Next
Now while I was studying the topic of theft amongst the rabbinical sources, I came across what I saw as an odd sub-section of theft, namely, rape. Here are some examples of this rabbinic conclusion.
26) THIEVERY :
27) Kidnapping
28) Taking spoils of war
29) rape... (from Encyclopedia Talmudit of Rabbi Shlomo Yosef Zevin, cited at http://www.ohrtmimim.org/Torah_Default.asp?id=939, emphasis mine)
Theft: (To rob, embezzle.) (Includes rape and abduction) (from the article "The Seven Laws of the Descendents of Noah" found at http://www.noahide.org/article.asp?Level=173&Parent=166)
Against Larceny
Larceny - every kind of unrighteous or dishonest taking, including theft, fraud, robbery, receiving stolen goods, rape, kidnapping, assault and battery, defamation, counterfeiting, oppression of debtors or employees, and commercial crimes of every sort — defiles the Earth. (from the article "The Seven Principles" found at http://www.rainbowcovenant.org/pages/seven_laws.htm)
The prohibition of THEFT includes, armed robbery, theft, withholding a workers wages, and even rape (The rapist is stealing use of the women's body). (by Russell Hendel, moderator of "Rashi is Simple" in answer to the question, "What are the seven laws of Noach that all non-Jews must follow?" found at http://www.rashiyomi.com/tf5_93c.htm)
So we have the rabbinic opinion on the subject of rape, and how it constitutes as a heinous crime, which appears to have the punishment of death. But what does scripture say? No bible quotes were given above, so it may just appear to be a construct of the rabbis. Before I tell you what they say, I would say that the rabbinic opinion on rape doesn't appear to be fabricated from their minds. The word which covers this category of theft in the Noahide laws is the biblical Hebrew word, Gezel (from strongs number 1497) which has the meaning, "to tear away, to pull off, to take by force". This perfectly fits the crime of rape, which has the dictionary meaning, "to force someone to have sex against their will" and "to strip a place of its possessions". This shows that the root meaning of our english word "rape", and the real connotation of the crime, is synonymous to the biblical Hebrew word, even if the Jewish Bible doesn't use it in that context.
Now what does the Hebrew Scriptures say? Well, not only do we have a pre-Torah event of rape which shows that it is a crime, but we have numerous reflections of it in other parts of Israel's history. And the way those post-Torah reflections are phrased shows that they are echoes of this crime. I'll show you.
The pre-Torah event of rape can be seen in Genesis 34, where I'll quote the relevant verses.
(1) And Dinah the daughter of Leah, whom she gave birth to for Jacob, went out to look among the daughters of the land. (2) And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the country, saw her, he took her, and lay with her, and humbled her.... (7) And the sons of Jacob had come from the field. When they heard, then the men were deeply pained and it greatly provoked them, for he had done a disgusting [thing] against Israel, to lay with the daughter of Jacob and such should not be done.
Here we see that Dinah, the daughter of Jacob, is raped. This is before the giving of the Torah, so no appeal can be made to that concretely. It can be seen that Shechem "humbled" her. That is the key word because we shall see it again when we look for evidence that rape was the crime. Another key word is "disgusting" as this shall also be seen again in a relevant context.
To see how future occurrences of this crime are reflections of what happened to Dinah, let's look at the Torah and post-Torah texts that speak of such a heinous act.
(25) But if the man find the girl that is betrothed in the field, and the man take hold of her, and lie with her; then the man only that lay with her shall die. (26) But to the girl you shall do nothing; there is in the girl no sin worthy of death; for as when a man rises against his neighbour, and kills him, even so is this matter. (27) For he found her in the field; the betrothed girl cried, and there was none to save her. (28) If a man find a girl that is a virgin, that is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; (29) then the man that lay with her shall give to the girl's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he humbled her; he may not put her away all his days. (Deuteronomy 22:25-29, cf Exodus 22:15-16)
This passage deals with the rape of a betrothed girl and an unmarried girl. The betrothed is seen as married, so the rapist is killed for adultery. With the unmarried girl, his rape of her is called "humbling" here, the same word used in Dinah's ordeal. Since society and culture views were different back then, the rapist was forced to pay the bride's price for the girl and marry her in order to take care of her properly, possibly a life's worth of atonement for his despicable act. If we compare this with Exodus 22:15-16 which talks on similar terms, although not exact, there is a possibility that the daughter, through her father, could refuse such a thing and the rapist would be fined the bride-price. [Note. There are other punishments in the Torah at the judge's disposal should he choose to add to the rapist's punishment.]
