in hell somewhere...
ReplyDelete++++++++++++++
Hell is, generally at most, 11 months.
So we saying that the issue of "ma y'amru goyim is not necessarily an issue of chillul Hashem but also a political security issue?
ReplyDeleteHe did not use the term chillul hashem per say.