Attempting to defend “keep virgin girls for yourselves�

[Zzyzx]

.
Attempting to defend “keep virgin girls for yourselves� (supposedly a command from Moses -- representing God)

Numbers 31:17"Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. 18"But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves.

Of course there were no sexual connotations. The intent was to be NICE to the little virgin girls – after killing their mothers, sisters, brothers, fathers, etc. Who would ever even think that there were sexual motivations?

Is anyone actually THAT naïve and gullible?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

The Mosaic law prohibited sexual activity outside of marriage by way of written sanctions. If one has sex with a virgin girl one was obliged to marry her, and there was not clause that stipulated that non-hebrew girls were an exception. If a girl resisted sex and could prove rape* then the above laws still applied*. Marriage subsequently, by law guaranteed a woman full heritary rights for her children whether she was a first or a secondary wife (concubine) and whether she was a Hebrew wife or a foreigner.

In the town this would involve her screaming, in isolation if she fell pregnant there would be ample evidence she had had sex. On identifying the father and she would have the right to benefit from the same rights as any hebrew girl in similar circumstances.

So no, there was no provision in the Mosaic system for keeping a girl as a "sex slave" nor for mistreating her. Under the Hebrew system all foreigners came under the protection of the law and had recall for that law for protection against mistreatment. If a slave could produce physical evidence of mistreatment (a broken tooth, arm, etc) they were guaranteed automatic freedom under the law*. It was illegal to return a runaway slave to his or her master and the premeditated murder of a slave (male or female) carried the death penalty.


JW

**Slaves must be released for grievous bodily injury caused to them: the master must let the slave go free "for his eye's sake" or "for his tooth's sake" (Ex. 21:26, 27), if either be gouged out or knocked out by him.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... avery.html




RELATED POSTS

Can the expression "spare for yourselfs" be understood to be a euphemism for "have sex with"?
viewtopic.php?p=814434#p814434

Where Israelite soldiers permitted to rape their captives?
viewtopic.php?p=356474#p356474

Why does numbers specifically single out young virgin girls?
viewtopic.php?p=814419#p814419

Were Hebrew soldiers allowed to keep sex slaves?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 73#p814373

did the Mosaic law support sex slavery?
viewtopic.php?p=815539#p815539

Did the Mosaic Law prohibit sex outside of marriage?
viewtopic.php?p=404057#p404057

What future could a young captive girl expect?
viewtopic.php?p=815772#p815772

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

WOMEN, SLAVERY and ...WAR CAPTIVES

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

The Mosaic law prohibited sexual activity outside of marriage by way of written sanctions. If one has sex with a virgin girl one was obliged to marry her, and there was not clause that stipulated that non-hebrew girls were an exception. If a girl resisted sex and could prove rape* then the above laws still applied*. Marriage subsequently, by law guaranteed a woman full heritary rights for her children whether she was a first or a secondary wife (concubine) and whether she was a Hebrew wife or a foreigner.

In the town this would involve her screaming, in isolation if she fell pregnant there would be ample evidence she had had sex. On identifying the father and she would have the right to benefit from the same rights as any hebrew girl in similar circumstances.

So no, there was no provision in the Mosaic system for keeping a girl as a "sex slave" nor for mistreating her nor for prostituting her for financial gain (prostitution was strictly prohibited by law). Under the Hebrew system all foreigners came under the protection of the law and had recall for that law for protection against mistreatment. If a slave could produce physical evidence of mistreatment (a broken tooth, arm, etc) they were guaranteed automatic freedom under the law.

JW

Wikipedia
Jewish views on slavery

Biblical Era
The Hebrew Bible contains two sets of rules governing slaves: one set for Hebrew slaves (Lev 25:39-43) and a second set for Canaanite slaves (Lev 25:45-46).[1][21] The main source of non-Hebrew slaves were prisoners of war. Hebrew slaves, in contrast to non-Hebrew slaves, became slaves either because of extreme poverty (in which case they could sell themselves to an Israelite owner) or because of inability to pay a debt. According to the Hebrew Bible, non-Hebrew slaves were drawn primarily from the neighboring Canaanite nations, and religious justification was provided for the enslavement of these neighbors: the rules governing Canaanites was based on a curse aimed at Canaan, a son of Ham, but in later eras the Canaanite slavery laws were stretched to apply to all non-Hebrew slaves.[

Female slaves
The classical rabbis instructed that masters could never marry female slaves—they would have to be manumitted (freed) first; similarly, they ruled that male slaves could not be allowed to marry Jewish women. Unlike the biblical instruction to sell thieves into slavery (if they were caught during daylight, and couldn't repay the theft), the rabbis ordered that female Israelites could never be sold into slavery for this reason.[47] Sexual relations between a slave owner and engaged slaves is prohibited in the Torah (Lev. 19:20-22). However, the Torah allows sex with non-engaged slaves, by clarifying that if she is engaged when the master has sex with her, "they are not to be put to death, since she was not freed" (which implies that a woman's slave status has direct bearing on whether she can be used for sex)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_slavery

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 3 by Tired of the Nonsense]

Firstly my points drew uniquely on the Hebrew bible and the biblical era (as indeed was implied by the OP) subsequent rabbonical traditions are irrelevant (namely your second paragraph "cut and paste" which was a commentary on the Talmudic era which introduced {quote} "an extensive set of laws governing slavery, which is more detailed, and different from the original laws found in the Jewish Bible {end quote}.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_slavery

In view of the above I will ignore your second paragraph except to point out that I made no suggestion that anyone was put to death for having sex with a virgin (hebrew or non-hebrew) only that if a master were to have sex with a virgin slave, under the Mosaic law, marriage was obligatory (unless the woman refused, which a slave girl would not do). There is nothing in anything you cut and pasted that contradicts this statement apart from the irrelevant later impositions of non-biblical rabbonic traditions and an arguable commentary theron.