The main point is that rape of an unmarried woman is a crime, and it is seen in the same way as what happened to Dinah. This text, used with the passage in Exodus 22, would cover any unmarried woman who was raped. It is seen as "humbling" or "humiliating" or even "forcing" a woman.
The post-Torah event is the events that occurred between the children of David. Amnon is besotted with his half-sister, Tamar, and with his cunning friend, devises a plan to have her. Here's how the rest of the story goes.
(10) And Amnon said to Tamar: 'Bring the food into the room, that I may eat of thy hand.' And Tamar took the cakes which she had made, and brought them into the room to Amnon her brother. (11) And she had brought [them] near to him to eat, when he took hold of her, and said to her: 'Come, lie with me, my sister.' (12) And she said to him: 'No, my brother, do not force me; for such should not be done in Israel; don't do this disgusting [thing]. (13) And me, where shall I carry my shame? and you, you shall be like one of the disgusting [men] in Israel. So now, I beseech you, speak to the king; for he will not withhold me from you.' (14) But he wasn't willing to listen to her voice; and he was stronger than her, so he forced her, and lay with her. (2 Samuel 13:10-14)
Now you will notice that two times, this passage uses the word "force", i.e., to force her. In fact, in Hebrew, this word is exactly the same verb which is used to describe what happened to Dinah, but is translated "he humbled her". To make this point even stronger, in verse 14, when it says "so he forced her", it is exactly the same form, spelt exactly the same way as when it is used to describe Dinah's awful trial.
Look also at verse 12, where it says that such a thing shouldn't be done in Israel, reflecting what Dinah's brothers said when they found out what happened to her. In the same verse, she calls the act a disgusting thing, the same term used for how Dinah's brothers described the thing that Shechem did to her. By the end of the story, Amnon shares the same fate as Shechem: he is killed by an angry brother.
So we can see that from even before the Torah was given until long after it, it was a crime, a disgusting thing. Since it is pre-Torah, it has universal scope for every single human being, i.e., rape is wrong whether you are Israelite or not.
Now some may say that Dinah's brothers said that it was a disgusting thing in Israel (as some translators put it across), as if it is not a disgusting thing elsewhere. But I would point out that that is not the only way of interpreting what the brothers said. The fact is that the land was not the land of Israel, so the brother's could not have been saying "it is a disgusting thing in the land of Israel". Neither could it be said that Shechem did this horrible crime in the company or amongst the group that is called Israel, because verse 1 of Genesis 34 distinctly says that Dinah had gone to look amongst the daughters of the land, meaning that she was not amongst her own people, but rather amongst the people of the land, i.e., of Canaan. So the best way to understand this is "it was a disgusting thing against Israel". So it wasn't just that Shechem had done a disgusting thing, regardless of locality. It was a disgusting thing against Israel, against the upright man and his family. Even if it understood as "in Israel" rather than "against", there is still no need for an interpretation such as "in Israel alone, as if it is not disgusting elsewhere". The fact is that Israel's, Jacob's, sons were passionate about their family, and not so much about other families. So if a crime was done to one of them, it was a crime done to Israel. That doesn't make it ok anywhere else.
The main fact is this. Before the giving of the law of Moses, there was already a standard that was not limited to Israel that said that rape was wrong. Thus we have a law, a "noahide" principle, noahide in the sense that it is for anyone descended from Noah as Shechem, Dinah, and Jacob were, that shows us that rape is a disgusting act. It is not like circumcision which was explicitly stated to be only for Abraham's descendants. Thus we have clear evidence that rape is wrong.
Back
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.