Returning to the first paragraph, the fact that non-hebrew slaves were obtained primarily through military conquests, is not under dispute, nor that certain laws applied to Hebrews that did not apply to non-Hebrews. The point being made is what protections afforted to a non-hebrew virgin girl under the Mosaic law at the time, made keeping her as a "sex slave" (ie. abusing her physically, raping her with impunity, denying her or her children any rights under law, physically restraining her (tying her up, locking her in a cage etc)... and/or prostituting her for financial gain) absolutely illegal under hebrew law.

JW



RELATED POSTS



How does the Torah differ from The Code of Hammurabi as to its treatment of SLAVES (cnorman18)
viewtopic.php?p=331742#p331742

[JLB32168]

Returning to the first paragraph, the fact that non-hebrew slaves were obtained primarily through military conquests, is not under dispute, nor that certain laws applied to Hebrews that did not apply to non-Hebrews. The point being made is what protections afforted to a non-hebrew virgin girl under the Mosaic law at the time, made keeping her as a "sex slave" (ie. abusing her physically, raping her with impunity, denying her or her children any rights under law, physically restraining her (tying her up, locking her in a cage etc)... and/or prostituting her for financial gain) absolutely illegal under hebrew law. JW

But you’re injecting evidence and facts into this discussion and those two things obscure partisan bias and prejudice – something in which many many atheists and other skeptics have invested a lot of time.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 3 by Tired of the Nonsense]

Firstly my points drew uniquely on the Hebrew bible and the biblical era (as indeed was implied by the OP) subsequent rabbonical traditions are irrelevant (namely your second paragraph "cut and paste" which was a commentary on the Talmudic era which introduced {quote} "an extensive set of laws governing slavery, which is more detailed, and different from the original laws found in the Jewish Bible {end quote}.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_slavery

In view of the above I will ignore your second paragraph except to point out that I made no suggestion that anyone was put to death for having sex with a virgin (hebrew or non-hebrew) only that if a master were to have sex with a virgin slave, under the Mosaic law, marriage was obligatory (unless the woman refused, which a slave girl would not do). There is nothing in anything you cut and pasted that contradicts this statement apart from the irrelevant later impositions of non-biblical rabbonic traditions and an arguable commentary theron.

Returning to the first paragraph, the fact that non-hebrew slaves were obtained primarily through military conquests, is not under dispute, nor that certain laws applied to Hebrews that did not apply to non-Hebrews. The point being made is what protections afforted to a non-hebrew virgin girl under the Mosaic law at the time, made keeping her as a "sex slave" (ie. abusing her physically, raping her with impunity, denying her or her children any rights under law, physically restraining her (tying her up, locking her in a cage etc)... and/or prostituting her for financial gain) absolutely illegal under hebrew law.

JW

Leviticus makes it clear that the master was free to have sex with his non Jewish slaves, and that she had any children she had were his property. Like it or not.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 6 by Tired of the Nonsense]

After marrying her, sure. But what he could not do was deny her the rights and protections that she was guaranteed under law as explained in the two posts above. Nothing essentially then in her status or that of her children would differ from that of any Hebrew wife or children (also viewed as the man's "property")*.


*being viewed as "property" is somewhat difficult concept for the 21st century reader, but the fact is ALL wives (children and slaves) were thus viewed. Indeed, the English word for husband alluded historically to the notion of "ownership"/"management" (of property). That the slave (or the wife) was spoken of as the man's "property" in no way indicates abuse or mistreatment, much less "sex slavery" rather that the individual came under the man's protection and had a permanent place in his household.







RELATED POSTS

What was CHATTEL slavery?
viewtopic.php?p=1079718#p1079718

Was chattel slavery as practiced under the American slave trade system, the same as the lifelong slavery legilsated in ancient Israel?
viewtopic.php?p=1079902#p1079902

Were foreign slaves considered chattel under the Hebrew system?
viewtopic.php?p=1079301#p1079301

What did being a man's "property" mean to the ancient Hebrews?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 01#p814401

Is the slavery that existed under bible law comparable to the European & American slave trade?[regulations]
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 79#p811779

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

SLAVERY, CHATTEL SLAVERY and .... SLAVE BEATING

[Divine Insight]

.
Attempting to defend “keep virgin girls for yourselves� (supposedly a command from Moses -- representing God)

Numbers 31:17"Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. 18"But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves.

I would never attempt to defend a religion that is so obviously false. And I don't understand why people continue to defend this religion. It's clearly indefensible.

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 2 by JehovahsWitness]

The why the distinction between virgin and non virgin?


Why mention this at all?

-all the best

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 2 by JehovahsWitness]

The why the distinction between virgin and non virgin?


Why mention this at all?

-all the best

Hi,

I don't understand the question, are you talking the distinction made for taking captives or of the different punishments under the law?

JW